6 a Moral Threat to Society? – the Jesuit Danger 1814–1961

Home , 1955 in Norwegian music, Diocese of Stavanger, Erling Wikborg, Illuminati, Johan Lunde, John Willem Gran

6Amoral threattosociety? – the Jesuit danger 1814–1961

Afather and his “Jesuitism”

From 1928 onwards,Heinrich Roos (1904–1977) was aJesuitfather in Copenha- gen. He was German-born, but had acquired Danishcitizenship. Ever since the Jesuits had been expelled from Bismarck’sGermanyinthe early1870s, Jesuit schools in Denmark had taught in both Germanand Danish. ManyGermans soughttoattend DanishJesuit schools, especiallyduringthe period whenthe order’sinstitutions werebanned in Germany.Roos taught at the school in Copen- hagen, in addition to holding aposition as philologist at the city’suniversity.¹ In February 1954,the Theological Association in Norwayapplied to the Min- istry of Justice on behalf of Roos for an exemption from the constitutional ban on Jesuits.They wanted him to visit the country to present alecture on the work and teachings of the Jesuits.² The issue of the exclusion of the Jesuits had been raised in connection with the government’sratification of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951. Norwayhad expressed reservations about the clause on religious freedom because of the ban on Jesuits, which, at an international level, was problematic and controversial. In 1952, therefore, the government for- warded aproposal to repeal this last exclusionary provision from the Constitu- tion. It was in this context that Father Roos applied to come to Norway – but he was turned down. Giving his reasoning,Minister of Justice KaiBirgerKnudsen (1903–1977) in Oscar Torp’s(1893–1958) Labour Party government explained that it was not possibletogrant an exemption from such acategorical constitutional provision.³ However,the paragraph had lain dormant for along time, and anumber of Jesuits had previouslyvisited the country openly, includingRoos himself.⁴ The Theological Association explained thatonthis occasion they had applied for the exemption on the advice of lawprofessor Frede Castberg (1893–1977), an expert on constitutional lawand aNorwegian member of the

 Arbeiderbladet carried alengthier interview with Roos across two editions at the end of Jan- uary 1954: Arbeiderbladet,29January 1954 and 30 January 1954.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7b. Stortingstidende (1955), 2593 ff. [Records of the Proceedingsof the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1955)].  Arbeiderbladet,3March 1954.  Dagbladet,11October 1955. Dagbladet,14October 1955.

OpenAccess. ©2021 Frode Ulvund, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110657760-008 Afather and his “Jesuitism” 209

Figure 6.1: The Jesuit father Heinrich Roostwice applied foradispensation from the Constitu- tion’sban on Jesuits in the 1950s. At first,hewas rejected (1954), but the following year he received an entry permit on the condition, among other things, that he would not promote “Jesuit teachings” during his stay.Roos found the conditions untenableand cancelled the visit. Arbeiderbladet (29 January 1954) published alengthy interview withRoosinconnection withhis first application.

European Commission on HumanRights.⁵ Not surprisingly,the refusal caused a stir,and it ought not to be ruled out thatthe application was acontribution to the debate and intended to provokeprincipled assessments at government level. Afurther application wassenttothe government the following year.Now it was the association Catholic Forum in Oslo that wished to invite Father Roos, on this occasion to hold alecture on Søren Kierkegaardand Catholicism. The reply was drawnout,and amonth and ahalf after the application was receivedbythe government,the matter was taken up as an interpellation in the Storting. Minis-

 NordiskTidende,18April 1954. 210 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 ter of Justice Jens Kristian Hauge(1915–2006) responded thatthis time, Roos would be grantedanexemption. He justified the government’sdecision by the fact that the father would not be discussing Jesuits, but rather presentingasci- entific lecture in his capacity as Kierkegaard researcher.However,the minister continued, the precondition was thatthe lecture would not contain “propaganda in support of Jesuitism” and that Roos would leave the country as soon as possible afterwards.⁶ In the official response to the Catholic Forum and Roos, it was stressed that there wastobeno“propagandising in favour of Jesuitism” and that Roos would alsohavetoreport to the police both upon arrival and prior to his departure from the country.⁷ These stipulations wereanaffront to Father Roos, and he cancelled his planned tour of Norwayinprotest.⁸ It is not known whether anyone otherthanRoos applied for an exemption from the Jesuitban as long as the provision was in effect.The first application in 1954 was rejected at that time because the topic of the lecture was Jesuits, and one condition for granting the application in 1955 was the refusal to “prop- agandise” for Jesuit teachings and “Jesuitism.” The Minister of Justice’suse of the term “Jesuitism” in the Stortinginthis context is what is most interesting here. Forone thing,itindicateshis understanding and that of the government thatthe Jesuitorder represented aseparate ism,aparticularideologyordoctrine that distinguished it from Catholicism more generally. Not onlydid the government reason thatthe Jesuits held adistinctive position within Catholicism, but alsothat their actions and activities wereprod- ucts of this (Jesuit)ism. Second, the concept washeavilyvalue-laden and had aprofoundlyderoga- tory and disdainful meaning, both for Catholics and Protestants. The usageofthe term therefore suggests thatcentral political authorities, even after the mid- 1900s, acknowledgedoratleast legitimised anegative imageof“Jesuitism” and had an understanding thatitwas atype of ism thatwas unwelcome. This naturallyraises the question of which understanding of “Jesuitism” was implied in the 1950s and in the period prior,leadingtothe Jesuits being banned and excluded for periods of time from anumber of states,both Protestant and Catholic.

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7b. Stortingstidende (1955),2594. [Recordsofthe Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1955)].  Arbeiderbladet,2November 1955.  NordiskTidende,24November 1955. The soldiersofthe papistic Counter-Reformation 211

The soldiersofthe papistic Counter-Reformation

The Jesuit order – or Societas Jesu,asitisformallyknown – was foundedbythe BasqueIgnatius Loyola (1491– 1556) in 1534.Six years later,the order was granted the endorsement of Pope Paul III (1468–1549). It differed from the established monastic orders,such as the Dominicans and Franciscans, in that it wasnot associated with anymonastery,nor was it subordinate to local bishops. Instead the Jesuits weredirectlysubservienttothe pope and weretobemade available to him and used wherever he sawfit.Inparticular, they weretobeassigned missionary work and teachingduties,and within arelatively short time they became aglobal organisation with operations spanning from the FarEast to the Ameri- cas. The order accumulated opponents at an earlystage, both within the Catholic Church and in Protestant countries.⁹ In Protestant regions they wereaccused of aggressive activity in support of Catholicism and not least of being agents in the service of the Counter-Reformation. Loyola himself helped establish an imageof the Jesuits as an organisation of an almostmilitary nature. There wasanabso- luterequirement for hierarchical subordination, expressed by wayofperindeac cadaver – to obey loyallyinthemannerofacorpse. This “cadaverobedience” was also coupled to the pope by the order’srequirement of obedience to him.¹⁰ In the Scandinavian context,the Jesuit Lauritz Nielsen (1538–1622), referred to as “Kloster-Lasse” (Convent-Lasse), is especiallywellknown as an active force for Catholicism in the Nordic missionary field from the 1570s onwards.¹¹ He worked partlyundercover and helped to maintain certain underground Catholic operations in the Nordic countries.There was agrowingsuspicion and stigma- tising of Jesuits in this period, and Denmark-Norwaywas no exception. From the beginning of the 17th century, not onlyactive Jesuits,but also all those who wereassociated with and suspected of being Jesuits in disguise,wereper- ceivedasproblematic. In 1604,itwas thereforeprohibitedtoemploy anyone

 Foraconcise historical account of the Jesuits,see John W. O’Malley, TheJesuits:AHistoryfrom Ignatius to the Present (Lanham, MD:Rowman &Littlefield, 2014). Foramorecomprehensive account,see Christopher Hollis, AHistoryofthe Jesuits (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968).  Róisín Healy, TheJesuit Specter in Imperial Germany. Studies in Central European Histories no. 28 (Boston-Leiden: Brill, 2003): 25.  See Oskar Garstein, Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia,vol. 1(1539–1583) (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1963), 40ff. and OskarGarstein, Klosterlasse: stormfuglensom ville gjenerobreNorden for katolisismen (Oslo:Thorleif Dahls kulturbibliotek, 1998). 212 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 in Danish-Norwegian churches or schools who had studied at aJesuit education- al institution abroad. Norwegian-born Kort Aslakssøn (1564–1624) was aprofessor of theologyat the UniversityofCopenhagen from 1607. In 1622 he published the church history Theologiske oc Historiske Beskriffuelse Om den Reformerede Religion, VedD.Mar- tin Luther [Theological and Historical Description of the Reformed Religion, By D. Martin Luther] – first in Latin, then in Danishlater the sameyear.This was an earlyexample of literary anti-Jesuitism in the Danish-Norwegian context. The book painted descriptions of the Jesuits as schemers and slayers of kings who acted immorallyinorder to achieve their goals. By 1606,Kloster-Lasse had come to Copenhagen and not onlyoffered the king religious services, but also applied for travel papers to Norwayand for permission to distribute his books throughout the kingdom. As amemberofthe University’sconsistory (aca- demic leadership), Aslakssøn was present when Kloster-Lasse was ordered out of the country after being informed that his requests had been refused. In the book, he rounded off his presentation of the meetingwith Kloster-Lasse by referringto Jesuits as “Robbers/Kingslayers /and every bottomless puddle of evil.”¹² Afew pages later,with referencetoJesuitinvolvement in the English Gunpowder Plot of 1605,heelaborated on his intense aversion to the Jesuits in vigorous terms:

Omurder /Oworse than Turkish pillage /Ido not think that even the hellish First Acheron itself could have imagined it moregruesome! But fromwheredoall these Regicides origi- nate?Dear,fromwhere?/except from the pernicious Jesuits.How long will youJesuit Mur- derers /denyall divinity /bashfulness /decency and honour /feedingonthe blood of innocent Lutherans?For how long will youKingslayers hide and conceal yourself behind the most holyname of Jesus /and not shame yourself from the shrewd /with betrayaland de- ceit attempts of Kingsand Rulers life /who areinstalled by God /for your benefit /and that not without the enormousharm and loss for kingdom and subjects?For how long will you submit your disciples to such poison /that one freely and unobstructed maymurder and kill Lutheran Kings /Rulers and others of the Lutheran Religion?For how long will you with great promises /great gifts and endowments /lure/incite /urge/them to commit such horrific murderous actions?You refuse to prevail upon Gods command /Thou shalt not kill?The most holyname of Jesus /which youand your scum /asarobbery from the Church /usurp /does that not moveyou at all?Are younot at all prevailed upon all the innocent Lutheran blood /shed by youand your dregs in abundance/and for

 Cort Aslakssøn, TheologiskeocHistoriske Beskriffuelse Om den ReformeredeReligion, VedD. Martin Luther (Kiøbenhaffn Hoff, 1622),unpaginated, below point Fiij.See also OskarGarstein, Cort Aslakssøn: Studier over dansk-norskuniversitets-oglærdomshistorie omkring år 1600 (Oslo: Lutherstiftelsens forlag, 1953), for Aslakssøn’sroleatthe university and athorough analysisof his history of the Church. The soldiersofthe papistic Counter-Reformation 213

what Heaven cries for revengeand punishment? When /Owhen shall such evil vulturesbe stopped?What is the strawthat will break the camel’sback?¹³

He concluded by asking whenKing Christian IV (1577–1648) would hunt such king slayers and “Cockatrices” from the realm. The replycame swiftly, and in 1624 the death penalty was introduced for “all Papist Monks, Jesuits,presbyteros seculares [Catholic priests] and other such clerics” who werediscovered in the dual monarchy.¹⁴ From now onwards,Jesuits were specificallymentioned as being excluded, and the provision on the death penalty remained in force until the new Norwegian Penal Code wasadopted in 1842. Thereafter,the death penalty for Jesuits was commuted into alifetime of hard labour. Throughout the 1600s, anti-Jesuitism bloomed through clear objections to the order’sactivities, eventuallyalso in the form of voluminous and effective anti-Jesuitpublications that were translated into several languages.¹⁵ This contributed greatlytoarangeoftransnational patterns and stereotypes in depictions of Jesuits,and not least to establishingawidelyrecognised consensus as to the meaning of “Jesuit morality.” Among this rich variety of literature, the most influential were Monita secre- ta,which was published in Kraków in 1614,and French Jansenist Blaise Pascal’s (1623–1662) Lettres provinciales, publishedinthe 1650s.¹⁶ The former is believed to be aforgery,and feigned to be the Jesuits’ secret instructions, not unlike the later faking of TheProtocols of the Elders of Zion, which, similarly, was produced in order to discredit Jews.¹⁷ The instructions described how Jesuits ought to be able to use anymeans to acquireeconomic advantage, in addition to power and influenceoversovereigns. Pascal’sletters werealsofictionsunder the pre- tenceofbeing written by aJesuit.Central to both of these works was astarkly derogatory portrayal of Jesuits and their morals. Twodoctrines in particularhavebeen construed as examples of Jesuit morality: probabilism and reservatio mentalis. The first presupposed that it wasper- missible to adopt an action if it could be substantiated to be morallyacceptable,

 Aslakssøn, Theologiske oc Historiske Beskriffuelse,unpaginated, below point VIII.  Forordning [Ordinance], 28 February 1624.  Antoine Arnauld, Théologie morale des Jésuites extraite fidèlement de leurslivres (1643) and Antoine Arnauld, De la Fréquente Communion (1643).  O’Malley, TheJesuits,70ff. See also Geoffrey Cubitt, TheJesuit Myth: Conspiracy Theoryand Politics in Nineteenth-CenturyFrance (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993), 13.  Hollis, AHistoryofthe Jesuits,94. 214 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 even though the contrasting action was even more likelytobemorallycorrect.¹⁸ What was decisive was whether areligious authority had at one time or another approved of the first act as being amoral one. The second doctrine opened up for the possibility that it might be morallycorrect to obscurereality.One example was in the context of confession, wheretellingthe truth could be abreach of the duty of confidentiality.Both doctrines wereactively employed by anti-Jesuits in order to portray adherents as mendacious and untrustworthy. Thus, from the 1600s, the typicalanti-Jesuit notions werewellestablished: The Jesuits werepolitically disloyal to secular authorities and were willing to promotetheir worldlygoals by immoral means. It waseventuallyunderstood to be aJesuit maxim that the end justified the means, although this was never expressed by the order itself. In this there laynot onlyanassertion that the Jes- uits wereactive as political plotters and manipulators – especiallyasthe confessors of kings – but alsothatthey legitimisedand practised political violence, in- cludingthe assassination of sovereigns whenitwas expedient,and acontention that lyingwas permissible,evenunder oath,ifthis promotedthe cause of the order.¹⁹ In this way, there emergedaperception of the Jesuits as areligious weapon in the Counter-Reformation, developing into aprincipal understanding of the Jesuits as an instrument of the pope for political and economic influencein the moulding of both Protestant and Catholic nations. Therefore, Jesuits were often portrayed – perhaps especiallyinCatholic regions – as having avoracity for gold. The latter was an important reason whythe order had manyopponents in Catholic countries duringaperiod when state centralisation and consolidation created tensions between the political ambitions of Catholic sovereigns and the political authority of the pope.

AJesuitical statewithin the state?

From the end of the 1750s, power struggles within the Catholic Church and Cath- olic countries led to the Jesuit order being excluded from anumber of states,first

 John Harty, “Probabilism,” in TheCatholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Compa- ny,1911). (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm, accessed 17 February 2017).  HarroHöpfl, Jesuit Political Thought: TheSociety of Jesus and the State, c. 1540–1630 (Cam- bridge:Cambridge University Press,2004), 7. See also Hollis, AHistoryofthe Jesuits;Cubitt, The Jesuit Myth;StevenLuckert, Jesuits,Freemasons,Illuminati, and Jacobins: Conspiracy Theories, SecretSocieties,and Politics in the Late Eighteenth-CenturyGermany (PhDdiss., StateUniversity of New York, 1993). AJesuitical state within the state? 215 in Portugal(1759), then in important states such as France (1764) and Spain (1767), before the order was suppressed by pope Clement XIV (1705 – 1774)alto- gether in 1773.The AgeofEnlightenment’saversion to corporations, and its anti- clericalstruggle against alleged irrationality and illegitimate authorities contributed, not unexpectedly, to increased anti-Jesuitism. In Spain and Portugalinpar- ticular,there was aperception that the Jesuits’ activities in Paraguayhad created arepublic thatwas evading the control of secular colonial powers.²⁰ In France, the Encyclopédistes hurled their accusations at everythingthey perceivedasirra- tional,including the Jesuits. And, as Jacob Katz has shown,claims thatthey constituted astate within the state with aspirations of forming theirown empire weredeliberatelyused against theminthe French campaign to exclude them.²¹ The controversialrelationship of the Jesuits to European states, and contemporary hegemonic notions of Jesuits, werealsofamiliar to Scandinavians and wereactively conveyedtothe readingpublic. The official Stockholm Post-Tidnin- gar and Kiøbenhavnske Danske Post-Tidender gave extensive coveragetothe prohibitions against Jesuits in Catholic countries from the late 1750s.In1786, the Norwegian provincial newspaper Trondhjems Adresse-ContoirsEfterretninger carried alonger series of articles on the Jesuits. The order’shistory and activities werepresented to its readers across nine issues. The sourceofthe texts is not clear,but they bear aclose resemblancetothe world history writtenbyFrench abbot Claude-François-Xavier Millot (1726–1785). This waspublished in Danish beginning from the 1780s, but the volume that specificallydiscusses Jesuits was not published until 1790.The Trondheim newspaper must therefore have made use of editions in other languages.²² Millot was aformer Jesuit and, rather unsurprisingly,inhis work the Jesuits wererepresented in accordance with the conventions of the age.

 O’Malley, TheJesuits,73.  Katz, “AStateWithin aState,” 53.  Trondhjems allene Kongelige privilegeredeAdresse-Contoirs Ugentlig Udgivende Efterretninger (hereafter TAE), no. 5, 14,15, 16,19, 20,22, 23 and 24 (1786). Claude François Xavier Millot’sworld history was published in French (Éléments d’histoiregénérale ancienne et moderne)inthe years 1772–1783.These weretranslated and published in Danish from1781asAbbed Millots Verdens- historie. The first volumes wereavailable in Trondheim’sreading association in 1784.(Fortegnelse paa de iAaret 1784 til Trondhjems Læseselskabforskrevne Bøger,som ere staaende paa den bor- gerlige Skoles Bibliothek (Trondhjem, 1784), 5. The Danish edition of the volume that discusses the Jesuits in Paraguaywas first published in 1790,but earlier editions in French, German and English wereavailable: Claude-François-Xavier Millot, Abbed Millots Verdens-historie, vol. 11 (Kiøbenhavn: Gyldendal, 1790), 216ff. Millot also discusses the Jesuits’ expulsionfrom Spain, in the Danish edition, in Claude-François-Xavier Millot, Abbed Millots Verdens-historie, vol. 13 (Kiøbenhavn: Gyldendal, 1791), 170ff. 216 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961

Alongsidethe abbot,the newspaper admired the Jesuits’ ability to come into power and fortune,and they weredescribed as shrewdand cunning.Inmany instances they ruled the most important courts in Europe and interfered in all manner of issues, playing apart in “every State ruseand every Revolution.”²³ They worked to extend the power of adomineering pope, and soughtinthe most zealous waytomake the clergy independent of secular authority.And, according to their tenets, it was an obligation “to oppose aSovereign who is an Enemyofthe Roman Faith, which bejewels the most hideous and blackest of Vices,and aims to tear asunderall Obligations between Subjects and Ruler.”²⁴ The case of Paraguaywas brought out in order to substantiate claims about their political ambitions. There, the order soughttoestablish an independent and militarilypotent realm that was to be completelysubjugated to the Jesuits; this realm was to be the starting point for the ultimategoal, namely dominion over the whole of South America.²⁵ The motivation behind their political influencewas presented as economic gain. To attain their goals, the Jesuits adhered to amoral system basedona “most yielding Morality” that justified their mistakes and tolerated their imper- fections, and which took “into its Protection every Deed and Actthat the boldest and most cunningPolitics might wish to undertake.”²⁶ The Trondheim newspaper also noted the rigorous insistenceondiscipline, explaining that it was the duty of every member to put the order’sinterests before everyone else’s. This “Spirit of Obligation to the Order,” the newspaper continued, was “the Jesuits’ characteristic Principle and the Keytotheir political Constitution and to theirpe- culiar Opinions and Relationships.”²⁷ The broad spectrum of anti-Jesuitnotions actively expressed by the abbot and Trondheim newspaper is likelyalso important to understanding whythe prominent “constitutional father” Wilhelm Koren Christie tabled the proposal to add the Jesuits to the Norwegian Constitution’scatalogue of outcasts in the spring of 1814, and whythis receivedsuch wide support. While the constitutional committee in 1814proposed that the Jews be banned as earlyasinits founding principles, it was onlyasthe assemblywas discussing the final wording of Article 2on4MaythatChristiesubmitted the proposal concerning the Jesuits.Hewas generallysceptical of the notion that the

 TAE, no. 20 (1786).  TAE, no. 22 (1786).  TAE, no. 23,24(1786).  TAE, no. 22 (1786).  TAE, no. 20 (1786). AJesuitical statewithin the state? 217 state should relinquish its control over the religion of its subjects. “No significant Benefit” for the state could be expectedifthoseotherthan Christians weregrant- ed the right to the free exercise of religion. On the contrary,there weregrounds to fear great harm. “Beneath the Veil of Sanctity and religious Zeal,” the charlatan could swindle fortunes for himself and lureothers towardsvice, not least “Rebel- liousness towards the Nation’sAuthorities.”²⁸ Christie alsopointed out that the freeexercise of religion for all could become periloustosocietalmorals if “human Sacrifice, Idolatry,Bigamy, and such- like” could be lawfullypractised.Inaddition,hefeared thatJesuits could freely enter the country,and so suggestedthat they ought to be positively excluded, in line with the Jews. The reason – accordingtofellow representative Sibbern’s journal – was political, and analogous to the rationale for excludingJews.²⁹ They posed apolitical danger to the state.AccordingtoThomas Bryn (1782– 1827), who also participated at the constitutional assemblyatEidsvoll, Christie’s motivation was also that Jesuits (and monks) were “as dangerous to the Religion as they are to the State.”³⁰ The Jesuit order was re-established by the HolySee in August 1814. This attracted the attention of the Norwegian press,and soon “Jesuitism” began to be addressed again. In asupplementtoone of its issues, the semi-official Den NorskeRigstidende published longer extracts from foreign articles on the Jesuits in 1816.Here, all the old stereotypes wereinplace, not least emphasising that with its re-establishment,the order still held true to its morals and objectives.³¹ As an example of how these notions circulated across borders,mention can be made of the Norwegian Rigstidende’sreproduction of the Danish Nyeste Skilderie af Kjøbenhavn,which in turn cited Thuringian Allgemeine Litteratur-Zeitung’sre- view of an 1815 publication of anti-Jesuit character.³² Here, Jesuitism was por-

 Arnet Olafsen, Riksforsamlingens forhandlinger:1ste del. Protokoller med bilag og tillæg (Kris- tiania: Grøndahl &Søns Boktrykkeri,1914), 180f.  Valentin C.W. Sibbern, V.C.W.Sibberns dagbog paa Eidsvold fra10de april til 17de mai 1814 (Kristiania: P.T. Malling, 1870), 23.  Letter from Thomas Bryn to parish priest S. G. Abel in Lauritz L. Bryn, Eidsvoldsmannen Tho- mas Bryn: Et omriss av hans liv og virke, med noen opplysninger om hans forfedreogetterkommere (Tønsberg: E. Bryn, 1968), 89.  Den NorskeRigstidende, no. 22, 14 March1816 with republication of the article from the Swedish Almänna Journalen.  Den Norske Rigstidende, no. 31, 17 April 1816.The writingunder review was Karl Heinrich von Lang, Reverendi in Christo patris Jacobi Marelli S.J.amores escriniis provinciae Superioris Germa- niae Monachii nuper apertis brevi libello expositi (München, 1815), and the review was originally published in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung,no. 4(Januar 1816). 218 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 trayed as an immoral tyranny, inter alia with reference to Pascal’s Lettres provinciales and to the JesuitConstitution of 1762. That same autumn, Rigstidende again borrowed from the Danishperiodical and related how swiftlythe Jesuit order had regained its power in Rome. By way of awide-rangingnetwork, it had alreadyacquired power and control for itself. “This was the Jesuits’ secret Police, which, as aprivateInstitution, ranked higher than the State. Religious Fanaticism and partisan Interests obeyed this State within the State.”³³ On this basis, it is no wonder thatChristian Magnus Falsen – who alsohad an importantrole in the prohibition of the Jews in 1814 – expressed satisfaction with the Norwegianexclusion of Jesuits in his annotated version of the Consti- tution from 1818. He still found that the principle of Jesuit morality was “that all Means are permissible and good when the End is good.”³⁴ ForFalsen, this was sufficient reason to shut them out,especiallysince, accordingtohim, the order worked in the interests of the papacy rather than in the interests of national governments. Thus, notions of the Jesuits in the period around 1814, as in the case of Jews, werecharacterised by athriving transnationality.Ideas that they werepolitically dangerous in avariety of ways to secular state societies wereinconstant circu- lation across borders, even duringthe period when they had been formallysup- pressed by the pope. Not onlydid they corrupt good and – for the well-being of the state – necessary social morals, it was claimed; they also stood in direct opposition to secular authorities and werepolitically disloyal. In this period, they appeared to abroad public sphere as cosmopolitan and immoral anti-citizens of every nation, as did the Jews. In Scandinavia, these these notions werepersis- tent,and playedasignificant role in public and parliamentary discussions. That was especiallythe case in Sweden and Norway, and peaked in the latter country whenever the Jesuit ban was broughtupfor discussion, all the way up to 1956.

Catholicismand religious nationalism

Anti-Jesuitism was oftenconnected with anti-Catholicism and was fuelledbythe same suspicion of Catholic ambitionstosteer the Protestant churches backtothe “mother church.” This was asentiment common to manyProtestant regions and

 Den Norske Rigstidende, no. 77,25September 1816.  Falsen, Den norskeGrundlov,9. Catholicism and religious nationalism 219 was an expression of the fact that Catholicism was considered as both areligious and apolitical peril. This fear formed the basis for anti-Catholic legislation in a number of Protestant states,aswellasinCatholic countries in which anti-Cleri- calism in different shapes playedimportant roles. Aparticular example is Britishanti-Catholicism, and especiallythe fear that Catholicism would become instrumental in Irish nationalism. In the early1800s, the British LordChancellor in Irelandargued against allowing Catholics to sit in parliament until they had freed themselvesfrom the control of the priestsand the Catholic hierarchy.³⁵ The arguments against giving Catholics full civil rights thus recalledthe corresponding debates about Jews around Europe. Suspicions of alack of political loyalty among Catholics in general, and among Irish Cath- olics in particular,gavelongevity to objections against relaxingBritish legislation and aroused ageneral scepticism towardsCatholics throughout the 19th century.³⁶ In both Sweden and Denmark, Catholicism was thematised in apolitical context around the mid-1800s. In the 1840s the confrontation was between the Danishstate and the Roman Catholic Church, aconflict that also involved Prot- estant states in northern Germany. The background to this was Pope Gregory XVI’s(1765 – 1846) hastened mission strategyfor the Nordic countries. Aseparate mission wasestablished with its ownbishop, who had aresidenceinHamburg, and the mission would cover the North German states and Denmark. In 1840, Belgian Jesuit and conservative ultramontanist JohannesTh. Laurent (1804– 1884) was appointed Vicarius Apostolicus (bishop)for the mission.³⁷ This triggered strongobjections bothinDenmark and the Protestant states of northern Germany, partlybecause Laurent had previouslybeen involved in clerical-political disputes in Prussia.³⁸ The government of Prussia considered the Catholic requirement for the offspringofmixed marriages to be raised as Catholics as inter- ferenceinthe affairs of the state. The BishopofZealand, Jacob Peter Mynster, objected stronglytowhat he perceivedasadangerous missionary offensive,

 Lord Redesdale,LordChancellor of Ireland, in aletterfrom1803.Retrieved here from Ursula Henriques, Religious Toleration, 142.  Forinstance, just after his terms as Prime Minister of Great Britain, William Gladstone wrote acautionary pamphlet against Catholicismfollowingthe pope’sdecree on infallibility in 1870. It was,hewrote,impossible to be Catholic “without renouncing[one’s] moral and mental freedom, and placing[one’s] civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another.” William Gladstone, TheVatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance: APolitical Expostulation (London: John Murray, 1874), 12.  Rasmussen, Religionstolerance og religionsfrihed,120ff.  Rasmussen, Religionstolerance og religionsfrihed,121. 220 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961 the aim of which was the expansion of the power of the pope, and duringthe constitutional debates of 1849hereferred to Laurent as “aCatholicFanatic.”³⁹ It was in particular from the Danish professor of theology, Henrik Nicolai Clau- sen (1793–1877), thatheacquired his understandingofCatholicism. In 1825, Clausen had published adiscursive book on Protestantism and Ca- tholicism(Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning,LæreogRitus [Ca- tholicism’sand Protestantism’sChurch Constitutions, Doctrines and Rites]). The Catholic Church was referred to as a “political Institution, with hierarchical Au- thority under atheocratic Sovereign with completelegislative,judicial and exec- utive Powers.”⁴⁰ The Roman CatholicChurch was accused of being on hostile terms with the state and,according to Clausen, Catholicism’sregimeresulted in the Church not onlyalways being astate within the state, but alsoastate against the state. Catholic subjects might well be obedient to the governments of theirrespectivecountries,but “this has to be subordinated to theirgreater Obediencetothe Pope, and vanishes as soon as the two collide.”⁴¹ The Danish chancellery recommended against granting Laurent access to Denmark, and after additional pressurefrom German states,the mission was placed under the BishopofOsnabrück. Thiswas acceptable to Prussia, among others. In 1841, Bishop Mynster of Zealand nevertheless came to the conclusion that the Danishgovernment could not grant approval to bishops who were committed by oath to the HolySee and who werethereby the “Subject of aforeign State.”⁴² If the Bishop of Osnabrück was to be approved, he would have to be deniedvisitation or direct contact with Catholic churches in Denmark. The government followed Mynster’sapproach and accepted the mission’sbishop under Mynster’sconditions. Catholicism was also politicised as aperil to the state at the constitutional assemblyof1848–1849,especiallybyconservative members. Bishop Mynster stated thatJesuitism was ever present and that the “Roman Hierarchyisavery considerable Power,which, through its manyBranches, extends farand wide.”⁴³ It was the idea of grantingCatholics access to public office that was regarded by many, includingBishop Mynster,asbeing impermissible. Giving access to persons who, in ecclesiastical circumstances, acknowledgedthemselves to be subordinatedtoanauthority “that is quite beyond the State, and which can

 Rasmussen, Religionstolerance og religionsfrihed,126,229.  Henrik Nicolai Clausen, Catholicismens og Protestantismens Kirkeforfatning,Lære og Ritus (Kjøbenhavn, 1825), 194.  Clausen, Catholicismens og Protestantismens, 196.  Here from Rasmussen, Religionstolerance og religionsfrihed,126.  Beretning Om Forhandlingernepaa Rigsdagen. Andet Bind (Kjøbenhavn, 1849), 1600. Catholicism and religious nationalism 221 command of them whatever it wants,” was dangerous.Hetherefore wanted to limit political rights to individuals of Evangelical Lutheran faith, and was supported in this by key jurist,and later prime minister,Anders Sandøe Ørsted.⁴⁴ The proposal did not receive amajority(35 votes in favour,85votes against); the debate did, however,demonstrate how great the suspicion towards Catho- lics’ qualification as fellow citizens still was. No delegates referred to Catholics and Catholicism in positive terms,and in debatesthe word “Jesuit” was activated as an insult through associations with “fraud” and “hypocrisy.”⁴⁵ Forexam- ple, aproposal to inscribe the ban on Jesuits and monks into the Constitution, as in Norway, receivedastoundingly broad support (37 in favour,79against).⁴⁶ In Bishop Mynster’sbook on the DanishConstitution and the practical scope of religious freedom, it was Catholicism, alongside Mormonism, thathewarned especiallyagainst.According to him, the Roman CatholicChurch had renewed its “state of war” with Denmark. Catholicism was dangerous because its powerful and widelybranched hierarchywas backed by “Jesuitism’smighty and relent- less Influence.”⁴⁷ The state could not remain indifferent to the fact that alarge proportion of its citizens was subjecttoaforeign and independent power [the HolySee] and was duty-bound to unconditional obedience to its commands. In the 1870sand early1880s – following the Vatican Council’sdogma regarding papal infallibility – Mynster’ssuccessor in the diocese of Zealand, Hans Lassen Martensen (1808–1884), reiterated warnings against Catholicism and Jesuit propaganda, which werecasting their “fishing Nets around the Lands.”⁴⁸ This was not onlyfor reasons of theology, but also duetoits alleged foreignness and character as asecular state founded on values thatstood in contrasttoProt- estantism’sconcepts of rights and freedom.⁴⁹ In Sweden from the 1840s up to the Non-Conformist Acts of 1860 and 1873, debates on religious freedom contributed to the thematising of Catholicism more generally, and of Jesuits in particular. AccordingtoSwedishhistorian Yvonne Maria Werner,itwas preciselybecause of anti-Catholic attitudes in the Riksdag

 Beretning Om Forhandlingerne paa Rigsdagen (1849), 5443f. AalborgStiftstidende og Adres- seavis,7May1849.  JesF.Møller and U. Østergaard, “Lutheran Ortodoxy and Anti-Catholicism in Denmark 1536– 2011,” in European Anti-Catholicism in aComparativeand Transnational Perspective,ed. Yvonne M. Werner and Jonas Harvard. European Studies no. 31 (Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi, 2013), 180.  Beretning Om Forhandlingernepaa Rigsdagen (1849), 2555 and 3095.  Mynster, Grundlovens Bestemmelser,14f.  Hans Lassen Martensen, Katholicisme og Protestantisme: Et Leilighedsskrift (Kjøbenhavn: GyldedalskeBoghandel, 1874), 2.  Møller and Østergaard, “Lutheran Ortodoxy,” 181. 222 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961 that the liberalisation of religious laws was pushed back.⁵⁰ The clergy,especially, painted apicture of Catholicism as athreat to Swedishcultureand the social order.During the debates there were warningsagainst Jesuit infiltration and Catholic missioning,specificallythataimedatsociety’slower strata. Werner argues that several of the Dissenter Acts’ restrictions on members beyond the state church weremotivated by the Catholic “peril,” not onlyobvious cases such as the ban on monasteries,but also the need to uphold aLutheran monopolyon education and the school system.⁵¹ As amember of the Riksdag in 1891, formerForeign Minister Oscar Björnstjerna (1819 –1905)requested that the Swedish government propose an amendment to the Dissenter Actaimed specificallyatCatholics. He wanted to legislate for aban on priestsdemanding pledgesinadvanceofwedlock that children of mixed marriages would be raised in aparticular religion. Thiswas the practice among Catholicpriests in marriages between Catholics and Protestants. Björnstjerna argued that Catholic activityand influencewas growingthroughout Europe, including in Protestant regions,and as aresult he was following Cath- olic missionary activity in Sweden with concern and disquiet.The Catholic priests’ practices would eventuallylead to asignificant proportion of Swedes being Catholic, he explained,and the country would face the sameproblems as other countries in which Catholics had grown numerous “and wherethe papacy constitutes apower within the state.”⁵² Forthe faithfulCatholic, he went on, the dictates of the pope had more validity than those of the king: “For every Swede who does not profess the Roman doctrine and looks on with repug- nance as an Italian prelatecaptures the leading position in our country,this ought to constitute aserious warning.”⁵³ Through its alleged subordination to aforeign power,Catholicism wasthus branded not onlyaspoliticallyproblem- atic, but also as downright un-Swedish and thereby unpatriotic. Björnstjerna’s

 Yvonne Maria Werner, “‘The Catholic Danger’:The Changing Patterns of Swedish Anti-Ca- tholicism – 1850–1965,” in European Anti-Catholicism in aComparative and Transnational Per- spective,ed. Yvonne M. Werner and Jonas Harvard, European Studies no. 31 (Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi, 2013), 138.  Yvonne Maria Werner, Världsvid men främmande: Den katolske kyrkaniSverige1873–1929 (Uppsala: Katolske bokförlaget, 1996), 35.  Riksdagens Protokoll. Motioner iFørsta kammaren (1891). Nr.49, 2. Af herr Björnstjerna, om förebyggande af samvetstvång från vigselförrättares eller själasörjares sida med, hänsyn till den lära, hvaribarn, födda uti äktenskap mellan olikatrosbekännare, skola uppfostras. [Recordsof Proceedings fromthe Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen). Motion to the First Chamber,No. 49 (1891)].  Riksdagens Protokoll. Motioner iFørsta kammaren (1891). Nr.49, 2. [Records of Proceedings from the Swedish Parliament(Riksdagen). Motion to the First Chamber,No. 49 (1891)]. Catholicismand religious nationalism 223 request was adopted by both chambers of the Riksdag the following year.The government’slegislative process was prolongedand thorough, and it was not until 1898 that adefinitive proposal was submitted to parliament.Itstumbled when the proposal onlyreceivedamajority in the first chamber.⁵⁴ Anti-Catholic arguments werewielded even during the debate, including by the Minister of Jus- tice, who explained in reference to Catholic practices that it was intolerable for priestsfrom foreign religious communities to act in defiance of the laws of the state. In Norwayinthe period after 1814, however,there was lessafear of Catho- lics thanofdissenting Protestant groups.Nor did the establishment by royal li- cenceofaCatholic congregation in Oslo in 1843, two years before the Dissenter Actafforded all Christians the opportunity to do the same, provokeparticularre- sistance or fear from Lutheranquarters.⁵⁵ Until the latter part of the 19th century, the Jesuit question was not discussed in Norwaytoany significant extent.⁵⁶ This setNorwayapart from its Scandina- vian neighbours. Yet, the establishment of the Catholic Church in Norway triggered certain suspicions regarding whether Jesuits wereconcealing themselves in the ranksofCatholic priestsand missionaries. The first Catholicpastor in Oslo, Gottfried Ignatius Montz (1813–1868), had to go out in public and declare that the rumoursthathewas actuallyaJesuit were false.⁵⁷ The Catholic Church established aNorth Pole mission in 1855 with the northern town of Alta in Norwayasits base and Arctic regions as its mission field. This soon prompted suspicions thatitwas the Jesuits who laybehind it.The station was led by Russiannoble convert Paul MariaStefan Djunkowski (1821–1870). He had previouslybeen aJesuit,but had been relieved of his vows in 1853.Local authorities, the Ministry of Justice,and not least the Swedish-Norwegian envoy in Paris all had strong suspicions that Djunkowski, especially, was still aJesuit, but this could not be confirmed. The prefect in Tromsø pointed out that their pro-

 Werner, Världsvid men främmande,41ff.  Bernt Eidsvig, “Den katolske kirkevender tilbake,” in Den katolske kirke iNorge: Frakristnin- gentil idag,ed. John Willem Gran, Erik Gunnes and Lars Roar Langslet (Oslo:Aschehoug, 1993), 166.  In the Stortingin1836, parish priest and later bishop Jens Lauritz Arup voiced his concern that priests’ lack of control over gatherings of travellingpreachers could be dangerous,and in particular pointed out the dangerofincreased “papist and Jesuit Propaganda, the present Eager- ness and Power of which can hardly be evaluated as beinglow,and which now,asbefore, can cast its EyeonNorwayand use an unchecked teachingAuthority in order to gainEntry to the Kingdom.” (Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 2. Forhandlinger iApril måned (1836), 492. [Recordsofthe Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 2. Parliamentary debateinApril (1836).  Nordlyset,26July1844. 224 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961 clamations of not being Jesuits weredubious: “Accordingtothe Statutesofthe Order,ifthe person in question is aJesuit he is not onlyentitled but also obliged to denyhis Status and to conceal it with the greatest Diligence, such that the purpose of the religion or Order can be achieved.”⁵⁸ The mission station and the Russian Djunkowskiwerecloselymonitored by the authorities, but this was probablyprovoked as much by fear of Russianinterferenceinthe northern provinces as by fear of the Jesuits. Although the prohibition on Jesuits was not discussed to anyappreciable extent,notions of “Jesuitism” werestill alive and vivid in Norwaytoo. There was little representation of Jesuits, but they – along with notions of “Jesuitism”– weremobilised in order to represent other groups.Jesuitism and its different var- iants acquired their own semantic meanings, decoupled from Jesuit monks spe- cifically. Both as anoun and as an adjective,the wordwas constructed with strongly pejorative associations and as aterm of abuse that could be hurled at all poten- tial opponents. There are anumber of examples of the term being used in avariety of contexts thathad nothing to do with Jesuits or Catholicism: “Jesuitical dishonesty,”“Jesuitical ambiguity,”“Jesuitical tricks” and “Jesuitical mindset” wereall terms usedtocharacterise Protestant opponents in the 1830s and 1840s.⁵⁹ In 1841, the well-known editor of Norway’s Morgenbladet,Adolf Bredo Stabell (1807–1865), suedhis counterpart at Christiansandsposten for libel. He had been called aspy,aninformant,and someone who hailed “the Tenet of Jes- uitism, the End justifies the Means.”⁶⁰ He was not the onlyone to resent being attributed “Jesuitical” traits. As an expletive,the Jesuits werealso included in dictionaries as alexical term. TheDanishdictionary of foreign words by Ludvig Meyer (1780 – 1854) acquired important standing in the Danish and Norwegian culturalworld. In 1837,itdefined Jesuitisimus as “the Doctrine of Loyola, its Tenets and Spirit; Pre- tence, Hypocrisy,Sanctimony, Intrigue.”⁶¹ In the samevein, Jesuitismus wasde-

 Karl Kjelstrup, Norvegiacatholica:moderkirkensgjenreisning iNorge: et tilbakeblikk ianledn- ing av 100-årsminnet for opprettelsen av St. Olavsmenighet iOslo,1843–1943 (Oslo:Apostoliske vikariat,1942),96: Kjelstrup was quotingletters from prefect MotzfeldtinTromsø to the Ministry of Justice, dated8July1856.  Morgenbladet,3September 1838. Morgenbladet,27May 1836. Christiansandsposten,20May 1841.  Morgenbladet,2December 1841and Christiansandsposten,25November 1841.  Ludvig Meyer, Kortfattet Lexikon overfremmede, idet danske Skrift-ogOmegns-Sprogfore- kommende Ord, Konstudtryk og Talemaader tilligemed de idanske Skrifter mest brugelige, fremmede Ordforkortelser (Kiøbenhavn: BrummerskeBoghandels Forlag, 1837),s.v. “Jesuit.” Other- Catholicism and religious nationalism 225 fined in Mauritz Hansen’s(1794–1842) posthumously updated 1851 Norwegian dictionaryofforeign words: “The Doctrine and Spirit of the Jesuits;Hypocrisy, Pretence.”⁶² Even in recent Norwegiandictionaries (Norsk Rikmålsordbok)the wordhas retained its abstract meaning and characterises “aperson who has the intent to use morallyreprehensible meansand (esp.) pretenceinorder to achieveapurpose.”⁶³ Similarly, the dictionarymentions Jesuitry (jesuitteri)and the adjective Jesuitical (jesuitisk)inthe sense of “Jesuitic appearance or conduct.” Herethe dictionaries reflect that the use of the termhas had an enduring history beyond its specific context. Images of Jesuits werenotablymobilised in representations of the Mormons from the 1850s onwards,and along with notions of Islam they were clearlyre- garded as fitting and effective ways of branding undesirable religious practices. The fact that Mormons were represented as Jesuits shows in itself how engrained these notions must have been among public participants in the politico-religious discourse. From the 1880s there wassome increase in interest in and discussion of Ca- tholicisminNorway,but it wasnot until the 1890s that the Jesuits’ access to the kingdom was brought up for debate.⁶⁴ Not surprisingly,this contributed to increased discussion of Jesuits and “Jesuitism,” and of Catholicism too for that matter.The constitutional proposals werepartlybasedonaChristian-liberal initiative within the free-church movement that was politicallyrooted in the national-liberal party Venstre,and partlyonadesire from Catholic quarters. In 1891, Norwayadopted anew Dissenter Act, which manyfree-church groups werestill dissatisfied with.⁶⁵ In 1892, Baptist and Venstre party member Hans Andersen (1829–1901) thereforeproposed to amendArticle 2ofthe Consti- tution so thatreligious freedom for all was positively inscribed. As aconse- quence, he also proposed the removal of the two remainingexclusionary provi-

wise see TorGuttu, “Ordbokssituasjonen omkring1905,” Språknytt,no. 1–2(2005) on the pub- lishinghistory of Norwegian dictionaries.  Mauritz Chr.Hansen, Fremmed-Ordbog, eller Forklaring over de idet norskeSkrift-ogOm- gangs-Sprogalmindeligst forekommende fremmede OrdogTalemaader:Andet betydeligt forøgede og forbedrede Oplag. Udigvet av A. Autenrieth (Christiania: Chr.Tønsbergs forlag, 1851), s.v. “Jes- uit.” Hansen published the first edition in the same year that he died: Mauritz C. Hansen, Frem- med-Ordbog eller Forklaring over de idet norskeSkrift-ogOmgangs-Sprogalmindeligst forekommende fremmede OrdogTalemaader (Christiania: Guldberg&Dzwonkowski, 1842). “Jesuit” was not aterm in the first edition.  NorskRiksmålsordbok, vol. 2(Oslo:Kunnskapsforlaget, 1983), s.v. “jesuitt.”  Bernt Oftestad, “Jesuittparagraf og antikatolisisme: Debatt om og endringavGrunnlovens §2,”Teologisktidsskrift no. 4(2014): 413.  Breistein, “Harstaten bedre borgere?,” 90ff. 226 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 sions (Jesuits and monastic orders).⁶⁶ In an alternative constitutional proposal, three representativesfrom Venstre – among them ViggoUllmann (1848–1910), aprominent public figure who in 1893became party leader – backed the lifting of the exclusion of Jesuits and monks, or,otherwise, onlyretaining the exclusion of Jesuits. AccordingtoUllmann,itwas at the request of the Catholics that he was tablingthe proposal.⁶⁷ During the parliamentary hearing in 1897, there was aconstitutional majoritytorepeal the ban on monks, but not on Jesuits (63voted in favour of repeal, 48 against). Neither was there aconstitutional majority to introduce apositive provision on religious freedom for all, which had largely been justified among the minority by an understanding that this was al- readyanestablished interpretation.⁶⁸ The period around 1890 marked adividing line in the history of the Catholic Church in Norway.In1892the country became its own Catholic see; its first Cath- olic bishop since the Middle Ages would be the LuxembourgerOlaf Fallize (1844–1933). He had taken over as pastor in 1887and was regarded as immense- ly faithful to the pope (an “ultramontanist”).⁶⁹ Under his leadership, the Catholic Church became hugely active in Norway. Manyspeakers wereinvited from abroad, and there was major interest in these meetings.Aseries of lectures by Father Dominikus Scheer (1830 –1907) in Oslo and Trondheim in 1890 and 1891 is reported to have been particularlywell attended, and accordingtochurch historian Bernt Oftestad, helpedtosparkanintense debate about Catholicism in ecclesiastical theological circles.⁷⁰ Several new Catholic mission stations and congregations wereestablished in Norwaythroughout the 1890s, and by the end of the century membership had doubledtotwo thousand. The constitutional proposals were dealt with in an atmosphere characterised both by growinganti-Catholicism and growinganti-Jesuitism in Protestant Eu- rope. That was triggered by “Romanisation” of the Catholic Church and spread

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 5. Dokument 124(1892),proposal 1and 2. [Records of the Proceed- ingsofthe Norwegian Parliament (Storting). Part 5. Document124 regarding amendments to the Constitution(1892)]. In additionaproposal to include the ban on Freemasons in Article 2was put forward, but this never came to fruition.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7a. Stortingstidende (1897), 854. [RecordsoftheProceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1897)].  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7a. Stortingstidende(1897), 862. [Records of the Proceedingsof the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1897)].  Kjelstrup, Norvegiacatholica,159;Eidsvig, “Den katolskekirke,” 241.  Oftestad, “Jesuittparagraf og antikatolisisme,” 413. See also Eidsvig, “Den katolske kirke,” endnote272 at p. 506 and Den katolske kirke, “Dominikanernes tilbakekomst til Norge,” (http://www.katolsk.no/tro/tema/historie/artikler/a_op_1,accessed 22 February 2017). Catholicism and religious nationalism 227

Figure 6.2: “The Vatican Council according to Basile.” The Vatican Council of 1869–70 declared the infallibility of the Pope. This cartoonbyHonoréDaumier (1808–1879) from 1869 suggests thatthe papal list of errors of heresyfrom 1864 (Syllabus Errorum)was moreimportant as a moral guideline to Catholics(and especiallyJesuits) than the Gospels. Like the papal document Quanta Cura from the same year,itwas an anti-liberal and anti-modern document, and among other things condemned freedom of religion and freedom of consciencetobecontraryto Catholic teachings. The figure Basile wasascheming Jesuit and music teacher in the opera The Barber of Seville (and Figaro’sWedding). Cf.LisaDittrich, Antiklerikalismus in Europa:Öffent- ligkeit und Säkularisierung in Frankreich,Spanien und Deutschland (1848–1914) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 2014), 440. 228 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961 of ultramonatnism in the 19th century.⁷¹ In 1870,papal infallibilitywas adopted as the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It strengthened the pope’ssupremacyand hierarchical authority,but at the sametime increased the tension between uni- versalism and nationalism within the church. In post-unification Germany, Bis- marck laid the basis of astrategy of realpolitik that has been giventhe pithyap- pellation Kulturkampf. It was agenerallyanti-Catholic policy,one thatresulted, among other things, in the banning of Jesuit institutions in the GermanEmpire in 1872.⁷² The importance of Protestantism in Germannational identity duringthis period is described well by the German-American historian Helmut Walser Smith, and especiallyCatholicism became to manyanobvious antipode to the German nation. Smith quoted the liberalGerman Historian, Heinrich Karl Ludolf vonSybel (1817–1895), who in 1880 claimed thatCatholics werenot merelyare- ligious minority, but rather “amilitary organised corporation, which in Germany contains more than 30,000 agents sworn to absolute obedience.”⁷³ It was implied, of course, that the obedience of Catholic clerics was not to the amodern- ising and protestantGerman nation state, but rather to the Catholic Church and the bulwark of backwardsness it wasdepicted as. The American historian MichaelB.Gross has argued against an understanding of the KulturkampfasBismarck’sproject alone, in which the chancellor of- fered Catholics as targets for liberal hostilities. Rather,hetraces the groundwork for the Kulturkampftothe decades before Bismarck and to what he refers to as a liberal obsession with Catholicism ever since the Revolutions of 1848, and which developedalongsideand as aresponse to aCatholic revival in the 1850s and 1860s.⁷⁴ The Kulturkampf was therefore, he argues, not aliberal “accident,” but an integral part of German liberalism in the second half of the 19th century, and aculmination of liberaldemands for amodern Germany.⁷⁵ Anti-Catholicism (and anti-clericalism) became powerful means to reorient aliberal vision for Ger- man society,and represented to liberals an imagined “Other.” To liberals, Gross asserts, Jesuits, monks, nuns, prisests, and Catholics wereagents of dogma, su-

 Christopher Clark, “The New Cahtolicism and the European Culture Wars,” in CultureWars: Secular-CatholicConflict in Nineteenth-CenturyEurope,ed. Christopher Clark and Wolfram Kaiser (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003), 18ff.  See Healy, TheJesuit Specter,51ff.  Heinrich vonSybel, “Klerikale Politik im 19 Jahrhundert,” in Sybel, Kleine Schriften (Stutt- gart, 1880), vol3,450.Herequoted from Helmut Walser Smith, German Nationalism and Reli- gious Conflict: Culture, Ideology,Politics,1870–1914 (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1995), 38.  Michael B. Gross, TheWar against Catholicism: Liberalism and the Anti-CatholicImagination in Nineteenth-CenturyGermany (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,2005), 11.  Gross, TheWar against Catholicism,22. Catholicism and religious nationalism 229

Figure 6.3: “One invasionfollowsanother.” Prussia crushed Francein1870–71 and captured Paris. The Germans retreated from the capital lateinthe winter 1871. HonoréDaumier suggests here thataJesuit army took advantage of the retreat by their own (implicitly equally foreign and hostile) invasion of French society. 230 6Amoral threattosociety? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 perstition, stupidity,subservience, intolerance, and irrationalism. Thiscontrast- ed aburgeois ideologywith emphasis on industrialisation, capitalist free-market economics,individualism, rationalism, masculinity,and freedom.⁷⁶ In this perspective,thereare obvious parallels to the liberalparadoxpreva- lent when Jews wererepresented duringthe first Emancipation period around 1800.Judaism, with its association with astate within the state, was alsofre- quentlyconsidered antithetical to amodern, rational society of individuals and citizens within anation state. Consequently, exclusion of Jews from the national and political body, as demonstratedinthe otherwise rather liberal Norwe- gian Constitution of 1814, was not neccesarilyconsidered an illiberal anomaly, but as aprotection of liberal ideas rooted in Enlightenment principles. In Germany,the restoration of the Jesuit order was not permitted until 1917, partlyasaninitiative to raise war morale among German Catholics.⁷⁷ Throughout the period, adebate continued thatdemonstrated the transnational nature of Jesuit and Catholic stereotypes, adebate thattoalarge extent was framed within adiscourse of liberalism, or at least of liberalconceptslikeindividualism and freedom of consciencewhich also became key concepts in aProtestant self def- inition. In the introduction to the anthology Culture Wars:Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth-Centry Europe (2003), Christopher Clark and Wolfram Kaiser argue that not onlywereEuropean Catholics’ mobilisation around apapal agenda in the second part of the 19th Century atransnationalphenomenon, but so was also the casefor the liberaland anticlericalforces combattingit.⁷⁸ Rather than speakingofaKulturkampflimited to Germany, they find it justifiable to speak of wider European culture wars, which also includes countries in which Cathol- icism was hegemonic, but whereuniversialism and ultramonanism was contest- ed. In aseparate chapter in thatantology,Wolfram Kaiser has emphasised the transnationalcharacter of anti-clericalism in the second half of the 19th century, in which the cunning Jesuit were still an important topos, and how it thrivedin in atransnationalpublicsphere whereevents and conflicts weretransmittedby booming media and its networks.⁷⁹ Scandinavia fitted wellinto this pattern of

 Gross, TheWar against Catholicism,294f.  Healy, TheJesuit Specter,212ff.  Christopher Clark and Wolfram Kaiser, “Introduction,” in CultureWars: Secular-Catholic Con- flict in Nineteenth-CenturyEurope,ed. Christopher Clark and Wolfram Kaiser (Cambridge:Cam- bridge University Press, 2003), 3.  Wolfram Kaiser, “‘Clericalism – that is our enemy’.European Anticlericalism and the Culture Wars,” in CultureWars: Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth-CenturyEurope,ed. Christopher Clark and Wolfram Kaiser (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2003), 64ff. Catholicism and religious nationalism 231

Figure 6.4: Anti-Catholicism had much in common withanti-Mormonism. Both stigmatised the respectivereligions as foreign threats to American freedom. This is explicitly represented in this cartoonwhich carries the title: “Religious libertyisguaranteed: but canweallow foreign reptiles to crawl all over US?” Unpublishedand undatedcartoon by Thomas Nast (1840–1902).

“culture wars” and the discourses they whereframed within elsewhere. By the end of the century,this was most evident for Norwayand Sweden. Forinstance, children in Norwegianschools wereexposed to unequivocal prejudice against the Jesuits for decades. In Anders Tollefsen’s(1849–1916) textbook on church history for primary schools from 1891, one could read of the Jes- uits:

They sacrificed everythingtosupport and propagate the might of the pope, and, if possible, eradicatethe Protestant doctrine,and in order to achievethis goal, they were not toodis- criminatingintheir methods. Their mottowas: “The end justifies the means,” and with this principle they defended rebellion, perjury and murder.[…]Tothis daythe Jesuits continue their corrupt activities, albeit moresecretively and with greater caution.⁸⁰

The textbook waspublished in four editions in the yearsbetween 1890 and 1895. Such references must have necessarilyinfluenced notionsofJesuits in broad

 Anders Tollefsen, Lærebog ikirkehistorie for folkeskolen. Omarbeidet udgave (Kristiania: Aschehoug, 1891), 47. 232 6Amoral threattosociety? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 swathes of the population, something the pedagogue and folk high-school teacher ViggoUllmannpointed out the year before he proposed repealing the ban: “At Schoolweweretaught that they [the Jesuits] wereappallingPeople who de- served to be expelled from Kingdom and Country[…]”⁸¹ Foreign notions of Jesuitism continued to be imported and weredisseminat- ed in away that helpedtobolstertraditional anti-Jesuit stereotypes. In 1891, the German writer Otto vonCorvin’s(1812–1886) malicious attacksonCatholicism and Jesuitism weretranslated and published in Norwegian.⁸² Pfaffenspiegel,as the book was called in German, was originallypublished in Prussia in 1845, and by 1860 had reached aprint run of 1.6million copies.Two years later, the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten carried apositive report of former Jesuit Count Paul vonHoensbroch’s(1852–1923) “revelations” in PreussischeJahrbüch- er. Here, Jesuitism waslabelled as an indoctrinatingteaching that demanded total submission to the brethren of the order and therebyrooted out all individualism.Accordingtothe newspaper report,Hoensbroch was able to establish that Jesuitism was anti-patriotic. With its entire worldwide “System of Levelling,” Jes- uitism suppressed and “indeedtoacertain degree annihilateslegitimate national Sentiment and Patriotism. Faithful, devoted Lovefor the Fatherland is an Emotion for which Jesuitism’sRegime has no place.”⁸³ When it came to the Norwegian debate about the Jesuitban throughout the entire period up to the 1950s,the churchhistorian Andreas Brandrud’s(1868– 1957) book on Kloster-Lasse probablyhad the greatest impact.Brandrud gradu- ated in 1892with adegree in theologyand was aprofessor of church history at the University of Oslo from 1897. ⁸⁴ The theme of Kloster-Lasse was the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and the Jesuits naturallyreceivedtop billing in the account.Here, Jesuit moralitywas generalised and rejected as abhorrent: “In real- ity,the moral principles of the Jesuit casuists entail adenial or anullification of

 The statement occurred during aspeech at Kristiania Arbeidersamfunn [Kristiania Worker’s Society] in connection with the promotion of peace (fredssaken). Here according to an account in Dagbladet,2February 1891.  Ottovon Corvin, Pavespeilet: historiske mindesmærker over fanatismen iden romersk-ka- tholskekirke (Kristiania: O. Huseby,1891).  Aftenposten,28April 1893. Aftenposten republished the account of “Mein Austritt ausdem Jesuitterorden” [My Exit fromthe Jesuit order”]from Preussische Jahrbücher froma“Berlin newspaper.” Helmut Walser Smith describes Hoensbrochas“the best known antiultramontane pub- licist in Germany” (Smith, German Nationalism,128).  “Andreas Brandrud,” in Norsk biografiskleksikon. (https://nbl.snl.no/Andreas_Brandrud, accessed 21 February 2017). Catholicism and religious nationalism 233

Figure 6.5: “The Unseen Signal of Jesuits.” The notion thatJesuits weredisloyal to local secular authorities and thatthey passed on secret information concerning stateaffairs received in confessions, is old. American cartoonbyCharles Stanley Reinhart(1844–1896) from 1873. both Christian and human ethics.”⁸⁵ Morality could not exist withoutthe freedom and responsibility of the individual, and the Jesuits’ alleged cadaverobedience led to the precise opposite. And therewas no doubt, Brandrud argued, that Jesuit moral theologians taught that the end justified the means – something he spent much time substantiating with citations. In his depiction of Jesuitism, he relied heavilyonthe Swiss culturalhistorian Otto Henne am Rhyn (1828–1914), who had published Die Jesuiten, deren Ge- schichte, Verfassung,Moral, Politik, Religion und Wissenschaft [The Jesuits, their History,Constitution, Ethics, Politics, Religion and Science] in Leipziginthe 1880s. The book was published in several editions, latterlyasanewlyreworked version in 1894 that was widelyavailable in Scandinavian bookstores and pro-

 Andreas Brandrud, Klosterlasse: Et bidrag til den jesuitiske propagandas historie iNorden (Kristiania: Th. Steens Forlagsexpedition, 1895),18. 234 6Amoral threattosociety? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 cured for libraries.⁸⁶ In Brandrud, large parts of the anti-Jesuit arsenal weresum- moned up – both the Jesuits’ suspicioushandlingofthe truth, and theirwilling- ness to commit regicide. He also explainedthatJesuitism supported the idea of popularsovereignty – not on the basis of liberal thought, but because worldly rulers such as princes and kingswerethe enemiesofthe papacy.Papal authority was strengthened by depriving worldlysovereigns of their powers.Accordingto Brandrud, the papacy considered that it was “simpler to preserveits authority over the unwitting masses thanoverthe power-hungry and headstrongsover- eigns.”⁸⁷ At the same time, the Jesuits’ traditionalinfluenceoverthose same rulers was underlined through the role they assumed as confessors.This gave them not onlyinsight into the “most intimate political secrets” of Catholic sovereigns, but also control over theirconsciences. Through both these means, Jesuit confessors acquired political influence.⁸⁸ Another authority in Brandrud was the aforementioned Hoensbroch. Bran- drud referred to him to substantiate his ownconclusionthat the Jesuit order, in the “truest sense,” was an international society in which national sentiment and lovefor one’scountry weresuppressed.⁸⁹ In the Stortingthere was alarge,silent minoritywith acentre of gravity within Høyre, the party of the conservatives, thatblocked the majority’sdesire to repeal the ban on the Jesuits. The assembly’soverall motivation therefore seems to be as obscure as when the prohibitions wereadopted in 1814. But the arguments of those who took the floor are markedlyreminiscent of the discourse about Jews around 1814. The lines of reasoningbeing promoted were mainlynational and historical. The conservative Christian Schweigaard (1838– 1899) pointed out that monks’ orders werea“foreign Plant,and aPlant whose widespread Propagation Idonot believeisofbenefit to our Society.”⁹⁰ Apart from the monastic order being unpatriotic, he did not elaborate on what the problem otherwise consisted of. His fellow party member in the conservatives, Christopher Knudsen (1843–1915), resident chaplain in Drammen and laterbrief- ly Minister of Church Affairs from 1905,was alsokeen to avoid the importation of

 OttoHenne am Rhyn, Die Jesuiten, deren Geschichte, Verfassung,Moral, Politik, Religion und Wissenschaft (Leipzig:M.Spohr,1894). Fredrikshalds Tilskuer,7March 1895 conveyed, for example, that this book was amongthe local library’smost important additions of 1894.  Brandrud, Klosterlasse,32.  Brandrud, Klosterlasse,49f.  Brandrud, Klosterlasse,34.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7a. Stortingstidende (1897), 854. [RecordsoftheProceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1897)]. Catholicism and religious nationalism 235 undesirable elements.⁹¹ Opposition was thus expressed through anational rather than areligious discourse, and branding monks and Jesuits as un-Norwe- gian was itself considered by some representatives to be sufficient grounds to persevere with the ban. The nation and its members oughttobeprotected from unpatriotic agents of undesirable values. As part of anation-building process thatwas particularlyimportant in the period leading up to the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian union in 1905, the debate surroundingthe access of monks and Jesuits to the kingdom was thereforealso aquestion of who belonged to the Norwegiannational community.⁹² The domestic Catholic Church was clearlywary of this, and practised adeliberate “Norwegianising” of Catholicism, both through the usageoflanguage and national symbols and by invoking the roots of the NorwegianCatholic Church stretchingback to the Middle Ages.⁹³ Especiallythe HighMiddle Ages, which was deemed aGolden Agefor the NorwegianAtlantic Empire – which included Greenland, Iceland,the Faroes,Orkneys,Shetlands, as wellasterritories later lost to Sweden, was of great importance to Norwegian nationalism in the 19th century. In Norwegian history,nationalism and the national-liberal tradition were primarilyanchored in the political movement associated with the party Venstre (“Left”). However,asthe Norwegianhistorian Alf Kaartvedt has pointed out, there was alsoanationalist tradition within conservatism and its base in the party Høyre(“Right”).⁹⁴ On the question of admitting the Jesuits,Høyrecould ap- peal to aconservatively oriented nationalism and appear to be mindful of the homelandwithout it taking the form of criticism against the union with Sweden and the monarchical-conservative form of government. As we have seen also with the Jewishquestion from the beginning of the 19th century, history was mobilised as asubstantial justification for exclusion and the unsuitability as citizens of those who were excluded. At the Storting in 1897, this was true both of pastor and Høyremember CarlJulius Arnesen (1847–1929) and of chaplain Christopher Knudsen. Arnesen advocated for the ex-

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7a. Stortingstidende(1897), 856. [Records of the Proceedingsof the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1897)].  Tone Slotsvik, “Altfor Norge.Ikkeogsaafor katoliker?”:Den katolske minoriteten iNorge 1905–1930 (MA thesis,University of Bergen, 2009), 30.  Slotsvik, “Altfor Norge,” 36.  Alf Kaartvedt, “Drømmen om borgerligsamling, 1884–1918,” vol. 1inHøyres historie (Oslo: Cappelens forlag, 1984), 207. See also HelgeDanielsen, “Nasjonalisme iHøyre før 1905?,” in Jakt- en på det norske: Perspektiver på utviklingen av en norsk nasjonal identitet på 1800-tallet,ed. Øystein Sørensen (Oslo:Adnotam Gyldendal, 1998). 236 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 tension of religious freedom as far as “Considerations for the Security of the State allow.” There was clearlyaboundary line when it came to the Jesuits: “His- tory has established thatitisnot particularlyreassuring to permit them entry since this is not onlyaQuestion of spiritual Interests and the Community of the Church, but is also applicable to the State and its Laws, at least in my Inter- pretation.”⁹⁵ Knudsen was open to repealing the constitutional ban on Jesuits, but it would in that case have to be introduced as separate legislation. However, he continued, it was not for religious reasons that he wished to stop them from entering: “It is not because the Jesuits have adifferent Form of Faith and Wor- ship, and it is not because they are adifferent religious Community;itisbecause their Doctrine and their History shows that in Matters otherthan the purelyre- ligious and ecclesiastical, they have proved to be rather dangerous People.”⁹⁶ And because it was evident thatthe Jesuits not onlyrepresented an immoral doctrine, but also actively conducted themselvesinaccordancewith their principles, they should,accordingtoKnudsen, continue to be excluded. None of the advocates of the Jesuit ban in the Stortingmobilised the arsenal of stereotypes thatthey must have known werefamiliar to the public. In all like- lihood, this wasnot necessary.The hegemonic representations of Jesuits were present and clear – bothfor those who had studied Brandrud’spublications and those who had simply read school textbooks. It would be difficult for any active attempts to create counter-representations, especiallyfrom within the Catholic Church, to rectifythis. As previouslymentioned, Jesuitism as aterm livedalife of its ownwith ausagethat far exceeded reference to actual Jesuits. ViggoUllmann used it himself as he argued thatthere wasnomorereason to exclude Catholic Jesuits than therewas to do the same to “Jesuit Protestants.”⁹⁷ As an adjective, the wordacquiredaposition in the Norwegian languageprecise- ly because it provided such unambiguous associations, and could thus be activated as an insultingcharacterisation of Protestants as well. When the question of the Jesuits came up again in the 1920s, the situation had changed. Now it had obviouslybecame necessary to reiterate the catalogue of allegations,eveninthe Storting. The debate now took place in apublic arena in which the Jesuit issue had become searingly controversialthroughout the Scandinavian peninsula.

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7a. Stortingstidende(1897), 859. [Records of the Proceedingsof the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1897)].  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7a. Stortingstidende(1897), 856. [Records of the Proceedingsof the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1897)].  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7a. Stortingstidende (1897), 854. [RecordsoftheProceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1897)]. Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 237

Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s

In March 1921 it was announcedthat the Danish Jesuit Alois Menzinger (1876 – 1941) had been invited to holdalecture at the Norwegian Students’ Union on the Catholic Church’sposition on modern theology. “It will be rather strange to see how our authorities respond to this announcement,” wrote Morgenbladet on the occasion.⁹⁸ Accordingtothe newspaper’s “authoritative” sources, there was no doubtthat,constitutionally, Jesuits could not set foot on Norwegian soil. Still, the Jesuit was not prevented from enteringthe country or from giving his lecture. Neither did areport to the police from the engineer,lay preacher and vigorous anti-Catholic writer AlbertHiorth (1876 – 1949), nor newspaper articles about the case, prompt the authorities to take action.⁹⁹ The visit was nevertheless far from ignored in ministerial corridors. As acon- sequence of the Menzinger case, the Ministry of Justice wanted arepeal of the Jesuit paragraph rather thanattemptingtoenforcethe ban. On the basis of the case’stopicality,the Ministry of Justice involved the Ministry of Church Af- fairs in Mayofthe sameyear.¹⁰⁰ The nation’sbishops, the Faculty of Theology at the university,and the privateand conservative Free Faculty of Theology(Me- nighetsfakultetet) wereenquired about the matter.Four out of six bishopsrecom- mended the ban’srepeal, and with one exception the board of professors at the Faculty of Theologydid likewise. The Free Faculty of Theology, on the other hand, was unanimouslyopposedtothe proposal. Aproposition to amend the paragraph was therefore made in 1923 and accepted for hearing in 1925.However,incontrastto1897, this time alarge majority in the Stortingwished to uphold the ban. The episcopatehad alsoswitched its opinion as the matterwas being heard, primarilydue to changes in personnel. Public life was swamped with anti-Catholic writingsand contributions demon-

 Morgenbladet,2March1921.  The visit was wellcoveredbythe Norwegian press in general. Social-Demokraten printedan ironic petition to Prime Minister OttoB.Halvorsen (1872–1923)with thanks that he “has consid- ereditnecessary to disregardthe clear words of the Constitution and keep Himself and His people within the bounds of common sense.” The backdrop to the “tribute” was another practice, namelyheexclusion of people with abackground in revolutionary movements and demands for asimilarlyliberal practice towards revolutionaries as towards Jesuits.(Social-Demokraten,8 March1921). Forbiographical information about Albert Hiorth, see Harald Stene Dehlin, BokenomAlbert Hiorth: En norskAladdin (Lutherstiftelsen, 1949).  National ArchivesNorway(RA), RA/S-1007/D/Dd/L0135/0001. Jesuits’ admission to the kingdom. Draft of aletterfromMoJ to the Ministry of Education and Church Affairs,dated 25 May1921. 238 6Amoral threattosociety? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 strating that there was still vitality in old notions about Jesuits, not to mention persistent support and validity for them in broad circles. The growingfear of Catholicism was not aparticularlyNorwegianphenom- enon; quite the contrary.Itcharacterised almostall of Protestant Europe at this time, and in Norwayfound sustenancefrom beyond the country’sborders.There wereclear parallels to and points of contact with the debate in Sweden. The increased Protestant fear of Catholicism was mainlyaconsequence of World WarI, and was further strengthened by the revolution in Russia. Not onlywerethere suspicions that the papacywas an accessorytothe out- break of war,asitwas claimed that the HolySee was partial to the interests of the Central Powers (especiallyCatholic Austria-Hungary), but also that it had emergedfrom the war as the victor – despite the capitulation of those same powers in 1918.¹⁰¹ Three new states dominatedbythe Roman Catholic Church – namely Lithuania, Poland and Ireland – werecreated at the expense of post-war Protestant states.¹⁰² Victorious Catholiccountries such as Belgium, France and Italyhad gainedterritory.Germany, referred to as the homeland of Protestantism, had been severelyweakened in several ways – territorially, mili- tary and economic. The Swedish church historian and laterbishop,Bengt Wa- densjö,has shown how increased Roman Catholic political and ecclesiastical activity in the post-war period reinforced this tendency.¹⁰³ The Catholic-dominated party Zentrum gained an influential position in the WeimarRepublic, and similar parties with Catholic roots existed in the Netherlands, Lithuania, Austria and Switzerland. At the same time, Catholicorders wereclearlygrowingincharacter in Protestant areas.InGermanyalone, over seven hundred monasteries were established in the years 1919–1923.¹⁰⁴

 Aftenposten,4September 1918 carried an article on “The war and the papacy” in which English suspicions that the papacyhad hopes that war would provide the Catholic Church with poweroverthe entireChristian world wereinparticular conveyed, and that the attack on Englandwas keybecuase the country was perceivedasProtestantism “original bulwark.” But,the newspaper wrote, “It would probablybeextremelydifficulttoprovide anyevidence for the belief that the war was instigated fromRome duetothe fact that the ways of the Church areparticularlywell hidden. But it cannot be denied that the Vatican must be presumed to have an interest in the victory of the central powers.” Therewere further references to active sabotage in the recruitment to the entente amongthe Catholic population in Ireland and Canada.  BengtWadensjø, “Protestantisk samling: Det svenskadeltagandet då internationella för- bundet till protestantismens värn grundades,” in Nordisklutherdom över gränserna:Denordiska kyrkorna i1900-talets konfesionella samarbete,ed. Lars Österlin (København: Gad, 1972), 130.  Wadensjø, “Protestantisk samling,” 130ff.  Wadensjø, “Protestantisk samling,” 132. Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 239

The outcomeofthis was that the Roman Catholic Church increased its influence in anumber of ways in Protestant countries.The increased Catholic missionary activity,referred to as an agenda by Pope Benedict XV (1854–1922)in 1919,was interpreted as arevivedCounter-Reformation and – not surprisingly – met with great concern in Protestant states. While communists oftenviewed the CatholicChurch as apolitical enemy, the papacywas associated with communism by leadingProtestants.¹⁰⁵ Both po- pedom and communism wereperceivedtorepresent adenial of individuality and freedom of thought,ahierarchicallyordered system of cadaverobedience, and inadequate space for opposition and criticism. Thus, Catholicism was seen as the antithesis of civicliberalism.Eivind Berggrav,editor of the journal Kirke og kultur [Church and Culture] and from 1928 bishop in the Norwegian Church, explained in 1922 that contemporaryexamples of key communists becomingCath- olics werenot surprising. “Revolution and papism, too, have generallydemon- strated remarkable points of contact in their psychology,” he explained.¹⁰⁶ The world had never seen a “stronger political papacy than Moscow now,” and both, accordingtoBerggrav, werecharacterised by obedience and subjugation. The road from ruthless communists to ruthless Catholics could thereforebea short one. Catholicism and communism – both regarded by conservative Lutherans as undermining the liberal state and its emphasis on freedom of thought – had assumed an offensive position in the early1920s. Both were perceivedtobefishing in troubled waters following the chaos of the Great Warand the Russian Revo- lution, and both weretherefore quick to be feared. One resultofthis fear was the establishment of an international organisation (Internationaler Verband zurVerteidigungdes Protestantismus [International Prot- estant League]) in 1923 for the defence of Protestantisminthe face of the Roman Catholic Church.¹⁰⁷ Swedish Lutherans playedanimportantrole here both at its founding and in subsequent activities. Eventually the organisation receivedac- ceptancefrom more Nordic countries,and would have two principal objectives.

 Jews werealso associated with communism. Professor of theology Sigmund Mowinckel (1884–1965), for example,argued in Tidens Tegn in 1924 that communism was aJewish religious teaching. (PerOle Johansen, Ossselv nærmest: Norge og jødene 1914–1943 (Oslo:Gyldendal norsk forlag, 1984), 44.  Eivind Berggrav, “Frakommunisme til katolisisme,” Kirke og Kultur (1922):358.  Internationaler Verband zurVerteidigung des Protestantismus,established in Berlin. Wa- densjø, “Protestantisk samling,” 135.InGermanyafter the mid-19th century therewerealready Protestant societies against Catholicism, such as Allgemeiner Deutscher Protestantenverein from 1863and Der Evangelische Bund from1886. 240 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961

One was to conveythe alleged advantagesofProtestantism in spiritual, religious and moral matters.The second was to defend Protestantismagainst attacks, first and foremost from contemporary counter-reformist activities.¹⁰⁸ The Swedish commitment was by no means accidental. As in Norway, certain events in the period after World WarIprovoked increased anti-Catholicism in the public sphere and within the clergy. In 1919,anew school policy directive obliged Swedish educators to avoid teachings that could be perceivedasinjurious attacks on adherents of other be- liefs or on contemporary demands for individual freedom of thought.¹⁰⁹ This prompted the Catholic bishop of Sweden, Albert Bitter (1848–1926), to point out what he believed to be erroneous representations of Catholicism in Swedish textbooks.Heproposed to setupacommittee to review both them and Swedish history books in general. He objected in particular to portrayals of worship of the Virgin Mary,the granting of indulgences, and stereotypes about Jesuit morality.¹¹⁰ The petition wasprinted in threethousand copies and distributed to Swed- ish schools. This triggered aminor anti-Catholic storm in the Swedish press.The sugges- tion was viewed as ademand that Swedish school teaching should be subjectto papal censorship. Theologians went to press claiming thatthe textbooks’ portrayal of Jesuitmorality was correct.Among other things, they pointed out that the Jesuits’“probabilism” was as harmful to genuine morality as ultramon- tanism was to the Church.¹¹¹ Alecturer in ethics at Uppsala University was com- missionedtoassess the accusations,and the Swedish authorities dropped the case when, for the most part,herejected the charges. The petition did, however, help to confirm contemporary Protestant concerns about aCatholic counter-reformist offensive in Sweden. The same was true of aCatholic request in 1922 to abolish the Swedish ban on monasteries, aproposal that alsoresonated with the politically appointed Committeefor Religious Freedom. Individual monks and representativesofthe order weretolerated in Sweden, but monasteries werestill prohibited. In public, monasteries were portrayedasthe Catholic Church’smost important battle in-

 Wadensjø, “Protestantisk samling,” 136.  Werner, Världsvid men främmande, 78 f.  BengtWadensjö, “Romersk-katolska kyrkan isvensk opinion 1920–1923,” Kyrkohistorisk årsskrift,vol. 68 (1968): 207.  Wadensjö, “Romersk-katolska kyrkan,” 208. Stated by the pastor’sassistantinOscar parish, the theology licentiateNils Algård(1883–1936). Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 241 strument,and Catholicism as the enemyoffreedom.¹¹² The Swedish ban on monasteries remained in effect until 1951. Sweden has historicallyhad close ties to the Baltic region, and for alengthy period the area was also part of aSwedishBaltic Sea empire. After World WarI, the Baltic states gainednational independence and the Swedish Church assumed an important ecclesiastical role. Among otherthings, both Estonia’s and Latvia’sLutheran bishops wereblessed by the Swedish Archbishop, the ecu- menical and Nordic-oriented Nathan Söderblom (1866–1931). In religious terms, Latvia, especially, was adivided society.Aclear majorityofthe population were Lutherans, but there was asignificant Catholic minority, and in the border areas towards Poland, Catholics constituted the majority.Atthis time Poland wasina phase of expansion and had annexedVilnius and eastern parts of present-day Lithuania, among other places.Fearing further Polish expansion, Latvia sought support in the Vatican by yielding to Catholicrequests to takeoverchurches in Riga. In 1923,the LutheranJacob Church and the OrthodoxAlexander Church werehanded over to the Catholic Church. This so-called “church robbery” was not onlymet with resistance among Protestants in the Baltics,but wasalso givenconsiderable attention in Swe- den.¹¹³ Aprotestwas conveyedthrough Swedish churches,gathering228,000 sig- natures.Not onlywas the “church robbery” seen as acounter-reformist attack on asphere of influenceofSwedish Church politics; it wasalsoconsidered aportent of Catholic claims in Sweden. In anewspaper interview,the Swedish Archbishop stated that now was the time to fear RomanCatholic demands to take over medieval churches in Uppsala.¹¹⁴ The climax of the Latvian church casewas reached just before Dutch Cardi- nal Wilhelm vanRossum (1854–1932) visited Sweden on his high-profile visit to the Nordic countries.Hefirst arrivedinDenmark in late June 1923,before visiting Iceland and the Faroe Islands. In the latter half of July he came to Bergen and undertook atour of Norway, before continuingtoSweden in earlyAugust.Van Rossum’svisit drew considerable attention in both Sweden and Norway. He was referredtoas“TheRed Pope” because he was considered to be perhaps the most influential of the cardinals, and therefore apower adjacent to “the Black Pope,” who was the general of the Jesuit Order,and “the White Pope,” the pope himself.¹¹⁵

 Werner, Världsvid men främmande,85f.  Wadensjö, “Romersk-katolska kyrkan,” 217ff.  Wadensjö, “Romersk-katolska kyrkan,” 216.  Aftenposten,21July1923: “Cardinal van Rossum is one of the most powerful men in the Roman Church. He is the head of the entireworldwide mission of the Roman Catholic Church. 242 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961

The cardinal’sjourney was viewed on both sides of the border as part of a Catholic agitation and aplanned missionary campaign. He was receivedkindly and courteously,but with distrust.InRoskilde he was refused permission to hold prayers at the shrine of St.Canute (medieval king and patron saint of Denmark) at OdenseCathedral. In Trondheim, an application to holdaCatholic mass at the shrine of St.Olaf (medievalking and patron saint of Norway) in Nidaros Cathe- dral was rejected, and aplanned St.Olaf’sDay visit to Stiklestad was cancelled. As the battleground upon which St.Olaf died,Stiklestad holds amajor symbolic position in Norwegian history and represents the formation of the kingdom of Norway. The cardinal was attemptingtomobilise the Catholic origins and history of the Nordic churches,and after events in Rigathis raised suspicious concerns about whether the CatholicChurch would claim back ownership of former Cath- olic property in the Nordic countries as well. This distrust alsoreared its headinNorway. In Nidaros Cathedral’shome town, Trondhjems Adresseavis wroteabout the “church robbery” in Rigaafter van Rossum’sNordic tour.The headline presented it as a “pawn in Rome’s game of churchpolitics,” and the newspaper continued: “With this adroit ecclesiastical chess move, Rome has undoubtedlyadvanced its frontier towards the Baltic Sea in away that testifies strikingly to its intentions.” The starklysymbolic impact of handingoveravenerable church, one with historical Swedish memo- ries, was pointed out – not least by it “being won back from the heretics…”¹¹⁶ The Swedish Lund theologians Lars Wollmer(1879–1973)and Magnus Pfan- nenstill (1858–1940) playedanimportant part when the International Protestant Leaguewas established in May1923. In September of that year,they wereinstru- mental at the Almänna Svenska Prestforeningen’s[General Association of Swed- ish Priests] national assembly. There, Pfannenstill appealed to an alreadylatent fear of Catholicism, conjuring up apicture of apervasive RomanCatholic Church that was secretlyincreasing its influence. In addition to the recent Swedish and Baltic experiences,the “ravages” of the Counter-Reformation in Germanywere also raised and auniversal Protestant rallyatthe supranational level was described as crucial to rescuing Protestantism from acommon enemy.¹¹⁷ Pfannenstill and Wollmermade sure thatthe Association of Swedish Priests joined the international organisation, in addition to establishingaseparate na-

Under his leadership thereare no less than 94 dioceses, 185apostolic vicariates – including the vicariates in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland – and 73 apostolic prefectures. It is precise- ly duetohis immense influence that the prefect of the propaganda congregation is popularly called the Red Pope.”  Trondhjems Adresseavis,14August 1923.  Wadensjø, “Protestantisk samling,” 144f. Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 243 tional committee for the combatingofCatholicism in Sweden. The purpose of the committee was to monitor Catholic propaganda in Sweden and beyond throughout Scandinavia, to “counteract un-Evangelist endeavours within the Swedish Church” and establish contact with Evangelical churches in other countries in the defence of Protestantism.¹¹⁸ In November 1923,when the NorwegianMinister of Justice proposed the repeal of the Constitution’sban of Jesuits, currents of anti-Catholicism had therefore been circulatingnot onlyinternallyinSweden and Norway, but across Nor- dic and European borders too. Asupranational Protestant action group had been foundedand closer inter-Scandinavian ties had been formed. From 1920 onwards,summitsbetween Nordic bishops werearranged regularly, and from 1924 joint meetingsamong Nordic pastor associations werealsoformalised.¹¹⁹ The SwedishCatholic sceptic, Archbishop NathanSöderblom, was keytothe processofestablishingcloser Nordic contacts, and these included Lutheran bishops in Estonia and Latvia. As far back as 1910 he called Jesuitism “our civilisa- tion’smost dangerous enemy.”¹²⁰ Jesuitism, with its demands of obedience and untrustworthyinsidiousness, represented Christianityshornofindividuality and freedom, he explained. At the joint Nordic episcopal conference in 1924,Catholic propaganda was addressed in several contexts. It was the main topic at one of the afternoon sessions, and after the fact participants depicted these as the most interesting discussions.¹²¹ It is therefore reasonable to suppose that opposition to Jesuits within Norwegian clerical-theologicalcircles was reinforcedby both the distinctively Swedishand the more generallyEuropean Protestant circu- lation of anti-Catholic notions. In February 1924 the contents of Cardinal van Rossum’stravelogue from the Nordic countries came to light,published in Dutch for aCatholic audience.¹²² It attracted huge attention and ignited opposition to Catholics in general, while in Norwayitgalvanised objections to the most recent constitutional amendment proposal. The travelogue was referred to as acurious work that depicted Protes-

 Wadensjø, “Protestantisk samling,” 146f.  Jarl Jergmar, “De nordiskabiskopsmøtena,” in Nordisklutherdom över gränserna:Denordis- ka kyrkorna i1900-talets konfesionella samarbete, ed. Lars Österlin (København: Gad, 1972).  Nathan Söderblom, Religionsproblemet inom katolicism och protestantism (Stockholm, 1910), 3f.QuotedherefromWerner, Världsvid men främmande, 129.  Interview with Bishop Lunde in Aftenposten,11September 1924.See also the accountinLu- therskkirketidende no. 21 (1924): 424ff. and 434and Bishop Gleditsch’sreport in Norsk kirkeblad no. 21 (1924): 465ff.  The excerpt was conveyedinanumber of newspapers. Norskkirkeblad,no. 6(1924) carried atranslation of the Norwegian part of vonRossum’stravelogue (22March1924, 133ff.). 244 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961 tant churches in the Nordic countries in decayand dissolution and with congregations that longed for the mother church. This was perceivedasdeliberately erroneous,just as the hospitality the Catholic Church had been afforded was construed as admiration for it.Within Catholicsceptic circlesinthe Nordic countries,the publication,therefore, was confirmation of the CatholicChurch’s lack of trustworthiness;and “such agrosslyincorrect and misleading portrayal” gave reason to recall “the well-known Jesuit maxim, that the end justifies the means.”¹²³ The Association of Swedish Priests took action and had aletter of protest against van Rossum’sbook printed in German newspapers.¹²⁴ Likewise, the Norwegian Association of Priests sentasimilar protest to Evangelischer Presse- dienst in Berlin.¹²⁵ In February 1925,Olaf Moe(1876 – 1963), aprofessor at the conservative Free Faculty of Theology, branded the work a “politico-religious di- atribe” full of hateful and cutting attacksagainst the Reformation and Protestan- tism.¹²⁶ The journal LuthersKirketidende accounted for the great mobilisation in the Stortingagainst the repeal of the Jesuitban in the summerofthe sameyear by the fact that,among other things, van Rossum’s “absurd account” had brought significant harm upon the Catholiccause.¹²⁷ With the proposal to amendthe Constitution, Norwegian anti-Catholic discourse wasfirst and foremost characterised by anti-Jesuit notions. However,it was not until 1925 thatthe debate on Jesuits earned broader engagement.Acler- ical-theological circle rooted within the Church, the Faculty of Theologyatthe University, and the Free Faculty of Theologyplayedakeyrole here, alongside legal historian Absalon Taranger,who was associated with the Free Faculty of Theologythatsame year. Professors Christian Ihlen (1868–1958) and Oluf Kolsrud(1885–1945) at the Faculty of Theologywere – along with Taranger – the most important advocates of lifting the ban. Both Ihlen and Taranger basedtheirarguments on the fact that the Jesuits had historicallyhad adubious role. Ihlen concluded that they had previouslyexploited their standing and influenceoversovereigns and statesmen for “violence and oppression against alternative thinkers,” but that they could nevertheless not be principallydescribed as apolitical organisation and agents of the papacyinthe present day.¹²⁸

 Aftenposten,15March 1924.  Kirke og kultur, vol. 32 (1925): 73.  Lutherskkirketidende,no. 6(21 March1925), 131–132.  Aftenposten,17February 1925.  Lutherskkirketidende,no. 16 (8 August 1925): 551.  Aftenposten,13March1925. Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 245

Figure 6.6: “The RedPope” (røde Pave), Cardinal Wilhelmvan Rossumvisited the Nordic countries in 1923. The visit received much attention at the time. In retrospect, histravelogue was seen by many as proof of not only the Catholic Church’soffensive mission plans forthe Nordic countries, but also thatthe Church wasunreliable and mendacious. From Aftenposten’s (13 March 1924) frontpage article about the travelogue. 246 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961

Professor Absalon Taranger followed up the case in March of that year in an article in Aftenposten entitled “Jesuit propaganda in the present day.” There he stated that the Catholic Church now considered the time ripe for afinal show- down with Wittenberg and the Reformation. He described adetermined Catholic missionary campaign to recapture Protestant territories thatwas taking place both in the open and in secret.Asanexample of the latter he broughtup how,especiallyinthe Netherlands, Jesuits had directed their missionary activities towardschildren.¹²⁹ In an series of articles in Aftenposten on the history of the Jesuitban, Taranger claimedthat the Jesuit order had been adriving and in- dustrious forceinthe CatholicChurch’spolitics throughout the 19th and 20th centuries,and thatthe goal was to concentrate all power in the pope’shands: “He desires to be the ruler of both the Church and the world.” His power was growingand was also beingfelt in Norway, he explained. Nevertheless, he supported the ban’srepeal. This was grounded in aprinciple of religious freedom, but would also serveasagood example. How,for instance, could one set demands on religious freedom in the field of the international mission if one could be accusedofalack of freedom at home?¹³⁰ There weremanyvoices against. Luthersk kirketidende [Lutheran Church Times] was affiliated with the Association for the Inner Mission [Indremisjonsfor- bundet] and came to be dominatedbyeditors with abackground from the conservative Free Faculty of Theology. In February 1925,inthe midstofthe Constitu- tional Committee’swork on writing its recommendation, the editors took aclear position against lifting the Jesuitban. This was not for religious reasons,they emphasised, but adistinction had to be made between the religious and the political work of the RomanCatholic Church: “The Jesuits are the political hench- men of this church, and wherever they are allowed to work they are the blindly obedient political organs of the papacy.”¹³¹ And, the journal continued, the politics of the Jesuits was inextricablylinked to their ethics. Whatever the Jesuits ac- tuallysaid or did not sayabout the phrase “the end justifies the means,” it was a fact that

in their blind, slavish discipline to superiors (cadaverobedience), in their defenceofsilent reservation (reservatiomentalis) and in their teachingof“probable” reason(probabilism), they denythe Protestant principle of freedomofconscienceand independence in the do- main of morality.And it is this that renders them the slavishlyobedient political organs of

 Aftenposten,15March 1924.  Aftenposten,24March1925.  Lutherskkirketidende,no. 4(21 February 1925): 84. Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 247

the papacy, organs that have gained areputation for ruthlessly pursuingtheir aims without concerning themselveswith the means.¹³²

In April 1925,the journal reiterated its position. It broughtout van Rossum’svisit and his “tendentious” travelogue as confirmation of aCatholicCounter-Reforma- tion. Furthermore, statementsbyPope Pius XI (1857–1939) from December 1922 and May1923provided evidence that the Jesuit order was being called to combat Protestantism.¹³³ Apragmatic religious policy thus needed to be employed, not an abstract-theoretical approach basedonthe principle of religious freedom, the journal argued. Twoarticles in Aftenposten that same spring show thatPro- fessor Daniel Andreas Frøvig(1870 – 1954) at the Free Faculty of Theologymust have been the author of Kirketidende’sargument.Here, under his own name, he repeated moreorless verbatim the same arguments from the twoeditorials.¹³⁴ The conservative periodical Norsk kirkeblad [Norwegian Church News] was also prompt in declaring its opposition, demanding in February 1924 that the paragraph remain unchanged. The Jesuits werenow,asinearlier times, conduct- ing religious propaganda “for altogetherthe most aggressive Catholicism we know of.”¹³⁵ The case was not aquestion of religious freedom. An Evangelical Lutheran populace had the right to defend itself against the “religious battle propaganda” spread on the basisofa“Jesuit view of morality with ends and means in mind.” In the aftermath of van Rossum’svisit and travelogue, the journal warned particularlyagainst “abstract-idealist liberalism” opening the doors to “the most cunningand persistent Catholicreapers of souls – an institution that ‘incidentallylacks the word “freedom” in its lexicon’,toquote [religious historian Edvard] Lehmann.”¹³⁶ The professorial oppositiontothe Jesuits was supplemented by that of the clergy.The liberal Bishop of Nidaros, Jens Gran Gleditsch (1860 –1931), one of the bishops recentlyappointed since the episcopatehad issued its statements in 1921,supported the principle of the statal non-intervention in ecclesiastical matters.Hedid, however,point out that a “national-liberal” understanding of

 Lutherskkirketidende,no. 4(21 February 1925): 85.  Lutherskkirketidende,no. 7(4April 1925): 152. This was an editorial response to Professor Olaf Kolsrud’scontribution against the journal’sfirst editorial article on the Jesuit ban.  Aftenposten,2April and 4April 1925.  Norskkirkeblad,no. 4(22 February 1924): 85.  Norskkirkeblad,no. 4(22 February 1924): 86.EdvardLehmann (1862–1930) was aDanish historian of religion working at universities in Copenhagen, Berlin and Lund.On Lehmann, see Sven S. Hartman. “JEdvardLehmann,” in Svenskt biografiskt lexsikon,vol. 22 (1977–1979), 444.(https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/artikel/11137,accessed7May2017). 248 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger1814 – 1961 the rule of lawcould no longer be takenfor granted. He made mention of loom- ing revolutionary ideas about the radical transformation of the justicesystem in both fascist and communist moulds, and that in such acontext it was perhaps most appropriate not to repeal the Jesuit ban.¹³⁷ Thus, fear of revolution and the room for manoeuvrethat the Jesuits might then acquireprovided abasis for up- holding the ban. Earlyin1925, the Association of Priests of the Norwegian Church alsotook a clear stand on the ban. In apetition to the Storting, it argued that the Roman Catholic Church was planning amissioning campaign towards the Nordic countries and that the Jesuits had taken aposition of leadership here.¹³⁸ Because the Jesuit order was aggressivelydisposed towards Protestantism, the Association of Priests did not believethat it would be an infringement of religious freedom to shut them out.The petition was signed by Professor Olaf Moe at the Free Faculty of Theology and Bishop Johan Lunde (1866–1938), among others, but adriving forceseems to have been the association’sleader,pastor Johan Fredrik Gjesdahl. As previouslydescribed, as aparliamentary representative,hewas also instrumental in raising the issue of countermeasures to the Mormons in the Storting in 1912.Hewas active in debates throughout the spring of 1925 and referred to Catholicism as a “clenched fist against Protestantism.” He further pointed out that as long as the Jesuits weretasked with waginganuncompromising war of aggression against Protestant societies, they were, to his mind, undesirable in the country.¹³⁹ When the Constitutional Committeerecommended the rejection of the proposal to amend the Constitution at the end of February 1925,Jesuitattributes werenot up for discussion. On the contrary,the committee based its opinion on the absenceofapressingneed to repeal the ban, as well as the stark reluc- tance from ecclesiastical quarters. Herethey referred specificallytothe petition from the Association of Priests, as well as the pronounced standpoints of Lu- thersk kirketidende and Norsk kirkeblad.¹⁴⁰

 Tidens Tegn,27April 1925.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 6a. Innst.S.nr. 25.Indstillingfra utenriks-ogkonstitutionsko- miteen angaaende St.prp. no. 123. Skrivelse til Utenriks- og konstitusjonskomiteen (1925). [Re- cords of the Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament (Storting). Recommendation No. 25 from the standingConstitutional and Foreign Affairs Committee regarding proposition 123/ 1923 on amendments to article 2inthe Constitution (1925)].  Aftenposten,1April 1925.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 6a. Innst.S.nr. 25.Indstillingfra utenriks-ogkonstitutionsko- miteen angaaende St.prp. no. 123. Skrivelse til Utenriks- og konstitusjonskomiteen (1925). [Re- cords of the Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament (Storting). Recommendation No. 25 Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 249

With certain exceptions,aclerical-theological establishment thus took a clear point of view on the Jesuit issue in the period before and after the Constitu- tional Committee’srecommendation was madepublic. It is likelythis was decisive for the outcome of the matter at the Stortingthat summer.There was great public engagementinthe run-up to the Stortingdebate,and the writer and speaker Marta Steinsvik (1877–1950) in particular helped to raise the heat with apopulist blend of powerful anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism.¹⁴¹ But she arrivedonthe scene when the debate was alreadymarked by intense anti- Catholicism, fuellednot least by clerical-theological sources.¹⁴² As the recommendation was being discussed at the Storting, the bishops’ reasons for supporting the ban were also conveyed.¹⁴³ Three of them had been appointed in 1921.Bishop of Hamar Mikkel Bjønnes-Jacobsen (1863–1941) noted that the Jesuits werenot onlyareligious order,but “to amarked extent an action group” that aimedtolead the country’sProtestant citizenstowards Ca- tholicism. Bishop Jacob Christian Petersen (1870 – 1964), in the newlyestablished diocese of Stavanger, backed the priests association’spetition, stating that the Jesuits’ methodsinthis religious rivalry wereboth un-Christian and immoral. He also referred to Norwegian missionaries’ experienceswith Jesuits in Madagas- car,and the Jesuits’ willingness there to undermine civilian laws as they sawfit. The Bishop of Trondheim, Jens Gran Gleditsch, concurred with the fear that Jes- uits “oftenexploited their status with sovereigns for violence and oppression.” He pointed again to the danger the Jesuits represented to the civilian rule of law. They upheld adifferent interpretation of the lawand he feared that the Jes- uit order would poseagreat peril if Norway’slaw-abidingsociety ever found itself in crisis as aresultof“economic impotence,war or revolution.” He was re- ferring here to the experiences of Latvia after World WarIand intimated that there could be property claims on Nidaros Cathedral from the Catholics, some-

from the standingConstitutional and Foreign Affairs Committee regarding proposition 123/1923 on amendments to article 2inthe Constitution (1925)].  See for example Øyvind Strømmen, Marta Steinsvik og anti-katolisismen (MA thesis,Univer- sity of Bergen, 2015).  Steinsvik held manylectures during the winter and springof1925, primarilyonthe “Jewish issue” and openingupfor female priests.Itwas onlyinaninterview in Aftenposten, 6May 1925, that Jesuits were included in her catalogue of accusations.Itwas reported in the interview that Steinsvik also addressed the Jesuit question in her lectures, but the announcements for these suggest that it must have been thematicallyinferior.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7b. Stortingstidende (1925), 2775 ff. [Records of the Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament (Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1925)]. The administrator of the case in the Constitutional Committee,Ove Andersen from Høyre, had gatherednew statements from the Bishops on his own initiative,and readout excerpts fromthese in the Storting. 250 6Amoral threattosociety? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 thing the conservative administrator of the proposition, OveAndersen (1878 – 1928), also raised in aconcluding address to the debate.¹⁴⁴ Nidaros Cathedral, Norway’smain church and the seat of the archbishop during the Catholic era, was undergoingrestoration at this time, awork thatwas set to be completed for the major 900th anniversary of the Battle of Stiklestad in 1930.The cathedral was of great national symbolic importance, and its restoration alsomarked the restoration of Norwegian nationalglory as well as the continuation of the golden eraofthe High Middle Ages.¹⁴⁵ BishopofAgder Bernt Støylen (1858–1937) had changed his opinion since 1921.Due to the Catholic Church’songoing missioning,the situation had now been “completelyaltered,” especiallysince he believed the Jesuits would play avital role in the Catholicoffensive. They oughtnot to be admitted to the country preciselybecause the Jesuits themselvesdid not support religious freedom. In the Stortingdebate, manyofthe traditional representations of Jesuits wereagain broughtupand activated. Brandrud’s1895 book about Kloster- Lasse became aprimary source. The same was true of depictions of the conflict between Norwegian missionaries and Jesuits in Madagascar.Itattracted considerable attention in Norwayinthe 1890s, and to many became – both then and later – proof that,with violence and cunning,Jesuits practised immoral principles in which the end justified the means.¹⁴⁶ Keyobjections in the debate wereclaims thatthe Jesuits werenot areligious organisation, but apolitical movement thatusedreligion for political purposes: They posed adangertodemocratic representative government; they wereanac- tion group;they were going to unleash astream of agents in order to wageare- ligious conflict by dishonest means; their founding principle was the maxim “the end justifies the means”;they might act with violence and forceinNorway; and,

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7b. Stortingstidende (1925), 2792.[Records of the Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1925)]. Andersentold the Stortingthat he had acopyofthe concordat between Latvia and the Holy See, “by which concordat the republic has undertaken to assign to the Holy See acathedral and the land belonging to it.Itshows how states mayhavetofind themselvesincircumstances, which the Holy See at times arranges, in which it is not easy for states to oppose the claims of the Holy See.”  Angell, Fråsplid til nasjonalintegrasjon,93ff.  Forsvarsord mod missionsprest, sekretær L. Dahles angrebi“Norsk missionstidende” og i “Vestlandsposten” (Kristiania: St.Olafs trykkeri, 1899); Christian Borchgrevink, Erindringer fra de første femtiaar af Det norskemissionsselskabsarbeide paa Madagaskar (Stavanger: Det norske missionsselskab, 1917). Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 251 in addition,Catholicism and communism represented the same philosophyand employed the samemethods.¹⁴⁷ When the time came to vote, the proposal to repeal the Jesuit ban was rejected by an overwhelmingmajority(99 votes to 33). Since the Jesuits wereshut out of the country,Norwegian experience – with the exception of how the events in Madagascar in the late 1800s wereinterpreted – cannot explain the intense resistance. On the contrary,ithas to be understood in light of international political circumstances as well as importednotionsand experiences, backed by are- servoir of historicalrepresentations that had been activated repeatedlyoverthe centuries and also formed the basis for the inscribing of the Jesuit ban into the Constitution in 1814. The distribution of votes between political parties corrobo- rates this.Onlythe moderate workers’ partiesbacked the proposal. The Commu- nists and all parties to the right of the Labour Party votedagainst,with afew individual exceptions.¹⁴⁸ In the 1920sthere was acommon Swedish-Norwegian understanding of Ca- tholicismand the perils of Jesuitism. Such notions circulated quite freelyacross borders and wereparticularlywidespread in clericalcircles. KeySwedish theologians served as important links between Scandinavian clergy and anti-Catholic currents within NorthernEuropean Protestantism. Although Cardinal van Rossum was refused permission to lead worship at St.Canute’sshrine at Odense Cathedral, Denmark seems to have borne fewer traces of anti-Catholicism during this period. At anyrate, anti-Catholic statements werenot expressed in public contexts in the same wayasinits Scandina- vian neighbours. Neither did it become problematic even when, for ashort period in the autumn of 1909,the country had aCatholic prime minister.InDenmark the free exercise of all religions had been constitutionallywarranted since 1849, even for the Jesuit order,which established itself in the 1870s. In the 1920sthe Danishclergy gave no indication that this had caused them anymisfortune, and Bishop Valdemar Ammundsen (1875 – 1936) was not of the opinion that there was anyDanish desire to impose special restrictions on Jesuits.¹⁴⁹ This

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7b. Stortingstidende (1925). [Recordsofthe Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1925)]. Statements sought from representativesHans Seip (p.2783), Rasmus Olsen Tveterås (p.2789), N.J. Finne (p.2790), Ketil Skogen (p.2791), SverreKrogh (p.2791), Carl Joachim Hambro(p. 2793).  Sverdrup-Thygeson, Grunnlovens forbud, 83.  Oluf Kolsrud in Aftenposten,9May1925: “In Denmark – states Bishop Ammundsen in a lettertothe author of this article – hardly anyone desires exceptional provisions against the Jes- uits. This is partlybecause it goes against the Principle of Freedom of Religion, and partlywe have not suffered anydisadvantagefrom them. They have aChurch in Copenhagenand one 252 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 did not,however,prevent the term “Jesuitism” from being actively put to use in Denmark to mark out opponents on the other side of the divide, thus demon- strating that stereotypical representations of Jesuits werestill vivid in the 1920s.¹⁵⁰ The powerful Swedish-Norwegian anti-Jesuitism of the 1920s, like the anti- Mormonism in the sametwo countries in preceding years, must be understood as an expression of the Lutheran Church’ssense of being under threat.The de- mise of the state churches’ monopolyonconfession in the 19th century had created areligious marketplace. ForChristians in Norway, this happened in the 1840s, as we have seen. Sweden repealed its Conventicle Actin1858. Although it was onlythe Religious Freedom Actin1951thatmade it permissible for Swedes to become non-Christians – i.e. to leave the SwedishChurch without en- rollinginany other Christian denomination – subsequent to the Dissenter Actof 1860 they werepermitted to changetheir religious affiliation.¹⁵¹ Themarket was thus not entirelyopen, but freeenough to offer genuine alternativestothe state church. To Protestants,the Catholic Church emergedasanoffensive entrant into this market,especiallyafter World WarI.Allowing Jesuits to establish themselvesin this context was seen as giving the Roman Catholic Church adangerous and competition-distortingmissionary weapon. Protections for religious freedom wereweaker in Sweden and Norwaythan in Denmark, and the practice of intervention and regulation in the field of religious policy was more robust.This mayhavecontributed to amoreexplicit anti- Catholicism during this period, in the sameway thatitmore easilylegitimised demands for measures to be taken against Mormonmissionaries. Nevertheless, the Swedish-Norwegian opposition to Catholicism was largely legitimisedin rhetoric by wayofnon-religious arguments. The Jesuits wereportrayed as apolitical actiongroup with adishonest and un-Christian moral bearing that dis-

in Ordrup;they have had to abandon aGymnasium in Ordrupfor financial Reasons.There do not appear to be essentialdifferences between them and other Catholic Priests;perhaps only that they are on Averagealittle morecompetent.” Kolsrud also referred to Kristeligt Dagblad in Copenhagen, which also believed that “no Disadvantagehad been remarked” with the pres- enceofthe Jesuits in Denmark, and which recommended the defenders of the Norwegian state church to learn from this. This was aview that was supported by the Association of Danish Priests,according to Kolsrud.  AsearchofDanish newspapers returns manyexamplesofthe use of the term “Jesuitism” (“jesuitisme”)inthe Danish public sphere. Media collections of the Royal Danish Library. (http://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis).  Lars-Arne Norborg, Sverigeshistoria under 1800- och 1900-talen: Svensksamhällsutveckling 1809–1992 (Stockholm: Almqvist &Wiksell Förlag, 1993), 131. Scandinavian anti-Jesuitism in the 1920s 253 qualified them both as citizens and as residents. They wereuntrustworthy, cunning,secretive and mendacious – with aloyalty to asupranational hierarchical structure entirelydistinct from state control and influence, dubbed as “cadaver obedience.” Beyond Scandinavian borders, allegations of sexual immorality were raised in anumber of anti-Catholic writings.¹⁵² This was less explicitlyexpressed in Scandinavia, though domestic examples do exist.Allegations of this variety wereespeciallypromoted by the frequent debaterMarta Steinsvik in Norway.¹⁵³ Celibacy and the nature of monasticism wereunderstood to be in opposition to the Protestant family institution, and various stories of sexual abuse committed by Catholic monks and priests in celibacy wereone part of this narrative.These notions had much in common with the wayJews and especiallyMormons were represented – as sexuallyimmoralprey.Germanhistorian Kurt Widmer argues that portrayalsofJesuits and Mormonswerealmostidentical in Germanyin the second half of the 19th century.Among other things, he believes thatthe imageofcelibateJesuits who, drivenbysexual fantasies, exploited innocent women, differed little from the wayMormons wereportrayed as polygamous en- voys of white harems.¹⁵⁴ When “Jesuit morality” renderedJesuits as unfit citizens, it also contributed to ageneral disparagement of Catholics’ qualifications as citizens in Protestant states.Inaddition, the morals and loyalties of Catholics outside the orders were associated with “Jesuitism,” and thus rendered suspect. The deliberate use of national symbolism by the Catholic Church in Norway to propagateimages of its members’ belongingand loyalty to the nation failed to prevent avigorous religious nationalism, blended with afear of political revolution, from distancing and brandingJesuits and Catholics as unpatriotic.¹⁵⁵

 See Jenkins, TheNew Anti-Catholicism,43ff.; Justin Nordstrøm, Danger on the Doorstep: Anti-Catholicism and American Print Cultureinthe Progressive Era (NotreDame: University of NotreDame Press, 2006); Rene Koller, AForeign and Wicked Institution?: TheCampaign against Convents in Victorian England (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,2011), especiallychapter2.  See Strømmen, Marta Steinsvik, 22ff. and 63 ff. for Steinsvik.  Widmer, Unter Zions Panier,272.  On the Norwegian Catholic Church’sactive use of national symbolism,see Slotsvik, “Altfor Norge.” 254 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961

“Jesuit fascism” in the post-war period

After the decision of the Stortingin1925, the Jesuit issue was kept simmering in Norwaythrough the libelcase that MartaSteinsvikbrought against the Catholic parish priest CoelestinRiesterer (1858–1938), and the lectures she otherwise held in public. He accused her of being a “factory of lies in the service of hell.” The trial was heard in 1928,the same year thatSteinsvik published Sankt PetersHimmelnøkler [St. Peter’sKeys to Heaven], acollection of robustly anti-Catholic texts. The book was publishedinseveral editions and receiveda positive reception in clerical-theological circles. However,the issue of exclusion was onlybroughtupagain after Norway’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950.Asmentioned, this led the Norwegian authorities to initiate the process of repealing the ban on Jesuits.Onthis occasion,too, the question had come up in the aftermath of a world war,which would similarlyinfluencethe debate and depiction of the Roman Catholic Church in general and the Jesuits in particular. In addition to the traditionalview that Jesuits had asociallyperilousmoral bent and the asso- ciationwith communism and fascismthat was also raised in the 1920s, Jesuitism was alsobracketed with Nazism.¹⁵⁶ The old notions of Jesuit moralityundoubtedlymade the greatestimpact. Jesuits and Jesuitism still triggered aversion in broad swathes of the populace and among key politico-religious actors, and the issue was whether or not the basis for this aversion ought to be tolerated. While in 1925 the outcome of this aversion was ashortfall of toleration for Jesuits,by1956 asufficient majority in the Stortingagreed to endurethem. Although representativesmight express disapproval with what they believed the Jesuits stood for,they could reason part- ly on the basis of the principle of religious freedom, or take apragmatic approach. The repeal of the ban was understood to be necessary in order to be able to pursue the Human Rights convention.Another pragmatic approach applied to Norwegianmissionary activities. Repealing the ban would bestow on it aclear moral authority – in Catholic-dominated colonial areas,for example. In 1951, amajority in the episcopatevoted in favour of repealing the ban. Onlythe Bishop of Bergen, Ragnvald Indrebø (1891–1984), argued against.He remarked that Jesuit moral principles provided “opportunities to employ ex- tremelydubiousmeasures for politico-religious causes,” with dangerous conse-

 In Sankt Peters Himmelnøkler (Oslo:Eugen Nielsen, 1928), Marta Steinsvik was preoccupied with establishingaconnection between Cathoicismingeneral and Italian fascism. “Jesuit fascism” in the post-warperiod 255 quences for privateand publiclife.¹⁵⁷ Among several bishops who supported the proposal, however,moral challenges were alsoaddressed, either by endowing Jesuits with an unfavourable morality,orbytaking for granted that possible harmful effects would be dealt with in other ways.¹⁵⁸ Twoofthe bishops – Arne Fjellbu (1890 –1962) of Trondheim and Kristian Schjelderup (1894–1980) of Hamar – endorsed the proposal without reservation. The Faculty of Theology considered that “as aprecaution against afeared political power,” the prohibition was now obsolete. OnlyProfessor Hans Ording (1884–1952) recorded ares- ervation thatRoman Catholic orders oughttobesubject to state control to ensure that their activities werenot in conflict with the laws of the land.¹⁵⁹ The professors at the conservative Free Faculty of Theologyweredivided on whether the Jesuits ought to be tolerated, but agreed that their morals werea menace to society.Both Olaf Moe and Andreas Seierstad (1890 –1975)agreed to the ban’srepeal, but remained of the opinion that on the basis of their moral principles, Jesuits represented aspecific threat.Ole Hallesby (1879 – 1961) and Ivar Seierstad (1901–1987), brother of Andreas Seierstad, argued against the notionthat the Jesuits had changed since the prohibition came into effect in the Constitution of 1814, and labelled Jesuit morality as socially de- structive.Here, Hallesby repeated viewpointsfrom apamphlet he had published in 1933 in the wake of the Steinsvik v. Riesterer case. He had assertedthat Cath- olics did not regard adeliberate falsehood to be alie “as long as one is careful at the moment of saying it to believesomething other than what is being said, something true, of course.”¹⁶⁰ Hallesby,who had aprominent public position as apreacher and advocator of conservativetheology, claimedthatCatholic moral theologians did not perceive the swearing of false oathsasbeing tanta- mounttoperjury.He, along with Ivar Seierstad, believed this still to be the case. Hallesby followed this up with an opinion piece in Aftenposten in which he endorsedthe policy of the constitutional founding fathers: “Our fathersun- derstood thatthe Jesuit moral doctrinewas amortal danger to the state.”¹⁶¹

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 2a. St.prp. nr.202 (1952), 7. [Recordsofthe Proceedingsofthe Norwegian Parliament (Storting). Part 2a. Proposition to the StortingNo. 202onConstitutional Amendments (1952)].  This applied to Bishop Dietrichson of Oslo, Bishop Skard of Tønsberg, Bishop Smemo of Agder,Bishop Marthinussen of Stavanger(whobelieved that “we [must] daretotake the risk of freedom, even in this case”)and Bishop Krohn Hansen of Hålogaland.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 2a. St.prp. nr.202 (1952),8.[Recordsofthe Proceedingsofthe Norwegian Parliament (Storting). Part 2a. Proposition to the Stortingno. 202onConstitutional Amendments (1952)].  Ole Hallesby, Katolikkene og eden (Oslo:Lutherstiftelsens forlag, 1933), 11.  Aftenposten,8March1951. 256 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961

OlavValen-Sendstad (1904–1963) was the resident chaplain in Stavanger and held adoctorate in theology. In addition he was ahugelyproductive author and social debater who held great swayoverChristian laypeople. In the early 1950s,together with Fridtjov Birkeli (1906–1983), he was aprominent aid in as- sociating Jesuitism with fascism and Nazism. Birkeli was born to missionary pa- rents in Madagascar,wherehelater became amissionary priest.After returning to Norwayin1948 he became editor of Norsk misjonstidende [Norwegian Mission Times] and contributed to writing the history of the Norwegian Missionary Soci- ety in Madagascar.In1960 he was appointed bishop in the NorwegianChurch, becomingits primate in 1968. In an op-edinthe Christian newspaper Vårt Land in March 1951, he left nothing to the imagination: “The Jesuits are the papacy’s SS and,just like the stormtroopers, have made an impressive contribution from an ultra-Catholicpoint of view.”¹⁶² They represented amoral theologythat had borne the most terrible fruits and reaped great political consequences. This was such an ill-fated doctrinethat it legitimatelyafforded apeople with ademocratic system of government the right to “defend themselvesfor the benefitoftrue freedom and genuine democracy.” Norwayhad no reason to permit such “dictatorial tendencies.” Naturally, Birkeli’sbackground from Madagascar must have played asignificant role in these views, and in his piece, he also referred to his experiences from the island of his birth. He published his doctoral dissertation in the- ologythe following year.Itdealt with the relationship between missioning and politics in Madagascar when the Norwegianmission was established there in the years after 1860.Here, too, he based his analyses on traditionalunderstandings of the Jesuits’ moralityand role as apolitico-religious actiongroup.¹⁶³ However,itwas Valen-Sendstad who coupled Jesuits and Catholicism most vigorouslytototalitarian ideologies. The Norwegian BroadcastingCorporation’s radio programme “Frimodig ytring” [“Bold Expression”]addressed the Jesuit issue in the spring of 1951. Here, both aCatholicfather and Valen-Sendstad wereeach giventhe chance to holdtheir own presentations.The lecture was printed as an opinion piece in Vårt Land aday later. The real essence of the Jesuit question, he explained,was the order’sposition as a “malicious politico-religious action group” in the serviceofapolitico-religious power with “supreme sovereignty” over all peoples – namely the Roman papacy.¹⁶⁴

 Vårt Land,15March 1951.  Fritjof Birkeli, Politikk og misjon: De politiske og institusjonelle forhold på Madagaskar og deres betydning for den norske misjons grunnlegging 1861–1875). Dissertation published by the Egede Institute(Oslo:Gimnes forlag, 1952),435ff.  Vårt Land,12April 1951. “Jesuit fascism” in the post-war period 257

“Onlytwo similar phenomena are known in recent times,” he continued, “the Germans’ ideological-political SS and the Gestapo, and the Russian ideological-political commissars and the GPU.” The GPU was the forerunner of the KGB, the Soviet intelligence service. Jesuit-Catholic politics was in close cooperation with feudalist and fascist circles and rulers, and in his own eraValen-Sendstad referred to contemporary Spain as “aJesuit-fascist dictatorship.” As for Nazi Ger- manyand communist Soviet Union, the goal of the Catholic Church wasworld domination, and here the Jesuit order was living proof “that the pope represents aglobal spiritual-political dictatorship.” Valen-Sendstad wrotemanyarticles on this in the Christian newspaper Dagen in which the RomanCatholic Church was referred to as astate within the state that primarilyoperatedpolitically in collaboration with fascistand to- talitarianideologies.¹⁶⁵ Earlyin1954,Valen-Sendstad showed astrong commitment to the ban. Just before Christmas1953hesent an open letter to the Storting, which he alsogot published.Itbore the subtitle “Will the StortingGiveJesuit Fascism its Moral Approval?”¹⁶⁶ In January the letter was printed as aseries of articles in Vårt Land.¹⁶⁷ In it he reiterated his allegations about Jesuitism’s links to fascism: “The political state model of Jesuit fascism was the dictatorial (authoritarian) corporate state under the papacy’ssupervision (censorship, pedagogy) and control.” Jesuitfascism’stacticswere “accommodation” (adapta- tion to local circumstances) and operations disguised to the greatest degree possible by using front organisations of different types, from pure terrorist groups to an array of orders.Furthermore, Jesuit fascism deliberatelyappealedtonation- alism and mobilised antisemitism.Analleged collaboration between the papal church and Hitler’sGermany was accentuated and the crimes of Nazism wereex- plained by contentions that its prominent participants – Hitler,Goebbels, Himm- ler,Bormann, and others – were Catholics. The involvement of Valen-Sendstad had its intended effect.The Christian voluntary organisations gathered for their annual meetinginGeilo soon after and approved apetition that the ban should be upheld.¹⁶⁸ In an editorial leader, Dagen lent its support to the same. “The historical record” had proven it necessary,they explained: “The three-hundred-year-old ban on Jesuits is quite simply

 OlavValen-Sendstad, Moskva og Rom: Fjorten epistleromverdenspolitikken og det 20.år- hundres motrevolusjon (Bergen: Lunde forlag, 1952).  OlavValen-Sendstad, Åpent brev til Norges Storting 1954: Vil Stortinget gi jesuitt-fascismen sin moralske anerkjennelse? (Bergen: Lunde forlag, 1954).  Vårt Land,12January,13January,and 14 January 1954.  The petition was dated15January 1954 and sent to the Stortingand published in several newspapers. 258 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961 our first emergency law, amoral and political safeguard against apowerful international organisation.”¹⁶⁹ The Jesuits committed themselvestounconditional obedience to the pope with the purpose of establishing a “state within the state.” When the consciences of the citizens werebound by aduty to obedience in this way, they could come into conflict with the social order and the rule of law. This would interferewith the welfareofthe state. “We do not equate Jesuits with fifth- columnists,” concluded the leader, “but our laws and our history have drawn parallels that we cannot afford to ignore.” As the Stortingundertook the debate in November 1956,analleged link between Jesuitism and totalitarian ideologies wasakey elementofCarl Joachim Hambro’sopposition to repealingthe paragraph. As aformer chairman and parliamentary leader of Høyrewith atotal of 37 years as parliamentary representative,hewas apolitical heavyweight.For his role as parliamentary president prior to and in exile duringthe Germanoccupation, he also possessed considerable symbolic capital and moral authority.When the proposal was up for debate in 1925 and in 1956,Hambro had had aseat on the standingCommittee for Foreign Affairs and the Constitution, the first committee to consider the proposal on both occasions.Hewas one of the majorityrejectingthe proposal in 1925.Back then, he explainedthat he personallyfound the ban outdated, but grounded his position in an understanding that there was no popular support for the proposed amendment.InOctober 1956 he was one of the minority to reject the proposal on the grounds of Jesuitmorality. Hambro and the committee minority did not address the link to totalitarian ideologies directlyintheir minority statement, but did indicate thatthe order had amilitaristic structure with a “totalitarian hi- erarchyand is led by ageneral to whom unconditional obedience must be shown.”¹⁷⁰ This, accordingtothe minority,rendered them illegalonthe basis of Article 330ofthe PenalCode, which dealt with participants in associations that demanded unconditional obedience.¹⁷¹ In November1956,Hambro was far more explicit.His experience of war had contributed decisively to his rather sympathetic view of the Jesuits in 1925 being

 Dagen,23January 1954.  Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 6a. Innst.S.nr. 224(1956). [Records of the Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 6. Recommendation no. 224from the standingConstitu- tional and ForeignAffairs Committee regarding amendments to article 2inthe Constitution (1956)].  The Norwegian Penal Code of 1902, §330: “Founders or Participants in an Association that is prohibited by Laworwhose Purpose is the Perpetration or Encouragement of criminal Acts,or whose Members commit themselvestounconditional Obedience to anyone, arepunishable with Fines or Detention or Imprisonment of up to 3Months.” “Jesuit fascism” in the post-warperiod 259 supplantedbyaclearlynegative stance. He now regarded the wagingofspiritual battlesagainst dangerous ideologies as banal and hollow sloganeering.Thisalso applied to Jesuitism. “One has to keep in mind,” he continued

that neither Nazism in Germany, nor fascism in Italy, nor Rexism in Belgium, led by De- grelle, the favouritedisciple beloved by Catholics, nor Petain’smovement in France, nor Franco’smovement in Spain, none of these movements would have been possible without the support and active co-operation of the Jesuits.¹⁷²

Hambro believed that Hitler’s Mein Kampf showed how much he had learned from Jesuitism and how highlyhevalued its organisation and teachings.Hefur- ther explained thatthe close connection between Nazism and Jesuitism had been demonstrated by Bishop Alois Hudal (1885–1963), who had been headof the Austrian-German congregation of Santa Maria dell’Anima in Rome, which was labelled aGerman-Catholic propaganda institution by Hambro. Hambro made further reference to an opinionpiece in Morgenbladet by university fellow TorAukrust (1921–2007), who alleged aclose affinitybetween the structure of communism and the very structure that Jesuitism had provided to great swathes of the Catholic public. There were similarities between strict Catholicism and strict communism, first and foremost the same demand for obedience. Hambro did not make reference to Valen-Sendstad’swritingsasevidence of his claims, but rather to the LuxembourgCatholic Joseph Lortz (1887–1975), in addition to Hudal.¹⁷³ Lortz wasachurch historian and had been amember of the National Socialist party in Germany. In 1933 he published abook that pointed to the parallels between Catholicism and National Socialism.Still, it is naturaltoassume that Hambro was influenced by Valen-Sendstad’sdiscussion of Jesuits.

 Stortingsforhandlinger. Del 7b. Stortingstidende (1956), 2980.[Records of the Proceedings of the Norwegian Parliament(Storting). Part 7b. Parliamentary debate(1956)].  Aloysius Hudal, Die Grundlagen des Nationalsozialismus:Eine ideengeschichtliche Untersu- chung (Leipzig/Vienna, 1937).Inthe Storting, HambroreferredtoJohannes Lortz. He must have confused the name Joseph Lortz. Lortz published achurch history that was printedinseveral editions:Joseph Lortz, Geschichte der Kirche in ideengeschichtlicher Betrachtung: eine Sinndeu- tung der christlichen Vergangenheit in Grundzügen (Münster in Westfl: Aschendorff, 1933). Lortz was also amember of the National Socialist party,and published abook that pointed out the parallels between Catholicism and National Socialism in the same year (Joseph Lortz, Katholischer Zugang zumNationalsozialismus,kirchengeschichtlich gesehen (Münster: Aschen- dorff, 1933). In the series Reich und Kirche: eine Schriftenreihe (Münster: Aschendorff). My thanks to ChristhardHoffmann, whopointedout this case of mistaken identity.OnLortz and his comparison, see Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, “Der deutsche Katholizismus im Jahre 1933,” in Die Katholische Schuld?: Katholizismus im Dritten Reich – Zwischen Arrangement und Widerstand,ed. Rainer Bendel (Münster:Lit Verlag,2004), 208. 260 6Amoral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961

These descriptions of Jesuitism and Catholicism, as being oriented towards Nazism and as aprecondition for the success of fascistmovements, encountered resistanceinthe Stortingdebate and werenot encouraged by other proponents of the ban. The clearest voices for continued prohibition werethe two parliamentary representativeswho, alongside Hambro, constituted the minorityinthe committee proposal: Erling Wikborg (1894–1992) from the Christian Democratic Party and Elisæus Vatnaland (1892–1983) from the Farmers Party.Both primarily appealed to afear thatJesuit moralitycould harm the country,and found evidence of this in Brandrud’sbook from 1895,experiences in Madagascar,and Hal- lesby’sclaims of Catholics’ deliberate use of falsehood and perjury. The proposal to removethe Jesuit ban receivedaclear constitutional majority (111 votes against 31). The parliamentary group from the Christian Democratic Party wereunited against the proposal and receivedsupport from significant mi- norities in groups from the conservativeHøyreand the Farmers Party.¹⁷⁴ Al- though there weremanywho shared the minority view of Jesuitmoralityand openlyexpressed aversion to “Jesuitism,” it was no longer possible to mobilise adequate support for the preservation of the ban. With that, the last constitutional exclusion of areligious group in Norwaywas relinquished. In Sweden, afinal eruption of anti-Catholicism surfaced in the parliament in conjunction with debates over the lawpromotingreligious freedom in 1951, and discussions about whether Belgian Carmelitesisters should be allowed to establish acloister in Sweden in 1961.¹⁷⁵ When the general prohibition on cloisters was repealed in 1951and replaced with regulationsthrough which orders could apply for approval, parliamentarians voiced fears that these Catholic institutions would become instruments of Catholic propaganda. Catholicism was also associated with areactionary ideologyindefiance of the fundamental values of the Swedish democratic society,not least among social democrats. The same arguments were brought to the floor when the parliament discussed the Carmelite application in 1961. As the bicameral Swedish legislativeassemblycame to different conclusions, the application was rejected by the parliament.However,the Swedish government,with reference to Swedish commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights,granted the Carmelites permission to establish their cloister.Finally, in 1976,the requirement for Catholicorderstoapply for permission was repealed. The debate over cloisters in 1961represented afinal outburst of anti-Cathol- icism in the Swedishpublic sphere and within the country’spolitical institu-

 Sverdrup-Thygeson, Grunnlovens forbud, 126.  Werner, “‘Den katolske faran’,” 54f. “Jesuit fascism” in the post-war period 261 tions. With increasing secularisation in Swedish society and reforms within the Catholic Church during the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), fears of aCath- olic threat receded. Consequently, accordingtoYvonne Maria Werner, anti-Cath- olic discourse and imagery lost importance as acontrasting conception in adef- inition of Swedish national identity.¹⁷⁶ Catholicism and the Roman Church – and especiallyJesuitism – thus stand out as tenacious representations of apolitical and moral threat to the nation in Scandinavia. Such perceptions weremost persistent in Sweden and Norway. The idea of Catholics as legitimate citizens was avolatile subject, and suspicions towards their loyalties werewidespread. Catholicism, often labelled as “Popery,” was not onlyconstructed as areligious “Other,” but also as an “Other” that was alien and hostile to the nation. In the words of the Danishtheologyprofes- sor Henrik NicolayClausen in 1825,the RomanChurch was considered not only to represent astate within the state, but also to be astate against the nation state. That explains whyCatholicreligious freedom in these countries was restricted in terms of the prohibition of Jesuits (Norway) and cloisters (Sweden) until the second half of the 20th century.

 Werner, “‘Den katolske faran’,” 56.