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 or- der’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 constitu- tional 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 pos- sible 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 under- standing 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 ex- cluded 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 grant- ed 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 as- sociated 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 mis- sionary 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