By Rev. James A. MacCaffrey.
Whether Tyrannicide is lawful or unlawful was a question on which different
views were held by theologians. The murder of the Duke of Orleans by orders of
the Duke of Burgundy (1407) helped to stir up the controversy. Amongst the
dependants of the Duke of Burgundy was a priest, John Parvus (Petit or Le
Petit), who accompanied the Duke to Paris, and in a public assembly defended the
Duke of Burgundy on the ground that it was lawful to murder a tyrant (1408).
Nine propositions selected from this speech were condemned by the Bishop of
Paris, by the Inquisition, and by the university (1414). The Duke of Burgundy
appealed to Pope John XXIII., while the representatives of France at the Council
of Constance were instructed to seek the opinion of the assembly. The discussion
of the subject was complicated by political issues. As the Council of Constance
was anxious to avoid all quarrels with the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy,
or the Emperor, it contented itself with issuing a very general condemnation of
Tyrannicide. Before the council closed, however, the question was raised once
more in connection with a book published by the Dominican, John of Falkenberg,
who was a strong partisan of the Teutonic Knights in their struggle against the
King of Poland, and who maintained that it was lawful to kill the King of
Poland. He undertook the defense of Petit's work, and wrote strongly against the
representatives of the University of Paris. The Poles demanded his condemnation,
but though he was arrested and detained in prison his book was not condemned by
the council. A Dominican chapter held in 1417 repudiated Falkenberg's teaching.
For a long time the subject was not discussed by Catholic theologians though Tyrannicide was defended by the leading Reformers, including Luther and Melanchthon, but during the religious wars in France and in Scotland it was advocated in theory by some of the French Calvinists such as Languet and Boucher as well as by the Scotch leader, John Knox, and put into practice by their followers against the Duke of Guise and Cardinal Beaton. The Jesuits in France were accused of sympathizing with this doctrine during the reign of Henry IV., but there was not sufficient evidence to support such a charge. Some of their theologians may have defended the legality of rebellion in certain circumstances, but this was a doctrine in no way peculiar to the Jesuits. The only serious argument brought forward by the opponents of the Jesuits was drawn from a work published by a Spanish Jesuit, Mariana (1536-1624). It was written for the instruction of some of the princes of Spain, and was dedicated to Philip III. In many respects it was an exceedingly praiseworthy work, but the author's reference to the murder of Henry III. of France and his defense of Tyrannicide, hedged round though it was by many restrictions and reservations, gave great offence in France, and provided the enemies of the Society with a splendid weapon for a general attack upon the entire body. As a matter of fact Mariana's book did not represent the views of the Jesuits. In 1610 the general, Aquaviva, forbade any of his subjects to defend the teaching on Tyrannicide it contained.
This is taken from History of the Catholic Church.
Copyright © World Spirituality · All Rights Reserved