CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 4, 24 January 1907, Page 10

CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

VITAL POINTS IN LATER HISTORY

The dream of the politicians who have guided, the destinies of France for well nigh thirty years has(says a writer in the" ' Irish Theological Quarterly ') been at "length realized. Diplomatic relations with ! tihe Vatican have been broken, and the President of _the Third Republic has appended his signature to the Bill of Separation. Immediate separatism was too ,. dangerous on account of the -power of the Church ; .and hence the leading- politicians of France have devoted' themselves to the work of preparing the country ■ for such momentous changes. (2) All the machinery of .a. powerful government was set to work to restrict the liberties of the Church, and to confine her field of influence. Laws against the Religious Associations 'and against the. Catholic Schools were cleverly devised, and rigorously executed ; all opposition to "such measures was held up as opposition and disloyalty to republican pj^uciples ; t'hc Cle'gy, the Bishop, even the Pope himself, were declared to- be the allies and I supporters .of the sworn enemies of - the State, " enemies who, unless they were speedily "overpowered, would themselves soon overpower the Republics of France. In this way men's minds were embittered against the Church, and many, by no means hostile to the Catholic religion, -began to believe that in the policy of Separation lay the hope of internal peace and stability for the State.

Since 1899, when M. Waldeck Rousseau introduced his Bill on the Religious 'Associations, but more especially since the advent of M. Combes (June, 1902),the policy -of the Church and the Holy See has been, the subject of- constant misrepresentation. M. W, Rousseau has indeed .preserved, even in the - turmoil of political- life, soniething of the old-time French politeness, and always sooke as a man who felt the responsibilities of office ; but his* successor, casting away moderation and courtesy in . his dealings with the ""Vatican, because he feared no mobilisation of VatScau troops", was, from the fir-st day, as rudely and irreconcilably offensive in his private 'communications, as in his harangues at the tribune, or through . the country. He had resolved upon a quarrel, and he wished to force -Rome to. take the initiative, but his hones in this respect were doomed to disappointment.' His. overbearing, and, not seldom, menacing demands were answered with studied courtesy and politeness ; - his public ultimatums, given oftentimes at the very rrisis of some delicatp negotiation, and has m-istate-monts were either - entirely .unnoticed, or answered b"y a bare official denial in ' L'Osservatore Romano.' It was only when the heat of the r contest had passed, and vh-n the Separation Law had been, decreed, that P-onif* resolved tn publish the documents and submit Ih^ blame fnr the runture between France and the Vatican to the judgment of history. ;We think that ff P M» {M-pn Frenchmen, who read this, volume, and con- ' trj"*+ the dignified- attitude" of the Vatican -with- the lv'Mvine, offensive ton^ of M. Combes, will. -not report that thp reculafion of 'auestions so momentous should iiq. v^ fallen to such an unsuitable minister as the then Prcpklent of the Council. % - -

(1} La Sebttration de L'Eglise el de V Etat_eit. France.- Borne: Typoifraphie Vaticnfe. 1905. - _ ' (21 Vide Report, of M. Paul Bert formulated in 18S3:— 'Les mouvpinnnt.s nntmelsdo* civilisations moderns?, Dotwent l<»8 Hoci**es 4 la separation. Mnißi^» conditions actuelles dnnß lesauellea -VE?HRe vit et se ment r'otjt>»»Rpnt aln re%li e ation de cc ttrincipe logicme. L'Etrlise eat encore tres fort", <>lle so rnleverait de oe coup. . . . Qn«* fair dorm. . '. . Commenconn par chnnjrer ces conditions, pnur preparer Io triomphe futur de I'id6e que nous oorabattons aujourd'hui.'

Now, is it true that the policy of the Vatican has been steadily, hostile to the Third* Republic ? Is it v I/Cue) that Leo Xi.ll. and. his Cardinal Secretary. 'of State were in constant alliance with the' home and foreign enemies of the present regime of France . A glance atr the letters of .the late Pope' should supply the "answer. From the very day on which he received the congratulations of the French. -Ambassador _ on his elect/ion to the Papacy, to .the day -"when, amidst the diplomatic arrangements for the reception of the Catholic President of Catholic France by -the despoiler of the Vatican, he breathed' his last, the political policy of the Vatican oiu the Continent was largely guided by the interests and requirements of the French Republic. Throughout his reign, as Pope, he set himself to reconcile the French Catholics, lay and clerical, to the new regime, and to separate the ' Church from any entanglements with the Royalist or Imperial, parties. (1). In spite of rebuffs and disappointments that would have broken the resolution of any ordinary man, Leo continued his work of conciliation, . till at last, "having gradually prepared the way, (2), on 16th February, 1893, he issued his famous Encyclical to the Bishops, Clergy, and Catholics of France. In this document he pointed out that the Church is not identir fled with any particular form' of Government, Republican or Monarchical, but that she freely acknowledges the established constitution which has shown itself capable of restoring public order ; he called upon Cathoiics, whatever might be their private opinions, ' to rally round the Republic which was then, de facto,' the accepted Government of France, and by their acceptance and loyal support, to purify the legislature - from the evils of which they " themselves, and the Ohureh, bad good reason to complain. Whatever may be said about the wisdom of issuing such a document _ from the Vatican— and on this 'question ' .there are good grounds for difference of opinion — of one thing we can be certain, nannely, that the Papal pronouncement was of enormous advantage to the Republic, even the responsible ministers freely admitted.- (3)

Did the Republic receive these advances of the Pope in a spirit of friendly co-operation ? 'On the contrary, the anti-Catholic policy, sketched by M. Paul Bert, instead of being modified in' the slightest degree, was pushed forward with feverish" rapidity. The complete laicisalfion of the State Schools, the expulsion of the Religious Orders, the suppression of the voluntary schools built by the Catholics themselves, (4) the withdrawal of the traitements of the priests or bishops who raised their voices in protest, were the returns presented to Leo XIII. and his Cardinal Secretary of State by the nation which had been so highly favored. The Catholics, no doubt, protested against such measures, but could their protests in the case be construed as disloyalty to the State ? Is it not the inalienable right of free citizens to protest by constitutional methods against legislation hurtful to their interests? and if they exercise their rights can they be reasonably accused of disloyalty to the Government ? Why, then, should French Catholics be held up as enemies of republicanism because * they protested against unjust republican legislation ? or why should the Pope be regarded as the enemy of France because he found it necessary to condemn certain tendencies of some French politicians ?

(To be continued next week.) .

(1) Hence Leo XIII. could -well write to M. Greyy t President of France (1883) :— ' Oe sentiment de bienveillanoe empressee pour le peuple Francais a regie toujours l'attitude dv Saint Siege Apostolique ; et Vousmeme, Monsieur le President, dans votre impartiality et votre haute penetration, vous en aurez certainement retrouve les preuves indnbitables dans les egards pleins de delicatesse que le" Saint Siege a toujours eus pour le Gouvernement de votre patrie. <^ ' (2) By" inducing Cardinal Lavigerie to propose the famous toast of Algiers in 1890, by the letter of Cardinal Secretary of State (Nov., 1890; to Bishop St. Flour, and by inspiring the celebrated letter of the French Cardinals (Feb., 1893). (3) Vide Speeches of M, Jules Ferry before Senate, 1893 : M. Spuller. Minister of "Worship, before Chamber of Deputies (March, 1894) ; U. F. Faure, in his address to the Diplomatic Body (Feb.,-1896; ; M. Waldeck Rousseau, before the Chamber (Dec, 1901).

(4) In his speech at Auxerre (4th Sept., 1904 ), M. Combes boasted that he had already closed 13,904 out of 16,904 schools, and the very day on which he resigned be procured the suppression of 500 more. '