CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 6, 7 February 1907, Page 11

CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

VITAL POINTS IN LATER HISTORY

(Continued from last week.)

The next difficulty between the Vatican and France was in connection with the visit of the President . of tluf Ffench.Republic to Victor Emmanuel" lll. at Rome. The Popes have always and energetically protested against the spoliation of "the Papal Slates and the occupation of Rome, Anally effected by Victor Emmanuel in 1870. They contend! that the Supreme Head of a -society .like ttte Catholic Church, -the intmbers of which belong to all nationalities, and are scattered throughout tiu world, should not be himself the subject or dependent of any particular nation, but should be free from the interference, or even suspicion of interference, of any individual power -in his communications with his people ; that f<3r the present, at any rate, no other means Jias been suggested of securing such . freedom, except the possession of ail independent territory ; and that, until a " suitable agreement "has been- arrived at, they cannot accept the present regime in Rome. Accordingly, the Holy See has . forbidden all CathoAc Rulers to visit the King of Italy all Rome ; and despite many temptations and difficulties, the Catholic Rulers have loyally observed the Papal .prohibition. Mo wonder, then, that Leo XIII. expressed his sorrow, when he learned that the Catholic President of the nation which had so long and so generously defended the "territories of the Pope, had made up his n.»ind to come to' Rome as the guest of Victor Emmanuel 111. It was in July, 1902, that the reports of the interchange of visits between the PrpsMent/ of France and the King of Italy first began to circulate. The Nuncio immediately called the attention of M. Delcasse to the seriousness of these rumors, but was assured by the Minister for Foreign affairs that they had no foundation. Still, the official '■journals Qf both kingdoms continued to give publicity to these statements, and even the dates on' which the visits should take place were published; Hence the Secretary of State felt bound (June, 1903) (lj » to .address a note to. the Ambassador of France^ setting forth that the Holy -Father would consider the visit of the President to Rome as an offence to the Holy See as well as a personal insult to himsjelf ; while at the same time he sent a despatch to the Nuncio at Rome to be read to M. Delcasse, declaring the reasons why the visit of a head of a Catholic State to Rome, during the present lamentable situation,, could Dot be otherwise than a grave offence to the Holy See, whatever might be the personal intentions of the visitor.

In spite of the warnings of the Holy Father, in spite of the examples of the aged Emperor of Austria (2) and of the. King of Portugal, (3) both bound by close relations to the King of . Italy, in spite of the special affection shown by Leo Xlll.. for France and the traditional position of France as the protector of the Holy See, the President arrived in Rome as the guest of Victor Emmanuel, in April, 1904. NotlAng remained for the Pope but to' issue a formal protest, which was presented to the French Ambassador four days after M. Loubet's entrance into. Rome; (4) and to. secure that the attitude of the Vatican might not be misinterpreted by the world, an official communication announcing the despatch' of the protest was inserted in ' L'Osservatore Romano.' (5) The Council of. Ministers met in Paris to discuss the Papal protest, and a note was sent to the Secretary of State (6) in which it was declared that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, having already explained, before .Parliament the character and the object of the "Presidential visit,- the Government moist reject the considerations set ' forth in the Papal protest as well as the form in which' they were presented. With this answer the whole incident seemed closed.

But, in a few days, a copy of the protest in the form in which it ha>d • been sent at . the same time to all* the Catholic powers, was published in a Paris journal. In this form of the protest a sentence was inserted which had not -been inserted in the protest sent to France. The passage so inserted was "to the effect that Jif in spite of that (the Presidential visit) the Nuncio had not been, recalled from Paris, it was only on account of very serious motives which were entirely special.' (7) In other words, it /was intimated to the

(1) Document, XXIV. , (2 ) The Emperor of Austria- ia bound to Italy by alliance, and besides was visited in Vienna by .the Kinjr of Italy. (3; His wife ia a Princess of the House of Savoy. (4; Doo. XXVI. (5) 4th May, 1904. (6) 6th May : Doc. XXVII. . -- , — - (7; Simalere cela, le. Nonce n'a pas quitte Paris, o'est uniquement & cause de motifs tres graves d'ordre et de nature tout a fait speciaux.

powers,- that in case M. Loubet's example were followed, the Holy fciee might iind itself obliged to'recall its Nuncio ; and although this had not been done in the case of France, U was not because the offence did not justify such action, but wily because his -presence: was required by delicate relations existing between Paris and the Vatican. No insult. to the Republic, could have been, intended by such a phrase ; on the "contrary, 4 it clearly implied the Pope's special interest in" the settlement of its politico-religious disputes, v The Council of Ministers met immediately, and IWL Nisard was instructed to demand from the Secretary of State, (8), if the note published in the Paris journal was authentic, if the same note had been sent to : the other Powers, and if the. phrase regarding the' Nuncio at Pans was embodied in ail the other communications. Ihe Cardinal Secretary requested Mr. Nisard to furnish his (demands in writing, and. promised to- give him a written reply in an hour, or even a half-hour, if necessary. Ihis request was quite, natural in the circumstances.. It prevented the -.possibility of misunderstanding which might easily, have arisen, especially as M Nisard, the French Ambassador, was, unfortunately!' partially deaf. The Ambassador expressed ■ himseit satisfied, . and retired ,to prepare his : written questions, but hours passed and he did not return. Ihe Cardinal Secretary sent a messenger to inform M. Nisard- that he was ready to receive him, but it was the : next day before the Ambassador presented himself, and tlAs time with the information that he had been recalled on leave, and that a Charge d' Affaires would arrive the next day to take his place: He added that his recall did not mean a rupture, or interrupt tion, or_ suspension of diplomatic relations between France and the Vatican, though that seems to have been the . interpretation put upon it seven days later in a debate in the French Chamber.' .. . After the, recall of the French -theY Government soon took- o.casion to break icdim>le.tciy-~ ; with ■ the Holy See. The oause of 'the -final rupture^, to their disgrace be it- said, was the conduct of the tw o Bishops, Mgr. Geay, Bishop of Laval, and Mgr. Nor-dei Bishop of • Dijon. Almost from the very beginning of lAs episcopate, very serious charges were laid before- 1 - the* Holy See against Mgr. Geay. They, were entirely of' an ecclesiastical character, amd had nothing whatever to do with the political or religious questions, then so^ warmly .discussed in France. An inquiry was deemed, necessary,' and the result was that in JanuarFi^iSOfli (») • Mgr. Geay was advised to resign his episcopal^ charge. Had he done so, he could easily have saved the Holy .See from the disagreeable necessity-of instituting a formal Canonical trial, which was sure to lead to his -deposition ; while, on the other hand, he could safeguard his own good name, as few, if any, would have ■ been aware of Jiis forced retirement. - Unfortunately, after having at first accepted the decision of the Holy . Office he changed his mind, and made it a condition _of his resignation that he should be provided with some other diocese in France, were it only the most unimportant. In view of the serious charges made against him, tlAs condition - could not be accepted, amT for full four years the Holy See allowed the matter to rest, hoping that things might improve in Laval or that in the end the Bishop might- see his way to resign. But . these hopes were doomed to disappointment. The charges multiplied, and in the^. Spring of J904, they were of. such a serious character that further delay was impossible, and in May (1904) (10) the Holy Office once more requested the Bishop to resign, adding, 4hat if he did not do so within one month it would become necessary, to proceed further. (11) The Bishop communicated this letter to the French Government, which immediately demanded (12) that T the Holy See should recall it, believing apparently that the Pope meant to depose the Bishop in case he should not voluntarily resign ; and, of course, for the deposition of a Bishop,, just as for his consecration, the agreement of both Pope and President was required. The Secretary of State replied (13) that the expression progredi ad ulteriora tiid not mean immediate deposition, but = signified rather that in case he still clung- to office, he should be summoned to Rome for a regular canonical trial. If he succeeded in "establislAng' his innocence, then all would be well ; if, unfortunately, his "fiuilt was apparent, then :the case would be more serious but still care would be taken that the Concordat

08) 20th May. 1904. • (9) 21st January, 1900. - ' ~. • (10) Despatch, of Card. S«oretary. 17th May, 1904. (H> "Ne omnio facias ut S. Congregotio ad progredienduw ad ulteriora ' (12) 3rd June, 1904. ' (13) 10th June, 1904,

should be, fully observed. He added, that unless the French" Government wished to contend that the French Bishops were mere State officials, entirely withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Pope— a- contention that could never be admitted— he did not understand how any offence could be takea ab the.Pope,'s advising..resignation or calling Bishops to Rome to answer! for serious ecclesiastical crimes. This explanation appeared to satisfy M. Delcasse, the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

(To be concluded next week.)