CHRIST-HUNTING IN FRANCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 12, 21 March 1907, Page 10

CHRIST-HUNTING IN FRANCE

A LAWYER ON THE SEPARATION LAW Mr. Edgar H. Gans, : V well-known and highly e«* |, teemed lawyer, recently gave, by request from the Sal* ; timore^ ' Sun, 1 , an account of 'the. so-called ' Separa- , ! lion' "Law in France from the standpoint of American „law. His article was published in the ' Sun ' of • De1 c'emiber 26, 1906. It has -just been -republished in.; 1 pamphlet form by. the International Catholic . Truth. So^- .', ciety, and makes an interesting review of the^effioct ok* ■ the Radical-Socialist ' Bloc '. to, .'.make an end -bf. Chris*: . tianity ' and ' hunt - Christ ' out- of France; -The article ' runs as -follows:— ■ * v - -_~;;s~ ;;s - —^ .■ ?«"' ' < ' The general impression on this, side of the -water" seems to be that the separation --of >. Church and Statein France is like the separation we have^Jn the United"" ' States, and many persons, who have % not thoroughly i . studied the question, wonder why Catholics are opposed ;to the bill and have -been instructed by the Pope not1 lio. ' organise religious associations under its provisions. ' The truth ' is that there is. no possible similarity lin the condition * of. things in the two ■ countries^ Sep- - aration in the .United States has- the approval ot a fa.tholics ; in Franioe it has the condemnation of all.- * Why this : difference ?,^ '• ■ ■ " • - ■ "•- Separation in the United States. \ ■ -' In the United States >we ' have written constitutions wh'iohi are superior to all legislation. Every legislative act must be in. accordance with the constitution. If it is not <it is utterly void and of no, i effect and will be so declared, by. the.. courts at the instance of every one whose constitutional rights are .invaded. - . - - 'In France, as in England,, there is no constitution- in this" sense!. The action of Parliament is supreme and no, court can set it. aside as unconstitutional. .. . ,

A' •'Our constitutions guarantee fundamental rights,' and among* these the_ supreme right of. liberty of conscience; Therefore, in this country, in .the language of ' the Supreme Court of the United /States, the full and -free right to entertain any religious belief, to practise any.- religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine jws£ch . does not : violate- the laws of morality and - property, , and. , which , does, not infringe personal rights, is :' jbo'riceded. to, all. . v/ -' c This is the foundation of separation of Church aM estate in the- United States." All religious bodies' are equal before the law^ as a matter of constitutional right;. To- those religious bodies alone -belong .the '■ exclusive jurisdiction^ in matters, of Church government, Church -organisation, J religious tenets, the laws of reli- , gious adjudications anjl all other matters pe r ta>ining solely 1 to the Church, as such. There is" no power in the.. Government of the United . States, .' or of any State, under, our constitutions, to interfere with any of these th'inigs, * and "if . Congress or the Legislature of any State' should undertake" by" law. to force on any religious' body' any special kind, of worship or internal organisation or religious go. eminent, and especially if it should undertake- to interfere with • any of its rights' ol<' property .Qn religious grounds, such action of- Congress or /of the Legislature would be decided by the * courts -to be utterly void. -' Out '• remedy against any legislative 'infringement of liberty— of conscience,:- lies in an application to the courrts-. of justice. - Therefore, Americans are So abiding..-. Tyrannical .laws, in violation of fundamental rignts dre impossible.'. „ "..'-' ■,'.'■ , ... - Different in France- . . ._ „ 'Not so in France. If a Jaw is passed in- France, by . the two Chambers '.and receives the approval of the President/ " that law is supreme. . If rights of con- . science are violated there is , no ' redress in the courts, ' for the courts are also bound by the law. If a special kind of- .worship or a certain kind of - internal Church organisation is provided by the law, or if property is confiscated on religious grounds, 01 the right of assembly for religious purposes denied^ there is— noredress except in political agitation for a change in the ' existing Government, or by an appeal to public opinion by a passive resistance to the law or by revolution. Those are the -only ways of fighting- tyrannical legislation in France. - * The question was asked the other flay, Why do not the French people obey the' law as the Americans do ? . ' The answer is plain." In -France laws have been passed violating in the most brutal way the sacred right of liberty of conscience. If such things could and . did happen \n America 1 there- would- be" resistance here too, but so effective and so -vigorous that such laws could never be again attempted. I insist upon this very simple -distinction. It explains the whole situation. - . . _.'-"•"', The American Concordat. 'We have no formal Concordat in the United - States ; but ' we have something much better. • There is here a voluntary entente cordiale between the Church and the r State founded on mutual respect. The "American- people are essentially religious, though professing different creeds, and the value' .of ■ religion in the formation of good citizenship is freely acknowledged and acted, on. eWe can scarcely conceive ,'of an atheist or infidel in rr ' America trying to use the great powers of government for the destruction and extirpa — tion of . religion in the country. - " - - ' „' But in France the " Act of Separation " is the culminating act of a. long series of 'attempts by an ~- infidel Government to drive religion Tom French life." Let there .be no mistake about this. This is' no denominational fight between- Protestants and Catholics. Religion is represented in France mainly by the Catholics, other denominations being comparatively few innumber. But the Government is - not Protestant. It is • infidel, and is fighting all denominations, including the Jews, in this Bill. What are the facts ? \ s . . - "$ , Confiscation of Property. -'A few words as to the law* of association' of - July 1, 1901, will 'serve to illustrate the character of the- French Government and its intentions in the present Bill. 1 'The purpose of the government to bring about a separation of Church and State was steadily pursued at least since 1899, but it" was "thought"- the people were % notf $ sufficiently prepared for it. .This is shown by the " public -declaration of M v Waldeck-Rousseau and his successor, M. Combes, the two ' Prime Ministers ~ under - whom the law of associations was passed and the' "reli- - gious'" congregations suppressed. ' > w /

1901': .;;

1 M. " Waldeck-RousseaiT declared in a sitting . of the . Chamber of December 7, lß99Vthat the. passing of the law of' 'associations was a' necessary" preface* 'to the separation of Chuseh and State. ' : , .' 1 ; - :- 'M. Combes said in a speech: in the- Chamber of De- . puties, oa January 14, 1905, " I have always been in fayor of the separation of Church and State. But when I entered into office (June 2, 1902), , I ..^boughtthat public .opinion was not sufficiently ready" for this . reform. I considered it necessary Ho lffj&d up to it." '. Now, how was- it led up to ? - _ - . - . . ' The -Bill.: of- Associations was -first- presented t by - Waldeck-Rousseau on November 29, 1899, and passed ;. promulgated July 1, 1901. It had some. little fairness on the face of it. It purported to be a- Bill sup^ ; pressing all ' religious ■ - associations . which -had -not ob- ' tamed, official, recognition/ - .-. »• ' :, •■■ < r 'It was suggested, that the Bill was only; a, pre-_ tence for the "arbitrary suppression of the corigregations and the confiscation .of their property. , To M. Waltfeck-Ro'usseau "replied in the Senate^on- 3trne 13," 1901': .•.;;••*;,•.'■■ .-... \" " •..;'' 'o'-io ■:?-(£•>: ~ '„-> • ", Do you really >/belLßye the .French* Qhaiabers when.;confronted with statutes that " are , sincere, and, riot sown „ thick witfo dissimulation, that proclaim "with " a ' true ring an aim which is either 1 * philosophic^ philanthropic,^ ' or of social— interest,^- will be: animated by- -.nothing- 1 but prejudice ; .and ultu lt is a congregation, •w£ re^ fuse -authorisation,??'' \ . - . j ■ • v^. . • What happened ?. Nearly, 500 . congregations iut- , mitted to i;he law" and -mkde 7 application;; for authorisation. These applications were supported by resolutions of .municipal councils- and by Vthe , personal letters of "the ; bishops of France. ,The commission .of .the . Chamber, . * proposed, to. \ reject all applications .en, bloc,. but. on ob- v jection the congregations were diyided lnto" three olass^^ —teaching, preaching, 1 -and trading corigregations^antt- ■ each class was presented eft. bloc 'and rejected ' ; sepair-r I ately -without discussion.'.^ >■'•'■ •>■'',-'• " : : ;'"■' ;*; * '• Thus was consummated one ; of the' 'most governmental crimes x>f modern^times. .These .Brothers, 'and nuns; many' of them old and iiifiwri; were driven „- from their peaceful convents by armed soldiers^ tbeirL" only weapons being passive resistance, and were forced - to seek whatever shelter they could get. . No accusation-, before any judicial tribunal, no trial, their' only crime.being that in following their liberty of conscience thew^ took the vows -of poverty, chastity,' and obedience,'©^ lowed their vocation and teaching and doing good- -;*t& the community in which they lived.' Their property , was put in official liquidation. Those who . desired tp continue the community life were obliged to leave - the country. They were- promised some pensions from" the proceeds, .but no pensions have - been paid yefy although. i,be 'liquidation has been proceeding for five/.y ears -and will take some years more. .''..'- . ' 'Forced sales are being made all over -France at. "prices that will" yield nothing for the parties, whose properties were taken. -> > - r j '. • • ' \i\ . If Maryland Should Do It. . . • " ~\ 'Imagine the Legislature of ■ Maryland passing ~ a law suppressing the .Christian Brothers' of * Baltimore and the- Visitation Kirns, .'two teaching Orders in Baltimore, driving them out of their beautiful buildings into-, the streets and confiscating, and,, squandering their pro- , perty. Can you . imagine" the possibility of any Amerii can Legislature doing anything like this ? We must bring it home to ourselves. - What American would , not resist such a tyranny -if :it became n&jessaT ? ©*' ' course, it' would npt be necessary. On- appeal to tfee, courts such a law would be instantly declared yjoid.' , After suppressing the congregations, dispersing them aibroad and p-actically confiscating their property, the French Government proceeded, to strike the word "God ? ? , from the official oathss and to have all. religious ejtnrblems and " pictures removed, from all- the r halls -of justice : : '"of . the v land ; an^d ,this, with cyiiicalj indifference» ■ -was,, ordered on,-. QoodXFr4day,;, 19.04* ? c .-^- &-''••<,* . \\ ~~- ■- 1 7his, , is' tha .prelude, the . SejJasationr. Bil^-and „-jin.: . tins' light'of the events^jusf -cited ' f :WiJ f : ,|Bay then;-betsev«-understand^ how the' , Separation.. Billj^will.vbe-.-fS&nstrued^ and enforced.. . ... . - - „.--- ;v >'/'•.' pm '•.--• -■* The, union, of ' the Church-- and ., State- 411 . France,.^ which this ' act , of , separation, destroys, was constitutedas everybody knows, by, the Concordat of. 1801, ,a solemn- bilateral . contract execute^ between. Napoleon And Pope Pi-us VII. '._ .■' ./ ' ■ .-:.: " - /. Under the Concordat. .» The following were ; the chief ; pjcovisions of the Cori 7 , .cordat :s: s ' ' " " . • The State nominated the. .bishops to the Pope, whci appointed and invested them,-- if . they were proper persons; the churches .and other sacred .edifices were

placed at the disposal -of the— Bishops ;'■ .the clergy were paW certain stipends, for; their support; nqt- as gratui" tous salaries, but by-. way 'of partial." indemonity for lands and property -that 'had been taken jrom the clergy * during the revolution, and -the -properties and finances / of the parishes ' and dioceses were* managed, by certain boards of trustees called fabriques for the parishes and menses for the- episcopal properties. * The most important of • these were the fabriquesi " These were what one . might call vestry boards or trustees, and existed practically in each parish. .'They consisted' of either five or seven persons, according to the : population' of" the parish, and were generally lay- / men. If-, seven, s the bishop appointed four and the State three ; -if five, the bishop appointed ' three and the - State two. In addition to these appointees, the Maire of the commune^if a Catliolic| and . the. cure of the parish were- always members ex-officao. It will be seen j that these fabriques were, practically under the control of the. bishops. ' - ,' . - * These fabriques were very important, fot they were the boards that received, invested, and managed, the gifts and legacies' for pious purposes. They had also '.» bad restored to them 'some of the property of the -^ clergy which had been. taken fluring the revolution, but.";" not alienated. ' ' t ' , " 'In a -report made to ..the 'Chamber of Deputies by the" Minister of Public. Worship on' April 17,-1905, it was estimated that were 34,000 fabriques, with an annual revenue of 9,000,6^0 francs. It was also estimated that since 4886 there .had been received by these ecclesiastical establishment's in gifts and legacies for pious and charitable purposes nearly 100,000,000 francs.. The Separation Bill. ■*- . ' "The Separation' Bill has 44 articles, but I can give only its essential provisions." It -leaves the appointment of bishops to the Pope without interference from the State ; it stops all stipends to^ the clergy except a few provisions to old priests; and' it suppresses all the old ecclesiastical establishments, e.g., the fabriques and the menses. • ■ * The chief feature of- the Bill is the establishment of t|he new -boards, or trustees, called " association's cultuelles." These associations , must have for their exclusive object the exercise of a particular form of worship and must be composed of seven persons in communes of 1000 inhabitants, 15 persons in communes of 10,000 to -20,000 inhabitants, and 25 persons in communes . over . 20,000. ' These .associations are the pivot on which the whole bill turns. The bill declares that all cathedrals, ohurches, chapels, .archbishops' and bishops' houses, are the property .of the . State, • the departments and - the communes, but are left gratuitously at the disposal of these associations. All the, real and personal property of the fabriques and menses' are to be made over to those associations, so that these new associations will^ get the use of all the ecclesiastical property. If the" new associations are not' formed under the law, then • ' the. property of the fabriques, and nienses shall' be handed over f - by decree to- the charitable establishments of the commune— that is, State establishments— and the churches, cathedrals, etc., would be' taken by the State. How Associations are to be Formed. - I ' But how are new associations" tci be formed ? The law says "in accordance with the rules and general organisation of the ; religion of which -they are to^. maintain the exercise." In case of dispute between two i»ival associations for a church or property the matter •> is. deeMedby .the Council of State, sitting as arbiter, which " shall take into account all the circumstances of fact , connected with the case." 'The Oauncil of State is an administrative court appointed by the President and removable at his pleasure. - - v - ' Now what do these vague words mean ? The internal organisation of the Catholic Church is well known. No one is a Catholic: unless "he is in communion with the bishop and that -bishop with the Pcipp. Now, in case a new association is formed under the law by Catholics in' communion -with their bishop and then 'a rival association, is" .formed by persons calling themselves Catho'Jlcs, but who are v not in communion with their- bishop, and the dispute is referred under the law to the Council of .State, would' the Council of State have the power to give the church^ edifice and the property to the schismatic body ? llt must be remembered that this law pretends to - deal with property which, under the Concordat, practically belongs to the Catholic Church, and it professes - to provide that it sha,ll now belong to or be used 'by the Church without interference from the State.

Bishops "Assert Their Rights. v . _ " 'But by . the internal government of the Cihurch the question as to- who are Cathoftcs is decided- byj?he bishop, and, . therefore, the new associations -that are to 'be . formed to take over Cathode churches and Catholic property" should be formed by the bishop and its members allowed to belong to * the associations only so .long as. they are in communion with the bishop.; because,- if not, -you : are either taking Catholic property ; <and giving it to persons who are. not' Catholics, or you are asking the Church to give .up its internal organisation and submit the question as to. who 'is. a Catholic to the Council of Slate, - and not -to - the bishop. "" - • ' - Discussed in Chamber. • „~~ "~ 'This question was very clearly put , by M. Ribot t in 'a debate before the Chamber of- Deputies on- April 20, 1905,' when "the meaning" of the'general words of the law were - being considered: , He ppinjedly asked the question whether* the CatHqlic" Church, did:, not have the right, as>a matter of liberty of conscience,' to- deter-mine-its own 'internal organisation. If< so, it was -the > duty of the State ' to recognise it as a ' fact and -to . decide, as to Church property. a ccordingly. He pointed^ out /the well-known fact -1 hat the- Catholic Church throughout the world rested on its bishops— not only in . matters of doctrine/ but in the management of its" temporal possessions ; that the State should not interfere with this liberty and that, therefore,* no new as- '■ sociations should be regarded as lepal by the Council of State unless it had the approbation , of the bishop.. He, therefore, asked the Minister of Public Worship if that was his understanding of the law. - ' -. J - " Not Laying a Trap.' • ' ' The Minister replied 'thai' it was, and said : "We do noc iwisn anyone to be able to accuse us of having v laid, a. trap ior ; the church." ''.but that was exa-tly .wnat they were doing, for afterward an attempt was made to amend, the law in .the Senate 'by making' the^ vague words' of the law clearly express what the lVAiiisier- said was its mea-n-ing. On iNOv ember 22, luuo, an amendment- was otfered in the Senate to the effect that in. the formation .of these' "associations" the rules of the hierarchy should be followed: This amendment was voted- -down. On- the next day an amendment was offered that the associations' should •be appointed by the bishops.' This .was' Voted down. * ' ' Then Senator Lamarzelle called the attention of the Minister "of Public. Worship to the answer he " had given to M. Kibot in the Chamber of- Deputies and to the contradiction involved in "the answer v and the voting down of these amendments. _ • "' INo impartial person can read the, answer c<f the 'Minister of Public Worship and^ the characteristic speech /of M. Clemienceau,- which followed . and which appear in- the .Senate proceedings for November 23, 1905, without coming to the "conclusion that the words of the ' law were purposely" made vague and general, so that ' the Council of State would have and would exercise the right to -determine against the Bishop whether the members ef a Catholic association claiming Church property "were Catholic or not. The Vital 'Question. 'Here, therefore, is the vital question on. which all the Catholic Church property in France depends. ' The State says in. the bin, in ' effect, You can continue to have and use air" this property, provided you consent to- alter your internal organisation and let the State -determine^ through its Council of State, who are Catholics. f The Pope replies that this is impossible— we' cannot accept" the^ property, even though it is rightfully ours, under such -a condition. The- State has the brute power to take .away the property.-- The Pope has no such power, but is . standing on the principle of liberty of conscience. This involves, as we have already seen';, the right -of every -ecclesiastical body to determine its own organisation without interference from the -State. . The. Principle Involved. ' ' ' Looking to the character of the Government, it seems quite clear 'to/ me that the bill was drawn in this way," with the" knowledge that it could 1 not be accepted by Catholics, so that the net result would be that the Church would lose all its property and yet seem to be' losing it by its own fault in 'not favor*"' ing the new associations. / ' The right of every religious organisation-^ govern itself in all that pertains to worship" is part ofthe fundamental, constitutional law of the American people and is well' understood. In this conflict with the >

French Government the Pope is standing for that principle . and should* have* the sympathy of every American citizen of whatever denomination. Tttat principle is rso that the Pope will see' "the French Government take, all the t-fiurch property,' prohibit public, worship and imprison the bishops " .and priests rather than yield. . . . 4 This objection is so -vital that there" is nd 'necessity for considering the - others. The bill is. full of unjust and vexatious provisions, which have been -pointed out by others. 1.„-•-,_ ' .„-•-,_