Catholic World

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 14, 22 April 1925, Page 55

Catholic World

2 CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND THE VATICAN I® :■ LEGATION. £ The decision of the French Government to I break with the Vatican is (says Catholic News | Service, London) not without its repercussion tin the Czecho-Slovak Republic, where the I anti-clerical and anti-Catholic press can hardly contain its outbursts of joy. The I Social Democratic, the National Socialist | parties, the sectarian Protestants and the yso-called Czech National .Church, have all joined hands with a number of anti-Catholic federations to send a letter of congratulation Ito M. Herriot on his anti-Papal speech in I the French Chamber. f j The anti-clerical press of this republic, too, | has lost no time in calling on our national Government to follow in the footsteps of , ; France; to bring the diplomatic relations be- \ tween the republic and the Holy See to an end, and? to pack off the Nuncio. |i Now air this- is not an expression of national feeling, as it seems to be represented abroad. Some of these organisations, whose “' heads have taken upon themselves to conw gratulate the French Premier, contain a conI siderable Catholic membership which resentsj this flattery of French anti-clericalism, \ As for the Catholic journals, they have | put M. Herriot’s parliamentary triumph in • = its proper perspective. The Lidove Listy ■ says that AI. Herriot’s victory is a pyrrhic l one, since the majority vote which he se- ■■ r \ cured has been obtained at the expense of the interior peace of his country. The extremists in this country will, no ■ I doubt, use the example of France to push the ' "'Government in an anti-clerical and anti- | Rome direction. But the present GovernI ment is a coalition, and of the five political L parties co-operating in the Government theI Popular or ; Catholic Party is neither the ; weakest nor the most insignificant. It, inj creased its electoral power and influence very considerably at 'the last election, and theGovernment is not in a position to alienate’ and incur the hostility of the Popular Party, --1 merely to please a set of factionists whose 'I loyalty, to say the least, is sometimes in v; I doubt. * ‘ ,: - , -j' r . # Sq,.far j from the anti-clerical victory in / < France giving renewed courage to the samei sort of thing in this republic, it is much morelikely to result in a tightening up and . strengthening of the Catholic resources, which : see clearly the vital need of unity and a firm resolve pot to - allow' their rights to be' | filched from them, j- r C'O/G/O'G'&C* i DECLARATION OF CZECH BISHOPS- | The Czech bishops met in Prague a few | days ago, to consider the situation brought"about by the publication of the joint pastoral of the Slovak bishops, which was read at Christmas. | /Anti-Catholic and anti-clerical circles have 'tried to make of this pastoral a political :. jssue. The Slovak bishops have been ac- ' of trying to stir up trouble in theState; ’Some papers declare that the pastoral is really the work of an expelled Slovak priest, the Abbe - Jehliczka; some accuse the Archbishop of Prague.of having written it; others--lay. it to -the Bishop of • Litomerice - v

others say it was sent out without the knowledge of the Slovak episcopate. - " * The aim of all this is plainly to insert a wedge between the people and Government and the Catholic bishops of Slovakia; and the latter are accused of exploiting the people for purely political ends. It was to put an end to this scandal and propaganda, that the Czech bishops held their meeting, under the presidency of Archbishop Kordac. The Czech bishops have now published their declaration, in which they state in the clearest terms that the Slovak. bishops acted from no other motive than to warn their people against the errors of modern rationalism and atheism, particularly against the Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists, who are using the economic situation to push their propaganda. As to the Slovak bishops trying to coerce people into the Church this, says the Prague manifesto, is the merest nonsense. The Slovak bishops did no more than point out that if their people wish to enjoy the spiritual benefits of the Church, then they must conform with the ruling and directions of - the Church. And, as the Czech bishops aptly point out, their Slovak colleagues are quite within their rights. For if lay and secular associations may, with propriety, define the conditions under which membership may be ■ retained, how much more are the bishops right when defining conditions for membership of the spiritual society of lie Church. If the opposition newspapers bad hoped to provoke a break between the Czech bishops . -and those of Slovakia, they have been disappointed. Archbishop Kordac and the other - Czech bishops have made quite plain their solidarity with the bishops of Slovakia; and, c moreover, they are in the fullest agreement - with the Christmas pastoral. The real, .. though avowed, purpose of all this agitation has a politico-racial basis, and that -is, s' to make the Slovak bishops appear in the s’ light of unpatriotic citizens of the Republic, , who entertain secret leanings towards the old )• Austro-Hungarian regime. FRENCH' CHAMBER VOTES ON VATICAN EMBASSY. AI. Briand’s eloquent speech in the Oliam- »■ her, in favor of retaining the French Embassy to the Holy See, was heard with close attention, and attracted a great deal of favorable notice. But it availed little. M. Herriot’s fiery denunciation of the pro-Ger-manism of the Holy See during the war seems to have fallen on willing ears, and to have warmed the hearts of the Radicals -and Socialists, who have responded with a majority vote. Not a thumping majority; hut a majority for all that. So the Chamber has voted for suppressing the Embassy. But the end is not yet, however. The matter goes to the Senate, and here anticipation is all at sea. For there are many members of the Senate, who from purely political and not necessarily religious motives, have no wish to see France sever herself diplo- : matically from the Holy - See. That is all ■to .the. good. . ... „• But the Senate harbors also an old guard of anti-clericalism, whose vote will most eer-

tainly be cast against the retention of the Embassy. It was this same brotherhood which by its obstructive tactics tried to prevent the resumption of relations with the Vatican; and it was in the very teeth of this opposition that M. Jonnart was sent to the Vatican as French Ambassador. • | It is, therefore, fruitless speculation to try to anticipate .which way the vote of the Senate will go. . But since all this -happened the Government has found that it cannot play fast and loose with the Concordat, so far as it concerns Alsace and Lorraine.. During the last day or so the application of the secularist laws to the schools and universities in the restored Provinces has come up. |H Being in a doubt, M. Her riot decided that the best thing to do would be to take the opinion of the Council of State, whose function is the interpretation of constitutional law. The Council lost no time in coming to a decision, and it has declared that the Concordat of Napoleon still holds good in Alsace and Lorraine. The Concordat, therefore, prevails, for the moment. It can be set aside by Parliament. But Parliament has not so far been asked to set it aside, and until it- does so the Government’s plans for secularising the schools in the Provinces will have to remain in abeyance. r M. Briand’s Speech .—Opposing M. Herriot in the Chamber, M. Briand made a remarkable speech. “A party called to power,” he said, ‘is no more a party; it has the charge of France whole and entire.” He made a deep impression by his criticism of the project for employing in Home a French “technical adviser in religious matters,” who might cost almost as much as the Embassy but would be able to discuss “only with intermediaries or by backstairs methods unworthy of a great Power” such big questions as the Holy Places, the French schools in Turkey, the Protectorate in the Orient, the Missionary Congregations, the religious affairs of the Saar, and so on. Later on Vi Briand pointed out that, while the Ambassador of France was leaving the VA cicna, Ambassadors from other nations, hitherto unrepresented there, will be arriving. He did not hesitate to point out that At. Herriot’s policy, if adopted, will detach from France the sympathy of 30,000,000 Catholics in the United States, and 10,000,000- in Great Britain and Ireland. Answering the Herriotist argument that one must choose between “France, the eldest daughter of the Church, and the France of the Revolution,” the orator reminded his hearers that even the statesmen of the Terror sent an Embassy to Rome, and that Napoleon, as First Consul, told his envoy ,to “treat the Holy Father as if he had an army of 100,000 men.” M. Briand’s conclusion was fine. Duly recognising the fact that large numbers ' of Frenchmen are not practising Catholics, and that some of them are even opposed to religion, he paid these fellow-countrymen the compliment of saying that they are sufficiently educated and reasonable -to “‘understand political necessities,” and that there is no man in France better able to explain the need for a Vatican Embassy than M. . Herriot himself. v ... “ r -... V-;