Chapter VII: The War on the Religious Orders (2)

In the first session M. Georges Berry declared "that the question of separation had not been submitted to the electoral colleges, and that, moreover, every time that it had been put before legislative elections the electoral body had answered very unmistakably that it did not desire separation." In the same session the Abbe Gayraud, representing Catholic interests, spoke: "The Chamber, considering that diplomatic loyalty, and public honesty, no less than the interests of public order and of religious peace, exact that the denunciation of the Concordat, and the separation of Church and State be accomplished in a friendly manner, decides to use care in each deliberation upon the project of the law relative to that subject, and invites the Government to form an extra parliamentary commission composed of ministers from the different denominations in concert with the heads of the Churches interested to prepare an agreement with those Churches as to the conditions of separation." In his speech upon the above thesis the Abbe Gayraud was led to speak of the Organic Articles which he characterized as the "Servitudes of the Gallican Church." The argument which then arose in the Chamber might well be recorded.

_M. Gayraud._--The doctrine of the _Syllabus_ is the doctrine
of the Catholic Church, as well of the Gallican as of the
Roman Church. And I know very well that no one can draw an
argument against the Concordat of 1801 from either the
_Syllabus_ or the dogma of Infallibility. The doctrines of
these two pontifical documents represent not only the
doctrine of the Church in 1864, but also that of the Roman
Church in 1801, and of the Gallican Church as far as the
_Syllabus_ is concerned. Moreover, another line of complaint
against the Holy See, upon which M. Briand leans, and to
which he has today alluded, is the Organic Articles. Very
good, but the Pope has never recognized the Organic Articles;
the Catholics of France, precisely because the Pope would not
recognize them, are unwilling to recognize them either. This
is one good reason, if you wish to avoid the
misunderstandings of the past, why it would be well to confer
with the Pope in regard to the separation which you are
planning. But, after all, does the fact of not recognizing
the Organic Articles constitute a violation of the Concordat?
I am convinced that the real violation consisted in the
making and promulgating of these famous articles.

_M. Briand._--And what of that?

_M. Jaures._--That only proves that the Concordat was still
born.

_M. Gayraud._--You know very well, M. Briand, that the
Organic Articles do not constitute those regulations of
police supervision provided for in the first article of the
Concordat.

_M. Feron._--You accept only what is favorable to you.

_M. Gayraud._--"I have already said in this house: I defy
any member of this Assembly to show me that in the Organic
Articles there is any regulation concerning the publicity of
worship, or to show me a single organic article that has
anything to do with it. Hence you cannot appeal to Article 1,
of the Concordat to legitimatize the Organic Articles. Some
have tried to do this, and why? Because the Holy See would
not recognize them, and it was necessary to find some means
of justifying them before the Pope."

It might seem as if the contention of M. Gayraud did not pertain intimately to the subject in hand. Yet that it was eminently apposite is evident from the whole course of the subsequent discussions. The supporters of separation had continually accused the Church of causing the rupture by her violations of the Concordat. Indeed, one can hardly restrain his tears as he reads the sorrowful complaints of Combes, Briand, Clemenceau and the others. The Church was so wicked in the face of these immaculate champions of civic morality! The facts of the case are very simple. The Church in France has always stood loyally to the observance of the Concordat, in spite of its many hampering restrictions. That she has often acted in disregard of the Organic Articles cannot be denied, nor does she wish to deny it. The reason for this is, that the Concordat was a real law; the Organic Articles was neither a law of the State nor of the Church, nor of both together. If these Articles had been put forth independently of the Concordat, we might for the sake of argument, concede that they would have a value. But they were promulgated as a part of a law enacted mutually by two parties, when one of the parties was actually ignorant of their existence until after publication. It is a falsehood thus to assert that they form a part of the Concordat. And since they do not form a part of that law, having their value only upon such an assumption, they were no law at all. In disregarding them, therefore, the Church could not be accused of violating either an independent law or a part of the Concordat.

Moreover, the Church could not observe the Concordat without violating the Organic Articles, and vice versa. To accuse the Church therefore of precipitating the conflict because she acted within the limit permitted her by the Concordat, is one of the species of false reasoning which the anti-clerical party endeavored to force down the throats of all its hearers. It was well, therefore, that this should be rightly understood in the very beginning of the discussion.

Among the speeches delivered during the general discussion upon the Bill, that of M. Ribot deserves to be reproduced in part. It is well, however, to note in advance that this orator, though a foe to anti-clericalism, is not, however, a Catholic either in name or conviction.

_M. RIBOT'S SPEECH._

M. Ribot began thus: "Gentlemen, I have already on many occasions indicated the position I hold with regard to the grave question under discussion. My friend, M. Barthou, did well, the other day, to recall some lines of a letter which I wrote a year ago, before the incidents which led to the rupture with the Holy See and the presentation of this projected law. I said then that the general movement of modern ideas would lead sooner or later to a complete separation of Church and State; I added that, if this separation were accomplished by men who had no marked hostility to the Catholic Church, and who would be willing to give it the character of a measure of pacification, of a measure truly liberal, the Catholic Church herself would comprehend that the separation could be for her a guarantee of dignity and independence. I retract none of my words. If you ask me: 'Do you believe that France in the relations of Church and State has arrived at definitive crisis?' I must answer: 'I do not believe so.' I have already explained how such a change, so grave in itself, was particularly difficult in a country like France where liberty is not even yet solidly established in the laws and customs, where civil society has always been particularly and jealously careful not to allow the Church too great an independence, where a struggle has been going on for a century between the Church and the enemies of religion, whose desire is not to liberate the Church, but to attack her from ambush, to weaken her forces, and--perhaps they expect it, in their illusionment and blindness--to suppress her.

"I have said that the transition might be more or less lengthy, but that it was indispensable; that we must lead mildly and peacefully that Catholic clergy whom you have hitherto held under the tutelage of the State and whom we are about to enfranchise, that we must lead them mildly and peacefully to the practice of a regime altogether different, of a regime of liberty and emancipation, and I have explained that, to my mind, such a transition could not be effected without conferring with the head of the Catholic Church, with the Holy See.

"One can conceive of a regime of transition during which the Catholic Church would be allowed more liberty in the choice of bishops, and the Church itself be organized pacifically in view of the gradual suppression of the budget of worship. These are my ideas, and I have given them much reflection. If you are willing to bring about the separation under these conditions, I am with you; I will aid you to the best of my power. In that I foresee for the Church more dignity and a greater independence; in that I foresee for the French State neither a diminution of security nor a menace to religious peace."

M. Ribot then declared that if the separation were to be effected as an act of reprisal against the Holy See, "it would be the beginning of a war more protracted, more bitter, and more violent than any we have seen for a long time."

"Paul Bert," he said, "remarked to me, when we were together on the Commission of 1882, and when we were examining just such questions as these, that he came from a department in which nearly everyone demanded the separation of Church and State, where a candidate could not be elected unless he should put that in his platform; but if one should do so, he was sure that the deputies who should vote for it could not be re-elected."

_M. Villejean._--"Times have changed since then."

_M. Buisson._--"Twenty years after."

_M. Bienvenu-Martin._--"We have made headway since then."

_M. Ribot._--"Yes, I understand. Times have changed; we have
made headway. But are you sure that you have done enough in
all the regions of this country to prevent a terrible
misunderstanding following in the wake of the reforms you
have made imprudently? Are you sure that you will be
understood by those peasants who perhaps have voted for your
programme, but who tomorrow will be profoundly troubled in
their customs and in the customs of their families? Some
years ago Littre spoke of Catholicism with a view to
universal suffrage. He showed very clearly that there are
contradictions in the public spirit, that those very men who
are anti-religious in politics may be men of religious
habits, or the heads of families in which such religious
habits are constantly practised. Faith may be sleeping; but
it has its sudden awakenings; all habits are living; and, I
repeat it, habit holds a firmer place in the life of French
families than politics or electoral programmes ever will
hold."

Further on in his speech M. Ribot referred to the relations of M. Combes with the Holy See on the question of the nomination of bishops, and that of the suspension of the bishops, Monseigneurs Gay and Le Nordez, declaring that "all these griefs which you call up were not sufficient reasons for making such great changes without taking the indispensable precautions."

"We are here to make politics," he said, "we are not here for mere events and secondary incidents. When you set out to hunt up incidents, when in place of following your own ideas and awaiting the hour fixed by prudence, and by your knowledge of political affairs, you take up a pretext for precipitating us into an adventure, you do not act as a statesman; you act as a man of passion, as a man who is determined to carry out his own conceptions, and who without asking if he may not tomorrow be convicted of falsehood by his country, takes upon himself a heavy responsibility. Is it statesmanship to strike directly at the secular clergy and to put into their hands a means of agitation far more dangerous than that which was in the hands of the congregationists?...

"And then, gentlemen, wishing to express myself with great discretion, I ask: Is this the moment for aggravating the coolness between the Catholic Church and the republican Government? I do not believe that we are face to face with imminent perils; no one in Europe assuredly desires war. But can we help noting that during the past year, while a great nation, a friend and ally of ours, has met with great difficulties, there has been something of a change in Europe? The language we have been hearing for the past year is not altogether in harmony with that which has reached our ears during the last few days. Is this not the time when instead of deriding ourselves further, we ought if possible to bring back union to our country?"

The orator then went on to answer the objection that "the Concordat was by this time broken, and that the Government had no need to inform the Holy See of its wish to suppress that contract." M. Ribot replied that "it would be the greatest mistake we could at this moment commit, to ignore the Holy See, as if it no longer existed for us."

The speaker then referred to the amicable relations sustained between the Holy See and schismatical of Protestant nations.

"Do you not feel that the French activity will be very much
weakened, not only in Tunis, but in the Extreme Orient, if we
have no longer any relations with the Holy See? ... in such
case what will become of our protectorate over the Catholics
of the East? The Emperor of Germany has gone to Morocco
during the last few days; some time ago he was at Jerusalem
and at Constantinople. Are we going to permit Germany, Italy,
and other nations to divide the debris, the remnants of our
patrimony?"

_A voice._--"Never!"

_M. Ribot._--"Never? When the mistake is committed it will be
too late to repair it."

M. Ribot then continued his speech: "After breaking all relations with Rome, after wounding the Holy See in its pontifical dignity, by refusing even to confer with it in regard to the denunciation of the Concordat, by omitting a formality which you would not neglect with anyone in the world, you are going to give up, carelessly and without a tremor, the complete direction of the French Church. He can tomorrow--if you invite it--name the bishops, all the bishops, without leaving to us the right of presenting to him any suggestion, or of obtaining from him, as England obtains for Malta, as the United States obtains for the Philippines, as we have obtained for Tunis, that the religious choice made by him incline sometimes in the direction of political necessity. We cannot do more than that, and you who complain of the disquieting work of ultramontainism in this country, you do not even dream of effecting a transition which permits us to obtain in that regard some guarantees.

"I am sure that the Pope will not make any choice in a spirit reprisal, but that he will consider purely religious interests only. What consideration ought he to have for you, when you have had none for him? He will make choices that can embarrass you, against whom you will protest. Oh! I know you always have a resource at hand after you have made a bad law; you can make another which will be a law of despotism and perhaps of tyranny. That is always the poor resource of short-sighted assemblies. I would prefer to provide for the danger rather than be obliged to remedy it by such means. I am sure that a mutual understanding is desirable, that it is necessary. I wish you could see it, and that if you are determined to proceed resolutely towards separation, you will do it with that prudence, that method which I have indicated, and which is the only one that can save you from danger."

M. Ribot proceeds to point out the danger of "repulsing the Holy See with a violent, almost brutal gesture and of permitting political associations to enslave the clergy after they have been emancipated from the State."

"Gentlemen, you want to be logical, but you are the most
short-sighted of statesmen. You justify in advance all acts
of inquietude. My friend, M. Lanessan, who is a devoted
partisan of the separation of Church and State, published,
the day before yesterday, in the _Siecle_ a letter from a
member of the clergy, whom he calls a liberal and republican
priest, who does not care to see politics mixed with
religion; and that priest declared that the separation, such
as you wish to make it, without method, without transition,
and without an understanding with the Holy See, must have for
its result a considerable increase in the action of the
Papacy and the Roman congregations over the French clergy,
and that the French clergy will not submit, even in spite of
itself, to a domination which drags it between the militant
parties of political action."

Later in his speech, M. Ribot contrasts the Government's treatment of the Catholics with its treatment of other religious denominations. "You agree that you could not and ought not in making a loyal and liberal separation, refuse to the Protestant Church its traditional organization, because in their case the question of temporal organization is bound by the most intimate ties with the defence of religious ideas themselves, and with the existence of the dogmas upon which religion reposes. You have thus given satisfaction to the Protestants. To the Israelites you have said: 'You may keep your assemblies of notables, your mode of election, and also the superior council which establishes equally the unity of your faith.' Now you find yourselves in the presence of the Catholics. Have they less reason than the Protestants and Israelites of a visible organ of unity in France, for the reason that their unity can always be made and is made at Rome? However, you cannot refuse them the right of recurring to their ancient practices, those customs followed by the clergy of this country, of having assemblies of bishops, and also, if they wish it, a general assembly. But you find yourselves face to face with an organization altogether different from that of the Protestants or Israelites; and you have not, I hope, the pretension, under the pretext that it would be an amelioration, to oblige the Catholics to adopt the organization of the Protestants or Israelites; you wish to leave them their own organization.

"That organization is known to every one; it is founded upon the principle of authority. The pastors are not elected, they are appointed from above; and even for her temporal government, for the administration of property, the Catholic Church has organized a system of limited councils, councils de fabrique and others, which proceed from the bishop; he it is who directs the conduct of all of them by his authority. Whether this system is good or bad, or whether it is better than a broader democratic system, are questions which I have no right to raise, nor you either."

After many discussions and interruptions the orator finally arrived at his peroration: "You see, M. Briand, the spirit in which we discuss this law. It is not a spirit of obstruction, nor the attitude of one influenced by foregone conclusions. I want to be associated with you; I would do so willingly if you will do what is indispensable, if the Government acts as it ought to act, as any government would act which was not pledged beforehand, which was not bound up in some way by the precautions which preceding ministers have taken to put us in a trap, if the Government would hold with Rome such an understanding as the conditions of lofty and perfect dignity require.

"You assert that Rome provoked all this; but you state in your report that Rome at this very moment is giving the example of forgiveness, of conciliation in the affair of Dijon, and in the affair of the nomination of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, wherein the Holy See is proceeding slowly in order not to make any choice which would injure our influence in the East.

"You have read the recent allocution of the Pope. It gives you sufficient guarantees of moderation to enable you to enter into this conference with full dignity. There is no intention of humiliating France, or of rehearsing the calamities we have suffered. No! all that is asked for is that you should confer, negotiate, so that the country may not experience the saddest and most cruel misfortunes. I hold no brief for religion, which does not concern me: I am speaking for the State, for which, in my small way, I am responsible. I am defending the rights of the State and the cause of religious peace.

"We have had enough of divisions, enough of mortal hatred, enough causes of enfeeblement! Look back a little. The preceding ministry could see nothing but a struggle against the congregations. That question covered the whole horizon. Let your view be larger and broader. Stand for the interests of France, of religious peace, for the interest of those very ideas which are so dear to you, the success of that separation upon which you have entered, and which I would desire like yourselves, if you would undertake it under conditions that are acceptable and less dangerous.

"But the separation which you propose I cannot in conscience accept. I cannot place my responsibility side by side with yours. We have not approved by vote the policy of the last cabinet. This law, such as you propose, imports a definitive rupture with the Holy See, and is thus the consequence and sorrowful crowning of that policy. We cannot approve of it, but we have a strong hope that the discussion of the various articles will show you still more the difficulty of their application, the dangers to which you are exposing yourselves. I desire most earnestly that, leaving aside all questions of personal ambition which have been the ruin of assemblies and led them into irreparable mistakes, leaving aside all conventional phrases, and acting solely in the interest of our country, you will come back to the true policy of France and the Republic."

_LAW OF SEPARATION._

In the meantime, while the debate was in progress the great majority of Catholics could hardly believe in the possibility of separation. Events, however, refused to confirm their hopes. The Bill presented by the Government, confided to a Commission, and modified to the point of absolute stringency in the discussions, was finally adopted by the Chamber of Deputies on July 3, 1905. Docile to orders received, the Senatorial Commission, and afterwards the Senate itself, ratified the decision of the Chamber. The haste in putting the new law to a decisive vote was dictated by the fact that a new election was imminent. The law was accordingly voted definitively on December 6, 1905, and at once promulgated. The Council of State was allowed three months delay in order to prepare the details of the rules which should regulate the execution of the law. That delay would end in April, 1906, just a month before the ensuing elections. The Separation would thus be an accomplished fact before the entrance of a new Government.

According to the Law of Separation the State assumes the position of a Government professing no religion, though it pretends to guarantee liberty of conscience and the free exercise of religious worship. The Budget of Worship and all public maintenance of any religious church or society was suppressed. By this article the Catholic Church in France was deprived of 37,441,800 francs, or $7,488,360 a year. In order to make the odious item seem less heavy than it actually was, the law made provision for certain pensions. Thus ministers of religion who were not less than sixty years of age at the time the law was passed, and who had passed thirty years in ecclesiastical service, were to receive a life pension equivalent to three-fourths of their former salary. Such as were not less than forty-five years of age at the time, and who had passed twenty years in the religious service, were to receive a life pension of one-half of their former salary. To others less than forty-five years of age it granted pensions extending to from four to eight years, which allowances are to decrease progressively until at the end of eight years they shall be completely extinguished. A third article provides for an inventory of ecclesiastical property by government officials.

The crucial point in the Law of Separation was the attempt of the Government to place the administration of ecclesiastical property in the hands of certain organizations termed Associations of Worship. These associations were to consist of seven persons in a parish of one thousand people, of fifteen where the population is over twenty thousand, and of twenty-five where the number is greater. These associations can consist of lay people at least in the majority. They can build up a reserve fund, which, however, must be limited. Where the revenue is 5,000 francs, they can accumulate a sum only equal to three times their annual expense, and for others the reserve fund should not be in excess of over six times the annual outlay. The association must, moreover, accumulate a special fund, which is to be invested, for the purchase, construction, repair or decoration of the ecclesiastical property. By this article a large recognition is given to the hierarchy, since only such religious bodies can be represented as are in communion with the Church which formerly held the property. But by Article 8 the State proceeds to place itself as a judge over the bishops in cases where different religious bodies through their Associations of Worship lay claim to the property.

The other numerous items in the Law of Separation were merely such as might be expected in a law so hostile and so aggressive.

_PROTEST OF PIUS X._

Naturally the appearance of the new law caused excitement not in France alone but throughout the whole Catholic world. The Holy Father, Pope Pius X., expressed his grief in no uncertain terms. On February 11, 1906, he addressed to the hierarchy and people of France his encyclical "_Vehementer Nos_." The Holy Father begins, in this letter, by indicating, one by one, all the measures adopted by the French Government against the Church, measures which naturally would lead to that separation which the Holy See has always striven to avoid. He declares that the doctrine of the separation of Church and State is false because: 1, it offers violence to God; 2, it is an open negation of the supernatural order; 3, it overturns the order which God has wisely established in the world, an order which exacts a harmonious concurrence between the two societies; 4, it inflicts heavy injuries upon civil society itself. Moreover, the Popes have always protested against such a separation.

France is less able than any other nation to enter upon such a proceeding, for: 1, the bonds which consecrate the union of Church and State ought to be more inviolable than the pledges of sworn treaties; 2, it was a bilateral contract which the State abrogated by its own sole authority; 3, this injury becomes all the greater when one considers that the State has effected this abrogation of the Concordat without any preliminary announcement or notification.

Still more, in this separation, the State has not given to the Church her independence nor permitted her to enjoy, in the liberty which it pretends to conceive, the peace guaranteed by common right. The evidence of this is found in the numberless measures of exception which are inserted in the law. These measures are contrary to the divine constitution given by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Church, which is a body ruled by pastors and doctors. In contradiction to these principles, the law confers the administration and care of public worship, not to the hierarchy divinely constituted, but to an association of lay persons. These Associations of Worship shall, moreover, be supervised by the civil authority in such a manner that the ecclesiastical authority can no longer have any power over them. They are absolutely opposed to the liberty of the Church.

Finally, the law violates the property rights of the Church, whether by usurpation of these Associations of Worship, as also by the suppression of the budget of worship, which was in itself a partial indemnity.

The Pope continues: "For this reason We reprove and condemn the law, voted in France for the separation of Church and State, as profoundly injurious to God Whom it denies officially when it begins the law with a declaration that the Republic recognizes no creed. We reprove and condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, the public fidelity to treaties. We condemn it as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church, and to its essential rights and liberties. We condemn it as overturning justice and trampling under feet the property rights which the Church has acquired on many titles and in virtue of the Concordat itself. We reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of the Apostolic See, to Our own person, to the episcopate, the clergy and the people of France." The Pope then declares that this law can never be cited against the imprescriptible rights of the Church.

The Holy Father then addresses himself to the bishops, the clergy and the faithful of France. He asks the bishops to bring a most perfect union of heart and will to the projects which they shall form for the defence of the Church, and he declares that he will address them at opportune times practical instructions to guide their conduct in the midst of their great difficulties. The clergy should have in their hearts the sentiments of the Apostles and rejoice that they are esteemed worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus. The faithful should remember the fate which follows those impious sects which permit themselves to be bound by a yoke, for they have themselves with cynical audacity proclaimed their motto: "Decatholicise France!" In their resistance they must be strongly united and possess a large measure of courage and generosity.

In the secret consistory, the Holy Father again referred to the insulting measures of the separation law.

Meanwhile the country began to feel the excitement attendant upon the various changes in government. On January 17, the French Parliament, Senators and Deputies, in joint session at Versailles, elected a President to succeed M. Emile Loubet, whose seven year term of office was to expire on the 18th of the following month. Their choice fell upon M. Clement Armand Fallieres, President of the Senate. The new President represented the more radical wing of the republican party, and was a strong anti-militarist. He had been President of the Senate since 1899, and was then in his sixty-fifth year.

In March of the same year the ministry of M. Rouvier, which had been in office for little more than a year, fell, and was succeeded by that of M. Sarrien. The Combes ministry, it will be remembered, resigned on January 15, 1905, because of a vote of want of confidence inspired by the rupture between Church and State. The resignation of M. Rouvier was also precipitated by the same question though from two opposite points of view. The Catholic party reproached him for his drastic application of the congregation law, and the inventories of Church property. The Socialists, because he had not applied the law as oppressively as they would wish. The new Cabinet included among its members certain notorious anti-clericals, among whom were Clemenceau, as Minister of the Interior, Briand, as Minister of Instruction and Worship, and Doumergue, as Minister of Commerce.

Again, on Sunday, May 6, took place the election of Deputies. The Catholics had, indeed, hoped for some recognition from the voters of the country, but were sadly disappointed when the returns showed a victory for the Government. The French Socialists were returned with important majorities, and the Bloc found itself stronger than ever before.

In the meantime the question of the Cultuelle Associations was being strongly discussed among the Catholics of the land. Many, indeed, either through ignorance of their real import, or because they hoped through a compromise to pave the way to greater gains, were in favor of accepting the conditions offered by the Government in regard to these associations. The bishops, however, assembled early in the year to discuss the question. They displayed a resolution and courage worthy of the best traditions of the Church. They condemned almost unanimously the Cultuelle Associations as contrary to the constitution of the Church. Their decision was brought to Rome and submitted to the final judgment of the Holy See.

The Holy Father replied in the encyclical, "_Gravissimo officii_," of August 10, 1906, addressed to the Archbishops and Bishops of France, and containing the instructions promised by the former encyclical, "_Vehementer Nos_." The Sovereign Pontiff again condemned the law of separation, and confirmed the almost unanimous decision of the assembly of the Bishops. He condemned the Cultuelle Associations as imposed by the law. He added, moreover: "We declare it is not permissible to try some other sort of Associations at once legal and canonical, and thus to preserve the Catholics of France from the grave complications that menace them, so long as it is not established in a sure and legal manner that, under the divine constitution of the Church, the immutable rights of the Roman Pontiff, and of the Bishops, their authority over necessary property of the Church, particularly over the sacred edifices, shall be irrevocably set in full security above the said Associations. To desire the contrary is impossible for us. It would be to betray the sanctity of our office without bringing peace to the Church of France."

The resolute attitude of the Holy Father came as a surprise to the French Ministry. They had imagined that the Pope would not dare to utter words of defiance against the fiat of an irreligious Bloc. They began to fear that any further aggressions must only sting the Catholics to organized opposition. The Bishops met again in September and issued to the Catholic people of France a Joint Pastoral letter signed by every Bishop, announcing their hearty agreement with the instructions of the Holy Father, and forbidding the establishment of of Cultuelle Associations. The Catholic body entered into the spirit of the hierarchy, and only a few unimportant individuals sought to contravene their authority.

The Government, fearing no doubt the effects of further drastic measures, began to modify the tenor of the law. The provision which required that the clergy might not hold religious service in a church without previously notifying the authorities in each case, was so changed that one general notice would suffice for the whole year. At the same time, however, the seminaries were to be closed and become the property of the Commune, while Bishops and priests might buy back or rent their own residences. The Holy Father, however, forbade the Bishops and clergy to furnish the notification about public worship: they were to continue to minister in their churches after the term of the notification had expired as if nothing had occurred.

The stand taken by the Holy See was looked upon by the French Government as a declaration of war, and it accordingly began to exercise newer methods of retaliation. On December 12, 1906, the Papal Nuncio, Mgr. Montagnini, who was then in Paris guarding the archives of the Holy See, was expelled from France, the Nunciature was surrounded, and the papers found therein were seized. It was in vain that the Vatican protested: the Government pursued its oppressive policy with all the more vigor. On December 15, Cardinal Richard was expelled from his archiepiscopal residence, and later the seminarians were driven from the seminaries.

The position of the Catholics in France was thus rendered humiliating and desperate. They still continued, as they do at present, to hold divine service in the churches, but always with the eyes of a hostile Government fixed upon them, scrutinizing their actions, and criticizing their words. The clergy, deprived of their usual stipend, are forced to seek in various kinds of employment the necessary sustentation of life except when the generosity of the faithful enables them to observe the discipline of the Church which ordinarily forbids the clergy to seek their support elsewhere than from the altar.

One of the effects of the separation law was that the Holy Father was liberated from the vexatious interference of the French Government in the appointment of Bishops. Accordingly on February 25. 1906, the Holy Father himself not only appointed fifteen new Bishops but even consecrated them with his own hands in St. Peter's in Rome. It was the first time that a Pope consecrated so large a number of prelates at one time.

The fall of the year 1906 was marked by the creation of a new cabinet of which M. Georges Clemenceau was Premier. The new cabinet included among its members anti-clericals of the most aggressive kind, such as Briand, Doumergue, Picquart, and Viviani. It was this Viviani who, a few years previously had uttered the notorious boast: "We have at last extinguished the lights of Heaven."

Georges Clemenceau has been a rabid foe to Religion and to the Church from the very beginning of his political career. In 1880 he founded for this purpose a journal, "_La Justice_," and was a powerful advocate of aggression during the Dreyfus trial. From 1883 to 1893 he was looked upon as the master of the political situation in France. In 1901 he founded a weekly paper, "_Le Bloc_." It was this paper which gave the name to the infamous party which engineered the present anti-Catholic war in France. He has been identified with all the oppressive measures by which the French Government has, of late, striven to vex the French Church. It was only in accordance with his deserts that he himself was driven in disgrace from his leadership in the fall of 1909, when he was succeeded by the no less aggressive but more hypocritical M. Briand.

One of the most shameful features in the French Government's war on the Church was the affair of liquidation. When the Congregations had been dispersed and their property confiscated, the Government appointed certain officials, called liquidators, whose office it was to superintend the sale of Religious property. The first estimates of the sum which might be realized by the sale of this property placed the total amount at 1,000,000,000 francs, the sum which, during the last few years has dwindled down to ridiculously small figures. The recent affair of M. Duez has brought out the whole official corruption of the scheme. M. Duez, one of the three original liquidators attached to the Seine Tribunal, began life as a clerk in a large department store. Afterwards, as solicitor's clerk, he embezzled 500,000 francs. In spite of this he was appointed one of the liquidators for the sale of Church property. In this capacity he handled millions of francs. For a time things went on well enough until the failures of some of the liquidators to produce anything but continual expenses began to arouse the suspicions of the Government. In 1906 the Government was forced to require from the liquidators an annual report of their proceedings. The report, issued toward the end of 1907, was a curious document. Finding that their embezzlements were being exposed, the liquidators began to claim that their work had been seriously hampered by threats of excommunications against the buyers of the property, and by the opposition of the Congregations and others who professed to have claims upon the property. Moreover, it was said that M. Waldeck-Rousseau's estimate of a milliard was excessive, for the net result of the liquidation of one hundred and fifteen Congregations was not more than 189,932 francs. Of these one hundred and fifteen liquidations, sixty-nine produced absolutely nothing, yet the liquidators brought in bills amounting to 62,000 francs besides the 24,000 francs, which were the fees of the lawyers.

Accordingly in the beginning of 1908, M. Combes forced the reluctant Government to assimilate the position of the liquidators to that of other functionaries accountable for monies. M. Combes, who had been appointed Chairman of the Commission, saw in the affair only a way of injuring his political opponents. In February, 1908, M. Briand, then Minister of Justice, brought in a measure containing regulations for the sale of the property, and for the simplifying of the judicial procedures attendant. While M. Combes would cast the blame on the liquidators, M. Briand fixed it on the method of liquidation. The Bill of M. Briand had at least the effect of rendering the supervision more strict than heretofore. As a consequence suspicions began to be aroused, of late, in regard to M. Duez, who was the liquidator of several important Congregations. He was forced to submit his accounts to an official auditor, and his irregularities were quickly discovered. At first there was a call for his dismissal, but the Seine Tribunal merely decreed the acceptance of his resignation, "for reasons of health." He was given three months to produce a full account of his transactions while in office. These, however, were not forthcoming. Again and again he was called upon for a detailed account of his work. So the matter dragged on till the middle of March, 1910, when the successor of M. Duez became so "insistent" that the matter could not be kept longer in suspense. M. Duez was arrested and found upon his own confession to have embezzled more than a million dollars. The scandal through the Government created a state of consternation, especially in view of the fact that the elections were already imminent. But the versatile Briand with a sympathetic "Bloc" has already thrown dust into eyes of the French people. One thing at least the liquidation scandal has effected--it has exposed the frightful corruption of that Government which has hypocritically insisted, time and again, that its war on the Church was conducted solely in the interests of humanity, has been actuated by the principle of what we Americans call by the expressive name of colossal graft. The French people have permitted themselves to be hoodwinked in the most outrageous manner. It only remains to be seen how long they will permit themselves to remain the victims of such official slavery.

_SCHOOL TROUBLES._

It will be remembered that, following on the passage of the Associations law of 1901, came the actual attack upon the Congregations of France and the Catholic schools. The Congregations were dispersed generally, their property confiscated and their schools to the number of 25,000 closed. It was the day of triumph for M. Combes and the anti-clerical horde that followed him. It is remarkable that in 1904 when the rigor of the law was most acutely felt, the chief henchman of Combes was the Minister of Public Instruction, the notorious Aristide Briand, erstwhile editor of the infamous Lanterne. The Catholic schools of the Congregations thus closed, a new regime was inaugurated. Thenceforth there were to be public schools supported by the State, whilst private, or free schools, might be tolerated but at private expense In this difficulty Catholic private schools were established here and there, but as may easily be imagined, their number could only be insignificant and their pupils few, since the Catholic people now found themselves obliged to pay for the support of churches and pastors for whom the State refused any further maintenance. Thus the great majority of Catholics all over France found themselves obliged to send their children to the State schools.

This necessity was oppressive and humiliating enough, even though the law of 1882 had defined that the State schools should be neutral in the matter of religious teaching. In this assurance of the Government the parents found some little comfort, and for a time it appeared as if the law might be observed. But a Government that had frankly declared itself atheistic, and opposed to all religion, was careful to place in its schools only such teachers as should reflect the sentiments of their employers. The French schools became thus the home of teachers not only without faith, but absolutely seething with open and implacable hatred of religion. Growing bold under the favor of an anti-clerical Government, they caused to be introduced into the schools text-books so worded as to impregnate the pupils' minds with anti-religious principles. At first the name of God was allowed in the school, though kept in the background. Soon it was admitted in inverted commas, and finally it was banished altogether. In January, 1907, eleven parents at Apremont complained to the Inspector, but no notice was taken. On June 24, 1908, the Bishop of Belley wrote to that official asking him to withdraw an offensive manual from the schools. Finally the matter was brought before M. Briand, who under the pretence of satisfying the Bishop made a few unimportant changes but left the book as atheistic as ever.

Meanwhile the teachers in the State schools increased in boldness and aggressiveness. All discretion was at length thrown to the winds and doctrines irreligious and impious began to be taught openly and without reserve. The doctrines and practices of the Church were made the subject of ridicule, the name of God was omitted or referred to as a relic of superstition, morality was decried and patriotism denounced as an abuse of the Middle Ages. In 1908, when the Government saw that the parents were in earnest in demanding the observance of the school neutrality, it caused a certain Radical, M. Doumergue, Minister of Public Instruction, to introduce two bills. The first of these sought to inflict penalties upon those parents who shall prevent their children from attending classes in which books are used which are known to contain teachings abusive of religion. By the second bill the responsibility of the State is substituted for that of the teacher, who is thus removed from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and placed under the university tribunals. As soon as these bills were proposed the Bishops, in a Joint Pastoral, protested, declaring that the Bills meant nothing less than the expropriation of the family and the confiscation of its children by the State.

Meanwhile the Government continued its usual aggressive policy until the parents uniting together began to demand strongly the observance of neutrality. Thereupon the Bishops, in September of last year, issued another Joint Pastoral, in which the rights of parents were set forth according to the doctrine of the Church, and in which the use of a number of class-books which dealt abusively with the teaching, practice and history of the Church, was forbidden to Catholic children. At first M. Briand sought to discountenance its importance, but when he saw from the pastorals of individual Bishops that the episcopate were in dead earnest, and from the action of pastors, parents and children, that the Bishops' instructions were likely to be carried out, he joined with the sectaries of the Bloc in denouncing what he hypocritically termed "an attack on the Republican schools." Meanwhile the teachers and the writers of the condemned books came together with prosecutions for libel against some individual Bishops who had signed and published the Joint Pastoral, and had enforced it by pronouncements of their own.

In the beginning of last year the matter, which had been carried on without any positive Governmental influence, was now carried into the Chamber of Deputies. There it was debated hotly on both sides. While Briand, Doumergue, Besnard, Dessoye and others attacked the Church, the Vatican and the Bishops, the champions of religious liberty counted such orators as the Abbe Gayraud, M. Piou, M. Aynard, M. Grousseau, M. Maurice Barres and several other men of eloquence and information. Nothing, however, was effected save to fan the flame of anti-clerical hatred, although M. Briand, when off his guard, pointedly admitted that the Bishops acted within their right in issuing the Joint Pastoral, that the parents had a right to associate for the care of their children's instruction, and that a State monopoly of education would only be a weapon of conflict and an instrument of tyranny. All of which admissions the versatile Briand proceeded to falsify almost in the same speech.

The next move was to proceed formally against individual Bishops. Accordingly, on January 20 Cardinal Lucon, Archbishop of Rheims, was cited to court by the "Teachers' Friendly Society." His Eminence appeared in person, and at the sitting of the second day spoke in his own defence. As he left the court he was loudly cheered. The verdict of the court imposed upon the Cardinal a fine of 500 francs and costs. Still later, in March, Mgr. Turinaz, Bishop of Nancy, was haled into court, but, strange to say, though the evidence was the same as in the case of Cardinal Lucon, Mgr. Turinaz was acquitted.

The audacious effrontery of the Radical gang now seeks to proceed even farther. Not content with forcing its impious books into the public schools, it proposes to lay hands upon private schools as well, and to so trouble them with surveillance so as to compel their dispersion. Meanwhile, the affair of M. Duez has arisen like a horrible spectre in the eyes of the Bloc robbers; the country is aroused at the rottenness and corruption that is being laid bare; the Bloc is seeking to cover over the sore spots. There are other matters in hand besides the school question.

[Decoration]