The War Upon Religion / Being an Account of the Rise and Progress of Anti-Christianism in Europe

by Francis A. Cunningham

In answer, moreover, to the Pontifical note, the French ministry demanded that the Holy See give an explanation of its words, and that within the space of twenty-four hours; then, rushing headlong upon a solution, as if impatient to hurry on the imminent rupture, it recalled the French ambassador to the Holy See (May 21, 1904). This action was approved by the Chamber six days after; it refused, however, by a vote of 366 to 144 to pronounce for the immediate denunciation of the Concordat; but that event was now well on the way, and nothing was needed but to devise the ways and means.

The year 1905 opened with many muttered evidences of the coming storm. The prime minister, M. Combes, though not defeated in the January elections, beheld his majority so far reduced because of his rabid inconsistencies, that although re-elected to his former post he felt it incumbent to resign immediately. He was succeeded by a creature pledged to continue his oppressive policy, M. Maurice Rouvier. It may be said, however, that the spirit of Combes has dominated the French Chambers ever since. The new cabinet was destined to put the final touches to the anti-clerical campaign of dissolution.

Various motions having from time to time been introduced before the Chamber of Deputies tending towards the separation of Church and State, the Government finally, decided to place all of them for examination into the hands of a Commission of thirty-three, which was nominated on June 11, 1903. Out of the deliberations of this body resulted the first scheme, or project, of the proposed legislation in regard to Separation of Church and State. The question was formally introduced to the Chamber of Deputies in the session of March 21, 1905, and was discussed during forty-eight sessions until July 3 of that year. Its reporter, or sponsor, was M. Briand.

BRIAND.

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. Jaurès.—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.