Seventeen Years in Paris: A Chaplain's Story

by H. E. Noyes

In 1901, M. Waldeck Rousseau being Prime Minister, the “Associations Bill” was brought into the Chamber of Deputies. This Bill required all congregations to be authorized. Existing congregations were to obtain authorization, and no new ones could be formed without this authority. The Bill was no doubt aimed chiefly at the various “orders,” several of which were not authorized, as, e.g., the Jesuits and the Dominicans. Desperate efforts were made in the Chamber to defeat the Government, but the Bill was carried by 303 votes to 224. Soon after this, M. Waldeck Rousseau retired, nominating M. Combes as his successor.

In 1902 the elections were held, and the Government “went to the country” upon the Associations Bill. Contrary to the expectations of the Ultramontane party, and showing how rapidly it was losing its hold upon the people, the elections were decidedly in favour of the Government. M. Combes, in the same year, suppressed 127 establishments (monasteries and convents) which were not authorized. Many thought he acted with undue severity, and disturbances took place in various parts. It has, however, to be remembered that with the Government it was a struggle for life, and as a leading statesman expressed it, “The religious orders are a State within a State, and capable of undermining the most solid edifice raised by a most united people.” M. Combes has frequently said that he had no intention at this time of going so far as to propose the breaking of the Concordat—not that he objected to it, but he did not believe that the country was ripe for it. The somewhat extraordinary action of the Vatican, and the support of the Government by the people, carried him on.

An event took place soon after which accentuated the friction between the Government and the Vatican. M. Loubet (President of the Republic) had decided to pay an official visit to the King of Italy. This was considered an insult to the Vatican, which had for a long time endeavoured to keep France and Italy apart. Protest was made to the French Government, and every engine of diplomacy used to arrange a visit to the Pope before the audience with the King of Italy. M. Loubet and the Government refused to be dictated to, and as M. Combes put it in a speech subsequently made, “We will not allow the Papacy to intermeddle in our international relationships, and we intend to have done once for all with the fiction of the Temporal Power.” This sounds very much like the sentence in our own Constitution: “The Pope of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.”

The mass of the people—with whom M. Loubet was popular—sided with the Government, and the gulf was made a little wider.

Following this incident came the case of the two Bishops, Mgr. le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon, and Mgr. Geay, Bishop of Laval. These two ecclesiastics were accused of certain crimes against morality, and of Freemasonry. The excitement was widespread, and eventually the bishops were summoned to Rome. In conformity with the terms of the Concordat, they informed the French Government of this order, who forbid them to leave the country, as the summons was irregular. From this time a battle began between the Vatican and the French Government, until at length the two bishops yielded, and went to Rome to be tried, and eventually resigned their bishoprics. This was regarded as a great triumph for the Ultramontane party.

But what followed caused considerable consternation, for on July 29th of that year the Papal Nuncio was informed by M. Delcasse that there was no need for him to remain longer in France. I shall not soon forget the excitement in Paris at this decided step. Parliament, however, approved of what had been done, and thus the way was prepared for the breaking of the “golden chain” of the Concordat, and the final rupture with the Vatican. Great events followed with striking rapidity.

On December 9th, 1905, the law was passed severing the connection between Church and State, which was completed on March 16th, 1906, by the “Reglement d’Administration publique.” It was legislation for which the country had proved to be ripe.

The series of events which I have briefly referred to had hastened the crisis. No greater mistake could be made than to imagine it was merely a political measure arising from irritation. It was inevitable—it was but the “registration of an existing fact.”

Moreover, the Bill itself was much more generous and favourable than it might have been, and is not rightly described as “persecution.” It is no doubt anti-clerical, but that does not mean that it is altogether anti-religious. In the Chamber of Deputies the other day the Abbé Lemire could say that “he believed in the sincerity of those who say they wished to make the law of separation a law of liberty and toleration, as well for the Church as for the State.”

The first article of the Bill reads thus: “The Republic assures liberty of conscience and guarantees the free practise of religion subject only to the restrictions hereinafter enacted, in the interest of public order.”