Seventeen Years in Paris: A Chaplain's Story

by H. E. Noyes

The second article says: “The Republic neither recognises nor salaries nor subsidises any religion”—in future budgets “all expenses connected with the practise of religions” would be omitted, and public religious establishments would be suppressed. Provision is, however, made for the continued services of chaplains in public institutions, a provision which shows an absence of an altogether anti-religious bias in the Bill.

The ceasing of grants for religious services means, of course, an enormous loss to the Roman Church, and a proportionate loss to the Protestant and Jewish Churches also. It is a credit to the Roman Church that this financial loss has not been represented as the chief grievance.

The articles 3 and 4 in the Bill have been those most bitterly opposed by the Ultramontane party. The former required an “inventory” to be made of all Church property, which was then to be transferred to the “Associations Cultuelles,” who were to hold it in the future as “representatives of the religion which has now the use of it.” The taking of this “inventory” was made the occasion of considerable disturbance. In Paris this was especially so at the Church of S. Clothilde, where there was a free fight. The names of the arrested, however, clearly showed that the demonstration was political rather than religious, and engineered mainly by the Royalist party. There is also another fact not generally known, and that is, that the opportunity was being taken by dealers from Paris and London to purchase valuable plate and pictures from the Churches throughout the country, substituting for them others of little value, and the Government was really protecting Church property by taking these inventories.

By article 4 the “Association Cultuelles” were to receive the property as being representatives of the “Religion that now has the use of it.” These associations were to be formed in every parish, the members forming it being proportionate to the population. The priests might be members, and would in most cases nominate the other members.

Thus it would seem a door was open by which a “modus vivendi” might have been arranged between the Vatican and the State. The French bishops realized this, and at their first meeting decided to accommodate themselves to the law. They were convinced by a majority of twenty-two that it would be possible to form associations which, “without violating the separation law, would maintain the essential rights of the Church, her Divine constitution, and her hierarchy.” But the Vatican would not consent.

Later, the Archbishop of Besancon proposed a scheme for the formation of “Associations Canonique,” which, according to the Abbé Houtin, was approved by the bishops by 56 votes against 18. This scheme was also rejected, the Pope declaring that he would not permit their trial “so long as he had no certain and legal guarantee that the Divine constitution of the Church, the immaculate rights of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, and their authority over the necessary property of the Church (particularly over the sacred edifices) would be irrevocably and fully assured by the said associations.” So came a deadlock—on all points the Vatican had refused compliance with the new law, and practically declared war against the Government. With apparently a real desire to meet the difficulty, the Government fell back temporarily upon the law of 1881, which required a simple declaration to be made of the intention to hold Divine service, this declaration being only necessary once a year. This proposal was under discussion at the famous meeting of the French Bishops at La Muette, Paris, in January of this year. We gather from reliable sources that there was a disposition on the part of the bishops to accept this solution of the difficulty, when a telegram was received from the Vatican forbidding it.

Thus we arrive at the present state of the religious question in France. The Church is separated from the State—the Papal Nuncio has been banished from France, the bulk of the people are only nominal adherents of the Church, and they love to have it so.

It must be evident to most who have followed this controversy that Rome has herself fledged the arrow which has brought her down. For a long time she has been losing her hold upon the people, so that to-day, out of thirty-nine millions in the country, it is calculated that only four to five millions are devout adherents of the Papacy. This fact it is that accounts for the absence of any serious uprising during this momentous change which has so recently taken place.

Mr. F. Harrison relates his impressions during a late visit to France in the “Nineteenth Century” for August, and says:—“Of the great religious struggle not a trace was to be seen.… I entered the churches and attended the services at all hours, and was almost always alone. In Notre Dame, in Paris, on Trinity Sunday last there were fifty-two women and twenty-five men.” He adds, “The State was only concerned with the overthrow of a great political conspiracy; there was no trace of a great religious struggle, because none took place.”

Visitors to Paris during the season may get a very erroneous impression as to the true state of religious life. A few of the leading churches may be filled, e.g., the Madeleine, S. Sulpice, S. Clothilde, and some others, but one has to take into account the fact that Paris is much under-churched for the population, and that many of those attending in the season are from the provinces, and, I am sorry to say, some English Churchpeople. So with regard to Sunday. A great change has taken place in France. Visitors of twenty years ago will remember that the shops in Paris were for the most part open, but now they are very generally closed. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that this change arose from a religious feeling. It is rather that France had decided to keep one day in seven for pure pleasure, and Sunday has been chosen as the most convenient day. The theatres and other amusements are open, and thronged as before.