The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Volume 1, February, 1865

by Unknown

Somewhat calmed, the Consul interrupted, saying that he did not wish to leave after him unfinished works; he would have all or none. The Cardinal having replied that he had no power to negotiate on the article in question as long as it remained in its present shape, Napoleon's former excitement flashed out once more as he repeated with fire his resolution to insist on it just as it was, without a syllable more or less. "Then I will never sign it", replied the Cardinal, "for I have no power to do so". "And that is the very reason", cried the other, "why I say that you wished to break off the negotiations, and that I look on the business as settled, and that Rome shall open her eyes, and shall shed tears of blood for this rupture". Then almost rudely pushing his way through the company, he went about in every direction, declaring that he would change the religion of Europe; that no power could resist him; that he would not be alone in getting rid of the Pope, but would throw the whole of Europe into confusion: it was all the Pope's fault, and the Pope should pay the penalty.

The Austrian minister, the Count de Cobenzel, full of consternation at the scene, ran at once towards the Cardinal, and with warm entreaty, implored of him to find some means of averting so dreadful a calamity. Once more had the Cardinal to hear from lips to which fear lent most earnest eloquence, the harrowing description of the evils in store for religion and for Europe. "But what can be done", he replied, "in the face of the obstinate determination of the First Consul, to resist all change in the form of the article?" The conversation was here interrupted by the summons to dinner. The meal was short, and was the most bitter the Cardinal had ever tasted in his life. When they returned to the saloon, the Count resumed his expostulations. Bonaparte seeing them in conversation, came up to the Count, and said that it was a loss of time to try to overcome the obstinacy of the Pope's minister; and then, with his usual vivacity and energy, he repeated his former threats. The Count respectfully answered that, on the contrary, he found the Pope's minister sincerely anxious to come to terms, and full of regret at the rupture; no one but the First Consul himself could lead the way to a reconciliation. "In what manner?" asked Bonaparte, with great interest. "By authorising the commissioners to hold another sitting", replied the Count, "and to endeavour to introduce some such modification of the contested point as might satisfy both parties". These and other remarks of the Count were urged with such tact and grace, that after some resistance, Napoleon at last yielded. "Well, then", cried he, "to prove to you that it is not I who seek to quarrel, I consent that the commissioners shall meet on to-morrow for the last time. Let them see if there be any possibility of an agreement; but, if they separate without coming to terms, the rupture may be looked on as final, and the Cardinal may go. I declare, likewise, that I insist on this article just as it stands, and I will allow no change to be made in it". And so saying, he abruptly turned his back on the two ministers.

These words, ungracious and contradictory as they were, nevertheless contained the promise of a respite. It was resolved at once to hold a sitting the next day at noon in the usual place, in the hope that, having come to some agreement between themselves, they might win the First Consul's consent, through the influence of his brother Joseph, who had a great regard for De Cobenzel, and who was desirous of peace.

That night, following a day of such anxiety, and preceding a day of dreadful struggle, brought but little repose to Cardinal Consalvi. But when the morning came, a circumstance occurred which filled to overflowing the cup of bitterness he had been condemned to drain. At an early hour Mgr. Spina came into his room with sorrow and embarrassment in his countenance, to report that the theologian, P. Caselli, had just left him, after having announced that he had spent the night in reflecting on the incalculable mischief likely to follow from such a rupture; that its consequences would be most fatal to religion, and, as the case of England proved, without a remedy; that, seeing the First Consul inflexibly bent on refusing any modification of the disputed article, he had come to the determination of signing it as it stood; that in his opinion, it did not touch doctrine, and the unparalleled character of the circumstances would justify the Pope's condescendence in such a case. Mgr. Spina added that since this was the opinion of P. Caselli, who was so much better a theologian than he himself, he had not courage enough to assume the responsibility of consequences so fatal to religion, and that he, too, had made up his mind to receive the article and sign it as it was. In case the Cardinal believed that it was not competent for them to sign without him, they would be under the necessity of protesting their acceptation of the article, thereby to save themselves from being responsible for the consequences of the rupture.

This declaration, coupled with the thought that he was now alone in the conflict, deeply affected the Cardinal. But it did not shake his resolution nor take away his courage. He set himself to the task of persuading his two friends of their mistake, but his endeavours were in vain. Perceiving that all his arguments were counterbalanced by the dread entertained of the consequences, he ended by saying that he was by no means convinced by their reasons, and even single-handed he was resolved to persevere in the conflict. He therefore requested them to defer the announcement of their having accepted the article until the conference was at an end, if it should be necessary to break off negotiations. They willingly assented, and promised to give their support to his arguments in the course of the debate, although they were resolved not to go as far as a rupture.

Precisely at noon the sitting was opened at the residence of Joseph Bonaparte. It lasted twelve hours, the clock having struck midnight as they arose from the table. Eleven hours were devoted to the discussion of the article of the Concordat which had been the cause of so many disputes. It is now time to redeem our promise to enter somewhat into detail concerning this famous question.

At Rome two things were considered as absolutely essential to the Concordat, of which they were declared to be conditions sine quibus non. One of these was the free exercise of the Catholic religion; the other, that this exercise of religion should be public. The Head of the Church felt it indispensable that these two points should be proclaimed in the Concordat, not only because it was necessary to secure for religion some solid advantage which might justify the extraordinary concessions made by the Holy See, but also because the spirit of the secular governments both before, and much more after, the French Revolution, ever tended to enslave and fetter the Church. Besides, it had become quite evident in the earlier stage of the negotiations, that the government of France was obstinately opposed to the recognition of the Catholic religion as the religion of the State. That government had ever met the exertions made by Rome to gain this point by reciting the fundamental principle of the constitution, which asserted the complete equality of rights, of persons, of religions, and of everything else. Hence it was looked upon as a great victory, and one for which Cardinal Consalvi deserved high praise, when he succeeded in extorting the admission that stands at the head of the Concordat, to the effect that the Catholic religion in France was the religion of the majority of the citizens. Another reason there was to insist upon these two points. That universal toleration, which is one of the leading principles of the jus novum, had long been proved by experience to mean toleration for all sects, but not for the true Church. The Cardinal had not much difficulty in obtaining the recognition of the free exercise of the Catholic religion. Perhaps the government already had thought of the famous organic laws which it afterwards published, and which effectually neutralised all its concessions on this point. But a whole host of invincible difficulties was marshalled against the demand made for public exercise of the Catholic worship. It was urged with some reason, and no doubt in a good measure with sincerity, that circumstances had made it impossible to carry out in public with safety to the general peace, all the ceremonies of religion, especially in places where the Catholics were outnumbered by infidels and non-catholics. These latter would be sure to insult and disturb the processions and other public functions performed outside the churches; and it was not to be expected that the Catholics would bear these outrages with patience. Hence, not being willing to sanction an indefinite right of publicity, the government expressed its views in these terms:[1] "The Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion shall be freely exercised in France: its worship shall be public, regard being had, however, to police regulations". This is the article the discussion of which had occasioned so much labour and anxiety.

Cardinal Consalvi discovered in the article thus worded two fatal defects: firstly, it tended to enslave the Church by placing her at the mercy of the civil power; and secondly, it implied on the part of the Church a sanction of the principle which would serve to legalise such enslavement. For many years, court lawyers had spoken but too plainly concerning the supposed right of the crown to regulate external worship; and so far had this right been extended in practice, that the Church found herself almost, or even altogether, the slave of the civil power. "I had good reason, therefore", says the Cardinal, "to entertain a sovereign dread of that indefinite and elastic phrase 'regard being had to' (en se conformant)". Besides, many things pointed to the probability that in virtue of such a convention signed by the Holy See, the police, or rather the government, would interfere in everything, and submit everything to its own will and pleasure, without the Church being able to object, her liberty being tied up by the expression in the treaty. No doubt the Church frequently finds herself in such circumstances, as lead her to tolerate de facto violations of her rights and laws, such toleration being recommended either by prudence, or by charity, or by lack of power, or by other just motives. But she never can authorize by a solemn engagement the principle from which such violations spring.

Whilst fully decided never to accept at any risk an article so fraught with mischief to the Church, Consalvi was too loyal and too honest to deny the force of some of the arguments brought into the field by the French commissioners. Hence he proposed various expedients by help of which the dreaded dangers to the public peace might be turned away. One of these expedients was a Papal Bull to the French clergy, commanding them to abstain for some time from certain public ceremonies in places where those hostile to Catholicism were numerous or intolerant; another was, to insert an additional article limiting the duration of the proposed exception, and determining the cases in which the police might interfere: but all was in vain; the government obstinately clung to its idea. The Cardinal tells us that he would have preferred to omit all mention of the right to publicity of worship, and thus cut the knot it was so troublesome to unravel; but his orders from Rome to include that point were too decided, and he was not allowed to send a courier to solicit fresh instructions from the Holy Father on the subject. He felt, therefore, that, even at the cost of a rupture between the two contending parties, he was bound by his most solemn and sacred duty to refuse his sanction to the obnoxious proposition.

With these convictions Consalvi took his place at the meeting, on the result of which hung the spiritual interests of so many millions of souls. We shall not follow out in detail the shifting phases of the negotiation, but we will come at once to its closing passage. The French commissioners declared that the state had no wish to enslave the Church; that the word police did not mean the government, but simply that department of the executive charged with the maintenance of public order, which order was as much desired by the Church as by the state. Now it was absolutely necessary to preserve public order, and no law could stand in the way of such a result. Salus populi suprema lex. It was impossible, they said, for public order to last throughout parts of France, if unrestricted publicity were once permitted in religious ceremonies; and as no other power save the government could judge where such publicity might be safe and where dangerous, it should be left to the discretion of the government to impose, for the sake of peace, such restrictions as the general good required. The Cardinal admitted that public tranquillity was by all means to be preserved, but he contended that the article did not restrict, either in point of object or of time, the power it assigned to the government; that such unrestricted power was dangerous to the Church; and therefore some clause should be added to determine more plainly the precise nature and bearing of the authority to be given to the police to regulate public worship. At length he urged a dilemma which completely vanquished the commissioners. "I objected", says he, "thus: either the government is in good faith when it declares the motive which forces it to subject religious worship to police regulations to be the necessary maintenance of public tranquillity, and in that case it cannot and ought not refuse to assert so much in the article itself; or the government refuses to insert such an explanation; and then it is not in good faith, and clearly reveals that its object in imposing this restriction on religion is to enslave the Church".