WITH OUR READERS
This department is open to our readers for the expression of their opinions on questions of public interest. The editors, while inviting contributions bearing on measures and events of general interest, reserve the right to exclude such matter as is not deemed suitable, and are not responsible for opinions expressed.
FRANCE AND THE CHURCH
A great epoch is transpiring in the republic of France—greater, in fact, than the triumphant continuance of the French democracy. The passing of the power of the Roman Catholic Church in that country presents a more marvelous condition or situation than the continued perpetuation of the republican form of government.
The Church of Rome, saving a few years of Huguenot power, and the short-lived revolution preceding the advent of Napoleon, has, for more than ten centuries, linked its history with that of France. In fact, the latter has, since the days of Charles Martel, been known as the “eldest daughter of the church.” And what a history! A Roman pope crowned King Pepin in the eighth century and Napoleon in the nineteenth. Not a line of history, of romance, of tradition, of public or private right, or public or private wrong, but through the ages has been mingled with her name. From Flanders, on the English channel, to Provence on the Mediterranean, from Lorraine, on the east, to Gascoigne in the west, it was all Catholic, and Roman Catholic. The counts of Paris, Flanders, and of Anjou; the dukes of Burgundy, Normandy, of Guise; and the Bourbon Princes, were all originally Roman Catholics.
Who is there that has not in the morning of life read with delight of the martial prowess and religious fervor of Jeanne d’Arc, the Maid of Orleans? Her love of her church, and her love for her country, ought to be remembered by men who are now playing fast and loose with the fortunes of both. Who but will admit that their Excellencies, Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, with their imperious sway, did more to extend the glory of France than either of the great Louises under whom they ministered? What student of French history could forget the names of La Valliere, De Montespan, and Maintenon, brilliant, charming, but dissolute, who, losing royal favor, sought and found solace in the sacred precincts of the cloister? The grand cathedrals at Rheims, at Rouen; Nôtre Dame and the Madeleine at Paris; the many rare and splendid chapels to the famous chateaux of monarchs, and princes, that line the Loire, the Seine, the Rhone, and Garonne—do they not speak in ancient protest to the late separation and sequestration? Who but that remembers the sweet, dignified bearing, and devout humility of the peasant husband and wife bowed in prayer, in the field, at the ringing of the angelus, as portrayed by Millet? Typical of religious France! Can such things be swept away and become a mere memory at the beck of secular and temporal power?
The French Revolution of 1789 with its consequent vulgar excess brought about in 1801 the so-called “Concordat,” it being a carefully drawn agreement between Pius VII and Napoleon, which restored, with material restrictions, the power of the church in France. When one writes of the church in France he means the Roman Catholic Church, for ninety per cent of the communicants of religion there belong to that denomination. There is little or no doubt but that Napoleon overreached the Pope in that agreement. Only divinity itself could have coped with the masterly genius of that most wonderful man—the “man of destiny”—who, in changing the map of the world by his sword, wrought a greater change in its human affairs through his policies. Much church property had been confiscated during the revolution, and had passed from the state to other hands. The titles, so acquired, to that property were to be left undisturbed by the restoration of the church. Again, the government reserved, in the Concordat, the right to nominate the archbishops and bishops of the church, and assumed and asserted the right to determine their attitude between the Vatican and the state.
The law of “Separation,” as it is called, was passed December 5th, 1905, by which annual stipends, previously guaranteed by the state to bishops and priests were abolished, and the churches, parochial residences, and buildings used for religious purposes, including monasteries, convents, seminaries, all, should fall under the authority of the state to be regulated by civil corporations known as “associations of worship.” The law provided twelve months from its passage, that it should be ratified by the church.
The civil associations are to hold the church property and have the right to dictate the mode and manner of the worship therein, even the uses for which the property shall be employed.