The Present Difficulties of the Church in France

I DO not here propose to treat of the Law of Separation: the readers of the Atlantic Monthly were made fully acquainted with it by Mr. Stoddard Dewey’s article in the number for August, 1907; and I may say in passing that I have seen nowhere a more exact and more impartial treatment of this question, at once so delicate and so complex. The aim of the present essay is simply to study the situation as it reveals itself after a year of separation, to consider both from the material and from the moral point of view the difficulties with which the Church in France is in conflict to-day, and the means by which she is trying to surmount them. The subject surely does not lack interest; rather it possesses too great interest. Even the crisis provoked by the French Revolution was less significant, being too violent to endure. The change which is now going on is not an accident, but the beginning of a new era which will probably last for centuries.

I

The material side of the crisis can be explained in a very few words: the Church in France has lost all her possessions, and furthermore, it is now impossible for her to acquire any legal property. The government has actually taken over the houses of bishops and priests and everything belonging to diocese and parish throughout all France; it has taken over the seminaries with their endowments, including even the scholarships for poor students; in fact, the only point on which it is now hesitating, after an eloquent appeal by the Deputy Abbe Lemire, which stirred the Chamber to a sense of shame, is whether or not it will restore the funds accumulated from the contributions of priests themselves for old-age pensions. All the buildings for worship, cathedrals and churches alike, with all their ornaments and sacred vessels, have been declared the property of the state or of the communes. Parliament believes itself very generous in allowing priests to use for religious ceremonies what was once their own, even with the understanding that they have no more title or administrative right than has the passer-by to the public park or museum.¹

In order to give a more exact idea of Lkis confiscation, or, to use the official word, devolution (transfer), it will be well to give a specific instance. The diocese of Paris alone has lost 85,000 fr. of income for the maintenance of seminaries, 60,000 fr. of income for the general expenses of the diocese, and 415,000 fr. of income belonging to the different parishes. It has also been deprived of two million francs received from the state or from various civil organizations under the Concordat. The total loss which the Church has sustained in the diocese of Paris must be estimated at more than three million franco per year; three millions must now be demanded each year from the faithful in addition to what they formerly contributed for religious purposes, for works of charity, and for education. What is true of Paris is true, proportionally, of all France, with the difference that many dioceses will have far greater difficulty in securing necessary resources.

To question whether the Catholics in France, who have alone done more than the Catholics in any other nation for foreign missions and for the propagation of the faith, will succeed in maintaining the Church in their own country by private contributions, will perhaps arouse astonishment. Nevertheless it may be questioned. We do not doubt the generosity of our people, but that which does give us concern is the impossibility of organizing any revenue which can be permanent. Let us suppose that there is needed approximately one hundred million francs per year; this sum, which is by no means too much for a church of eighty-six dioceses and thirty-eight million parishioners, might perhaps easily be collected for one year or two years, or even for three years; but it is almost inevitable for generosity to relax, especially in less prosperous times. Tlie Church would be able to surmount the difficulty if she had endowments, revenues, or property, as in other countries. But that of course demands some regular organization, some corporation or some body recognized by the laws of the country and capable of acquiring, possessing, and exercising ordinary property rights. We cannot state too emphatically that such an organization for the Church is not possible to-day in France. On one side the only body authorized by the law to look after the material side of the religious interests is the association cultuelle, or local committee of public worship, as defined and regulated by the Law of Separation. On the other side, this association cultuelle has been declared by the Pope incompatible with the hierarchical constitution of the Church of Koine, and the bishops, the priests, and the Catholic laity, in obedience to their Supreme Head, have abstained and will continue to abstain from forming any such organization. Not only, then, have there been no Catholic associations cultuelles to receive from the state the portion of the former religious property (the half perhaps) which we might have kept; but there will be none in the future to receive a gift of any kind. In the eyes of the law there is no diocese, no parish, no corporation representing diocese or parish. The bishop and the pastor are only individual citizens, Messrs. So-and-So. They cannot hold property except as individuals, and what they might receive for religious purposes cannot be handed down to their successors, — it must revert only to their legal heirs. In brief, no permanent body whatever can provide for the maintenance of public worship.

This is the situation with its almost insurmountable difficulties. In all probability it will be a long time before we escape from it. The only reasonable solution which one can dimly see in a more or less remote future is that our French Code should admit the existence of private foundations, such as now exist in America, England, Germany, and almost everywhere else, differing from associations properly so called, having judicial rights by themselves, — possessing property of their own, and administered by managers and trustees. Such establishments can exist in France to-day only on the condition that they be recognized by the state as public utilities. It would be highly desirable could this recognition be dispensed with. The objection which the Catholic Church makes to the associations cultuelles would not apply to such establishments, and the claims of the hierarchy would be respected, since the bishops would themselves make the bylaws, which the trustees could not change. Moreover, it would be advantageous for everybody in France. But parliament, which so recently as 1901 passed the law giving the right of association, does not yet seem ready to give the right of foundation : people are afraid of the mere word main-morte.

On the other hand, there is a large number of prejudiced citizens who would prefer to be themselves deprived of an advantage rather than to see their adversaries enjoy the same. The liberty of establishing foundations would be an advantage to everybody, therefore they say, “ Let us vote for it; ” but on discovering that it would be an advantage to the Church, they say, “ Let us vote against it.”

It would seem, perhaps, after all this, that the Catholic religion must disappear completely in France.² To admit this conclusion would fail to take account of the laws of life. A great social force which has since early ages penetrated to the depths of the morals and of the soul of a nation may be checked in its manifestations by mischievous law or decree of public power, — it cannot be destroyed by such means. The spring in the earth which seeks a chance to escape may perhaps be stopped here and there; but, cut off from its outlet, it will succeed nevertheless in liberating itself. We see this illustrated to-day in the case of religious activity in France. Checked by the State from the Concordat, checked by the Pope from the association cultuelle, it has sought other issues; it still seeks them, and it will continue to seek until it has found some adequate to its real strength. This pursuit has by no means fully succeeded as yet; and the discomfort continues, together with the suffering which always accompanies a need not satisfied. Still, results have already been obtained, and, while awaiting its final form, the life of which we speak, the religious life, has found a temporary means of expression which is interesting to note. The periods of transition are often the most painful and obscure of history, but they are also the most dramatic and the most instructive.

We may regard as the most important and valuable material resource the fact that the churches, with their furniture, are still gratuitously open to the clergy for the celebration of divine service. The priests cannot, it is true, exercise any right of property or administration, since the churches belong to the commune or to the state, which are not even obliged to make necessary repairs (a law passed on December 21,1907, authorizes them, however, to make such repairs if they like). The clergy, it is true, can be excluded from the churches on many pretexts, so that all these privileges constitute a rather imperfect and precarious enjoyment. But it is also a fact that the exercise of religion has been singularly facilitated; otherwise we should have been obliged to rent or build new churches in each parish, and religious services would therefore necessarily have been interrupted or suppressed in many places. The actual closing of the churches was, however, the only thing to which our people would not have submitted. The most violent enemies of religion knew very well that in closing all the churches simultaneously they would have aroused the liveliest discontent in the mass of the electors.

But it was not enough merely to retain possession of the churches. It was necessary to continue the exercise of our religion, to provide the necessary means, and to maintain the clergy deprived of their state salary, of their church houses, of “ parsonages,”and of all the income which formerly had been derived from bequests and legacies accumulated by the piety of the faithful. To that end the ecclesiastical authorities established everywhere what they called the “ œuvre du denier du culte,” which for lack of any more precise translation we may call worship-pence or church sustentation. According to this plan, the priests or their representatives receive and collect from the faithful, in addition to the usual offerings, annual individual subscriptions to replace the lost state revenues. The details of this arrangement are not the same in the different dioceses. Each bishop tries the plan he thinks most efficacious. In Paris, for example, the priests themselves collect and account for whatever is thus paid in; at the end of each quarter that sum is divided into two parts, one of which is retained for the support of the clergy and the maintenance of religion in the parish, and the other goes to the archbishop to be by him applied to the general needs of the diocese and of the poorer parishes. At Lyons, the whole of this fund is devoted to the support of the clergy, and each parish is bound to contribute annually a fixed sum. In other dioceses other plans are being tried. It is expected that out of all these experiments will come ultimately, by means of concerted Episcopal action, a uniform system of legislation.

The Archbishop of Bordeaux has gone further. He has organized a “ Diocesan Association ” to which all his parishes belong and contribute. In 1906 it had a membership of 61,082, and the sum total of the receipts amounted to 316,550 fr. This was more than was necessary, because in 1906 the Separation Law had not gone into effect. For the future they will need in that diocese about a million francs, and it will no doubt be forthcoming. This diocesan association at Bordeaux has given occasion to considerable criticism and discussion. UltraCatholics have affected to see in it the association cultuelle prohibited by Home, but the Holy See has not condemned it. The government, on the other hand, has not objected; it was even disposed to transfer to it a part of the confiscated funds of the diocese in order to give itself an appearance of liberality. The Archbishop of Bordeaux, however, would accept nothing, fearing to complicate matters with Rome and also to subject himself to the inspection and regulation which the secular power might assume as a consequence of the pretended donation.

It seems to me that this association might well be imitated in other dioceses. But beyond that they cannot go. Mgr. Lacroix, Bishop of Tarentaise in Savoie, having tried to create an association which, without being cultuelle, might be regarded “of public utility,” and thus take over the property of the former diocese which amounts to 1,500,000 fr., encountered the disapproval of the Holy See, and the disheartened bishop, finding himself unable to maintain the Church and the clergy in that poor country, sent in his resignation.

In several dioceses, in fact, the worship-pence fund is inadequate for the absolute necessities of the church. Some bishops, in order to oblige the faithful somehow to pay the tax, proposed that a fixed minimum sum be paid by each, and that those who were unwilling to be so taxed should be charged higher fees when they had recourse to the service of the priest, as at weddings, funerals, and christenings. Furthermore, those parishioners who did not pay the sum imposed were to be deprived of the services of priests. But by order of the Holy See these vigorous measures have been suppressed as unapostolic. The contribution will thus retain its character of an entirely voluntary payment.

It would seem that a better way to encourage the faithful to support the expenses of the diocese would be to give them some control of the fund. That is not to say that it would be well to introduce into the Church a parliamentary regime, and that the delegates of the people should vote on the budget. That would not, at least at present, square with our notion of the power of the hierarchy. The clergy, and even the people as a whole, might very well be kept informed as to receipts and expenditures by accounts rendered each year; and again, a certain number of priests and eminent laymen appointed by the clergy or the councils of the parish, or even, if preferred, chosen by the bishop himself, might well be associated together in the administration of the funds of the diocese. He who pays always likes to know, and has some rigid to know, what is done with his money. But in point of fact it is not unheard of, — this sort of thing. Some of the bishops have already created such a council of administration and oversight, but they are not numerous. On the contrary, almost everywhere there have been established “parochial councils,” or committees of laymen named by the bishop at the suggestion of the local priest, whose function it is to assist the priest by their advice and good offices in the administration of the temporal affairs of the parish. They play the part, in some respects, of trustees, or of the vestry in an English or American church, or of our former conseillers dc fabrique, but with this radical difference, that their vote is merely advisory and they have no real administrative power, no responsibility, and no legal status. If they had, they would become an association cultuelle, which would create a double difficulty: on the one hand they would be condemned by the Pope, and on the other they would be subject to all the governmental regulation and control which is provided for by the Separation Law of 1905. From a legal point of view one might, with only a very little exaggeration, say that they have taken the best method of escaping all these difficulties, namely, by abstaining from existing.

Nevertheless their role is something more than nothing, and if it is no part of their function to inform the faithful how their money is spent, they can be very useful to the bishops in assuring the due and regular administration of the temporalities of the parishes. Pursuant to a regulation of the Bishop of Clermont, which took effect January 1, 1908, the priest must enter the receipts and expenditures of all sorts in books or registers regularly kept, and make up an account at the end of each month, and of each year, in order to estimate in advance the budget for the following year. And, what is of prime importance, these accounts and these budgets must be sent to the bishop before the end of January, countersigned by the members of the parochial council, with such comments as they choose to make. There is wanting in all this only the rule in force in the Catholic Church in the United States, that these accounts are to be read from the pulpit at least once a year.

It is to be hoped that the parochial council will not content itself with merely checking the accounts for the benefit of the bishop, but that it will exert itself to stimulate the zeal and generosity of the faithful. However, they do not count on the parochial council so much as on another institution called the parochial committee. This latter scarcely exists yet, and it is therefore difficult to judge of it otherwise than from the hopes of those who have suggested it, The parochial committee was created, or at least projected and decided upon, at the diocesan congress of Paris in June, 1907. Several zealous pastors of this great city had already established, even before the separation, parochial associations conforming to the provisions of the general law of associations of 1901, for the purpose of increasing the interest of the greatest possible number of laymen in the religious and civil work of the parish. These very large associations have been disapproved by the authorities at Rome, who wished to replace them by committees less numerous and without any legal existence, but which might pursue the same propaganda. The future alone can tell what these committees may be worth, and whether they will exercise a profound and durable influence while remaining outside of the law. It is not likely that they will. It seems to many rational minds that the fear of associations cultuelles is involving the Catholic Church at this moment in an exaggerated dread of every sort of legal association.

It has, however, submitted to them when it has been impossible to do otherwise, as was the case in the reorganization of the suppressed theological seminaries and in the creation of the new parishes.

I have already said that the buildings and endowments of the seminaries were confiscated. The Separation Law considered these establishments as institutions of religious worship, and for that reason associations cultuelles alone were authorized to continue them. No associations cultuelles, no seminaries; in fact all these establishments were closed at the end of 1906 and their pupils sent back to their families or thrown into the street. But as it was necessary to continue the education of priests, the bishops gathered the students together in other houses, which they have called sometimes “ Superior Schools of Catholic Theology,” sometimes “Institutions for Secondary Instruction,” according as the instruction is classical or theological. The bishops thus escape the Separation Law of 1905, but they come under the law of 1875 on the liberty of superior instruction, and that of 1850 on the liberty of secondary instruction.³ Equally obliged to be subject to some legal formality with respect to property, they had recourse to what are called “civil societies,” the French equivalent of an American business corporation, and they have thus entrusted the possession of the seminaries to a little group of citizens who are regarded in law as exploiting the property for commercial ends.

It was necessary also to have recourse to these civil societies in organizing new parishes. The crisis resulting from the separation has not entirely checked the growth of the Church in France, it has in some ways given it greater expansive force, especially in view of the suppression of the control of the state. The bishops have found it best, especially in the great cities, to increase the number of parishes and to divide those that were too populous. Some parishes counted more than one hundred thousand of the faithful, and it is enough to say that it was impossible for the pastors to look after the spiritual needs of such a multitude. One of the first cares of the Archbishop of Paris, once free from the regime of the Concordat which required a parliamentary act to create a parish and a decree of the Council of State to open a chapel, was to establish in his diocese, especially in the poorer quarters, several new parishes. But how was he to buy or erect new churches, and by what title was the property to be held ? In the name of the diocese of Paris ? There is nothing and nobody in the eye of the present law that stands for the diocese of Paris. In the name of the Cardinal or his coadjutor ? That would be to expose the property to the possible claims of their heirs or personal representatives at some future time. It was necessary once more to create “civil societies,” seemingly commercial organizations, having for their object profit on the capital invested. These societies have bought some of the confiscated chapels and have built new ones which they have leased to so-and-so or so-and-so, to M. Richard or Gardey, archbishop or pastor.⁴ It will perhaps be objected that if the associations cultuelles did not offer sufficient guarantees to the Catholic hierarchy, and if its members could always withdraw from the control of the bishop both themselves and their property, that danger, if there is any, would be the same as regards the members of these civil societies. It may be so, but there is no other means of safeguarding the title to the property.

II

Such are the principal material difficulties in which the Church in France is now involved, and against which she struggles; and such are the various plans she is now adopting to extricate herself. Although I call them material difficulties,

I do not mean to say that they are not in a very real sense also moral difficulties. They not only increase the hardships of life for the clergy, and render more difficult the maintenance of religious worship, but they create an anomalous and dangerous situation. It is equally a dream in France, whether one hopes to exist outside of the law, for we are in a too highly centralized country for that, or to find in the law a permanent shelter and defense, for the power of parliament is unlimited by either a constitution or supreme court. But this insecurity, great in any case, is greater and almost disheartening for those who are obliged to organize under a law not adapted to their affairs, and thus to strain in a way the provisions of the statute, furnishing to their adversaries quite a ready pretext for attacking and injuring them.

It cannot be denied that the Church in France is beset by many adversaries, — as indeed the Church is in other countries of Europe, especially in Italy. That is hard for Americans to comprehend, respecting as they do the liberty of conscience, and being convinced moreover, even when themselves not personally religious, that religion is a good thing, and an essential element of public morality. Prejudices intellectual, social, and political almost totally unknown, especially the last two, in the United States, confront the Church in France.

A crowd of half-educated would-be scientists and politicians of the baser sort eagerly represent the Church as the enemy of enlightenment and progress. A few really eminent scholars and scientists, like the chemist Berthelot, deceived by a false philosophy, share these prejudices and give them credit. By means of many magazines and any quantity of newspapers, they get at the working classes and the peasants, and fill them with the notion that humanity cannot progress except upon the ruins of religion; that, to use a phrase of Monsieur Viviani, a member of the present cabinet, we shall see clearly on earth only when we put out the lights of heaven.

Catholics, as a matter of course, do not lack arguments to refute that sort of thing. They can insist upon the difference, the essential difference between the domain of science and that of religion, and show that a conflict between things so essentially different is impossible. And for those who cannot grasp an argument logically conceived, they can cite the names of men preeminent in science who were and are devout and loyal Christians, and who have kept the faith. To contrast two men but recently dead, the faith of Pasteur is as good an argument as the irreligion of Berthelot. They can also point with some pardonable pride to the names of many great living men of science and letters who profess and demonstrate their sincerely religious convictions. Active Catholics who are members of the French and other academies are more numerous today than ever. For example, M. de Lapparent, a professor in the Catholic Institute of Paris, has been recently elected Perpetual Secretary of the Academy of Sciences, by the members of that distinguished body, the most preeminent society for scientific attainments in our country and perhaps in the world. But the anti-religious press takes very good care not to publish facts like that. It rather prefers to insist upon, to distort, and to aggravate certain facts in the ancient history of the Church, or certain facts of our more recent history, in order to make simple people believe that religion is all very well for the ignorant, that science strips things of mystery, and that to worship God one must cease to use his reason.

These prejudices are not only preached by a press distinctly anti-religious, but are taught more or less openly in a great number of our public schools where many of the teachers who have derived their irreligion from the normal schools, and bring into these matters all the audacity of their half-education, do not hesitate to ridicule before their pupils the most sacred things. In doing so they go without doubt beyond the neutrality prescribed by the law in matters of religion, but they know that it is a good way to win favor from the politicians, and from the Minister of Public Instruction, from whom they get and hold their places. During the present year, some Catholic parents have undertaken to form an association to prosecute before the courts those teachers who openly violate the neutrality prescribed by law in speaking against God and ridiculing patriotism; thereby they have obtained some decisions which very much annoy the anticlerical press. But the best means of combating such anti-religious instruction is to create and maintain private and religious schools. The Catholics have done and are doing just that with a commendable generosity. In spite of the new burdens imposed upon them by the Separation Law, they have preserved this year almost all their schools and have even established some new ones.⁵

It is also very important for the Catholics to do whatever they can to develop the highest culture in the clergy, at least in as numerous an elite as possible. After all, people judge of an institution by those who represent it, and it would be difficult to make them believe that the Church sincerely favors learning if they should find themselves confronted by an ignorant clergy. We are therefore fortunate in being able to say that the bishops understand this essential need and are doing all they can to meet it. In spite of all their other heavy burdens they are making it a point of honor to support the Catholic institutes either by continuing their subscriptions or by sending to us their most intelligent young priests. Upon the opening of our Catholic Institute in Paris, last autumn, the ecclesiastical students were more numerous than ever before, and the recent gift from the Pope, of 100,000 fr., has served to stimulate the generosity of Catholics, too prone up to this time to forget us.

Some of the bishops, we may add, are taking steps to unite several of the smaller and less numerously attended seminaries, and to strengthen them by the consequent concentration of their funds and increase in numbers of professors and pupils. This has been accomplished only in the dioceses of Sens and Troyes.

Another and more important project of the same nature is well advanced and has been in practice for several months. A community house has been secured in Paris by a large number of bishops acting in concert, to be used to prepare professors in the great theological schools for their supremely important task, first, in scholastic instruction, by having them attend the proper courses of the Catholic Institute; and second, in the priesthood more particularly, by putting them under the direction of eminent priests who are distinguished as professors and presidents of the great theological schools. Although at present very humble, the creation of this normal school of an entirely new type is big with promise for the advancement of the French clergy.

The social prejudice against the Church is, perhaps, a little less widespread than the intellectual prejudice of which we have just spoken, and it is assuredly less widespread than the political prejudice of which we shall speak presently. It exists, nevertheless, and helps to trammel the actions of the priests. They are often accused of being partisans of the rich: the peasant accuses them of being the vassals of the chateaux, the workman of being favorable to his employers. I am not one of those who fail to recognize defects in the servants of the Church; but, verily, nothing is more unjust than this reproach. With very few exceptions, the French clergy have been recruited from the laboring classes, and they retain their democratic sympathies; the very few priests who come from the ranks of the wealthy, or from the nobility, display a conspicuously generous devotion toward the lowly. This year, moreover, in the difficult reorganization of the resources necessary for carrying on the interests of the Church, the bishops, cognizant of the danger, took every precaution that the contributions be not made exclusively by the rich, but that all the faithful, however humble, be in some small way associated with the new life of the parish. On the other hand, to consider the question from a higher point of view, it is certain that the Church, since the encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, has shown a devoted interest in the working people.

What, then, must the priests in France do to appear — what they really are — the friends of the people ? They must continue the movement begun some years ago, which is not yet sufficiently general; they must take a practical interest in the daily life of the working people, and of the peasants; favor the formation of social centres and of every organization which would give them more information, more security for their future, and more physical comfort ; and, above all, they must avoid everything which would give ground for belief that in preaching charity they would be willing to substitute it for justice, and that in preaching the bliss of heaven, they think it useless to reduce the sufferings of the present life. It is in this path of wise democracy that the most prominent representatives of Catholic activities and Catholic thought have moved since the time of Leo XIII; and the working people of the cities, even the socialists, have begun to recognize this fact. In spite of some extravagant words coming from those who did not at all times possess a technical grasp of the situation, the young Catholic democrats, priests and laymen, members of the Sillon⁶ especially, have rendered valuable service to the cause of religion in separating it from the party of social reaction. For some time they have been attacked with bitterness in certain papers and reviews by those whom we call the “extreme Catholic Right.” If they should be condemned by the Church, this would be exploited by its enemies with great success among the masses; a condemnation of our Catholic democrats, even if it should happen that they had merited it by their mistakes, would persuade the people for a long time that Catholicism is not compatible with the aspirations of democracy, just as they have already been persuaded that Catholicism is not compatible with a republican form of government.

And this question leads us to the cause of the most irritating, the most serious, the most far-reaching, and. we will dare to say, the most absurd of our political and religious difficulties. “The Church against the Republic!” this has been the basic prejudice of the anti-religious party in France for more than thirty years; this is the pretext which has given a motive for all the laws of exception and of spoliation, for putting the Catholics outside the law — or little short of this — and for making them, as has been said, disfranchised citizens.

Unfortunately there is truth in this prejudice, and, if it were the subject of the present article, we could tell the mistake which many leaders of Catholicism and the greatest number of our religious newspapers have too long persisted in, namely, that of attributing to the republican form of government the wrongdoings of the men in power, of attributing to the republican constitution the anti-religious laws made by the majority in Parliament.⁷ Assuredly the Church herself is not responsible for this lack of intelligence. Her task is to teach us the principles of religion and moral life; she has no mission to educate us in political matters. Moreover, the only time that she has intervened in French affairs was when her official head, Pope Leo XIII, reminded the Catholics of their duty as good citizens, and in a solemn letter advised them to accept the constitution of their country. But the small number of monarchists who survive in France, and who are for the most part practical Catholics, turned a deaf ear to the wise counsel of the Sovereign Pontiff. Without being strong enough or active enough to imperil the existence of the Republic in the smallest way, they have continued to make just enough stir in their discourses and in their newspapers to give a pretext to the enemies of religion, who have made their simple-minded voters believe that if they cast their ballots for the Catholic candidates, or even for the liberal candidates, the monarchy will return with all the socalled horrors of the old regime.

The Law of Separation, the unjust and illiberal character of several of its articles, and the enormous spoliation which it carried with it, furnished new arguments to the reactionaries, and they cried out with more vehemence than ever that now Catholics were to be enlightened as to the mischievous doings of the republican régime. Forgetful of their own powerlessness, they attribute to the policy of Leo XIII and its followers all the misfortunes under which the Church suffers; they pretend to believe that the present Pope — although he confines himself scrupulously to the religious side of questions—is entirely favorable to them; they cover him with eulogies, and contrast him, in spite of himself, with his predecessor; they combat relentlessly all the newspapers, all the groups, and even all the individuals who do not share in their vision of a monarchy; they charge with heresy whosoever calls himself republican or democrat; in short, they assume the mission of saviours of the Church herself, and they write, speak, and act as if, outside the monarchical party, there were neither salvation nor orthodoxy.

Although it is only too true that these blind reactionaries have found some allies in the Church, Pope Pius X himself has always held aloof from their intrigues; and in the very encyclical in which he denounced the Law of Separation, he expressly stated that he was not inveighing against the Republic. Furthermore, the bishops of France individually, as well as in assembly, have carefully avoided everything which could in any way lend favor to so lamentable a confusion of ideas.

Finally, if one wishes to know how the young secular clergy feel, a little incident of recent occurrence, not known to the public, will throw some light on the matter. At the Catholic Institute of Paris there exists an association composed partly of lay students, partly of seminarists and young priests; last November, at the time of the marriage of the Princess Louise, sister of the Due d’Orléans, some of the lay students proposed to the association to send an appropriate address to the Royal Pretender. The suggestion met the prompt opposition of the ecclesiastical students, who succeeded in defeating it. This incident gives the key-note of the state of mind of French Catholics on the subject of politics since the Law of Separation; some years ago no one would have dared to make such a proposition in the Catholic Institute; to-day some may dare to make it, but they would be only of the lay body, and would have the bitter opposition of the ecclesiastics.

I should not have insisted at such length on the purely political side of the question; but it explains in part, without in any way justifying it, the hostility which the Church encounters among the masses, a hostility which is carefully encouraged by her adversaries. They very well know that the existence of the Republic is in no way imperiled, yet the scarecrow of danger from the clericals has rendered far too valuable service in elections to be willingly renounced. If there were no monarchists in France, they could drag some in from outside at the time of elections!

The existence of a monarchical party, small though it may be, and its noisy chatter, are the chief reasons why French Catholics, to the great astonishment of their coreligionists in other countries, and especially in America, do not succeed in putting an end to the vexations, the injustice, and the spoliations of which they are victims. In order to defend successfully their rights they must be united in the electoral campaigns; and for this they need to be of one mind on the one essential point: they must either indorse or oppose the Republican Constitution. United they are not, nor can they be so long as an appreciable number of them pursue the chimera of a return of the monarchy. The moment a candidate favorable to religion calls himself republican, he has ranged against him both the radical party and the monarchical party, and defeat is certain. If he calls himself monarchist he receives only a ridiculous handful of votes. And he cannot be silent on this fundamental question; in public meetings and in the daily papers his adversaries will oblige him to state his convictions; if he prefers to be silent on the subject, he inspires no one with confidence. This explains the failure of all the so-called unions of conservatives, and, also, quite recently, of l’Action libérate, directed by M. Piou. This association, well organized and having great resources at its disposal, did not dare to mention the Republic in any of its campaign literature. It failed of its end; its failure was inevitable.

Is the way, then, blocked, and are the Catholics of France doomed to be always divided ? I do not believe it. Time is often more persuasive than men. The Republic is to-day thirty-seven years old, and already the number of its adversaries is small; when it shall have reached the age of fifty, of sixty, of one hundred years, there will remain only enough of the monarchical party in France to make a bodyguard for their pretender! Then it will be difficult for a blindly infatuated clerical to put his hope in a king, difficult for the most relentless anti-clerical to make the people believe that the existence of the Republic is in great danger. France will then rejoice, as wall all civilized peoples, in religious peace.

But the question may be asked: Will there then be any religious spirit left in France ? I have finished writing these lines on the day after Christmas. The great Christian fete was celebrated everywhere with unprecedented fervor. The poetic Midnight Mass, which the bishops suppressed last year in the alarm of the first days of the new regime, was celebrated anew in city and in country, before crowds greater in number and more devout than ever; not the slightest disturbance of any kind was noted either in Paris or in the provinces. The people hardly knew whether the church in which they were assembled belonged to the state, to the municipality, to an association cultnelle, or simply to their pastor; but they did know that it was the house of God; they knew that there they had been baptized, there they had taken their first communion; that there their marriage vows had been pledged, there the funeral rites of their dear dead celebrated. And they came to sing before the Infant Jesus the Christmas hymns which their fathers sang. It would take more than a mischievous law to destroy at a simple stroke centuries of Christian tradition. The Church of Christ in France has vitality enough to triumph to the end of time over her adversaries, and over her defenders.