CHURCH IN FRANCE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 3 June 1942, Page 4

CHURCH IN FRANCE

ATTITUDE TO VICHY & NAZIS CIRCLES OF RESISTANCE. OBSERVATIONS ON POSITION. Great comfort has been brought to resisting Catholics by the news, which has reached them in France none knows how, of the doctrinary attitude of Cardinal Hinsley and the American Catholics, whose voices, it is hoped, will be heard, says the writer of an article in “France,” the French daily newspaper published in London. The attitude adopted by “a few ecclesiastics,” says the writer, who is -apparently a person of authority, caused uneasiness, followed by keen apprehension, in Catholic circles of resistance. It was feared that notabilities of the church might profit by their authority to induce the clergy and the faithful to follow a line of conduct susceptible of causing harm to national union and to Catholic prestige. Pressure from above, the writer continues, by radio, press and circulais, is using the doctrinal arm, varied according to circumstances. One of the favourite themes is that the present goverment is an established power. Therefore, it is legitimate thgt Catholics should owe it obedience. A second theme stresses the duty of obedience, insisting on the obligation of accepting the lesser evil, the reason put forward by Father Desbuquois, of the Jesuits, in order to explain his rallying to the new regime. A third argument is that Russia is Communist, and that the Pope has forbidden colaboration with Communists, who, the argument goes, in case of German defeat, would impose their will on the whole world. Such are the arguments that the “collaborationists” who follow Mgr. Baudrillart advance against the strong Catholic opposition in France to Vichy and to Germany. To this the resisting Cathalics object: the present government is not a legitimate government, because it is not even a truly established power, has no real authority, and is at the mercy of the Nazis. This, it is maintained, changes the whole problem, for no consecrated principle imposes obedience to the enemy in time of war. It is pointed out that a state of war still exists, even legally, an armistice not being equivalent to a treaty of peace. As to the principle of the lesser evil, that argument, the resisting Catholics maintain, is futile and does not correspond with the facts. The policy of help for the, government and collaboration with the enemy, instead ’of avoiding, only prepares the way for the worse evil.

■ The argument of non-collaboration with Russia because it means collaboration with Communists entirely misses its aim, say the Catholics opposed to Vichy policy. Catholic opposition, the writer points out, nowhere collaborates with the Communists. It has, however, already established contact, especially on syndicalist ground, with the Socialist party, and similar collaboration has existed in the parliaments of several countries without calling forth any condemnation in principle. Catholic collaborationists are further reproached with tendencies _ towards racialism, and racialism certainly has been condemned by the Church. A fraction of the high clergy .who hold for aid to the government and for collaboration is fascinated, the article affirms, by the totalitarian regime, but that regime has installed itself in power under the protection of the Germans. Spheres of Catholic resistance in contact with the masses through working class organisations and agricultural Catholic associations realise and take note of the hostility of the people to collaboration and every form of Fascism. The great majority of the lesser clergy, one gathers from the writer, are against the Vichy government and collaboration, and he cites one priest who suddenly interrupted his sermon to say: “Do not give way to despair. They think they are victorious, but we shall get the Hitlerites yet!” It is well known, too, that in many parts of France the clergy are the comforters and preachers of confidence in the victory of right over wrong, and the injunction, “Pray for him,” means pray for General de Gaulle.