CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 5, 31 January 1907, Page 11

CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

VITAL POINTS IN tATER HISTORY

(Continued from last week.) After the aidivent of M. Combes to office, difficulties began to spring up about episcopal nominations, and first about the question of Nobis nominavit. lo the ■ First Consul (1) ami his successors in the^'government of France, according to the terms of the Concordat, belongs the right of nominating Bishops, and the Holy See is to confer canonical institution, that is to say, the action of both powers is required for the creation of a French Bishop. Under M. Combes the Government tried to arrogate to itself greater rights than are conceded to it in the Concordat. It was contended that the selection of the President was not a mere nomination or presentation of a candidate whom the Pope might appoint, but that with the President lay the right of appointment, and the Pope's approval was only a meaningless ceremony meant to satisfy the Papal pretensions. In accordance with this view the French Ambassador was instructed to demand the suppression of the words Nobis nominaverit, which oqcur in the Bulls of appointment for French Bishops. (2) The Cardinal Secretary of State sent his formal reply in March, 1903. (.3) He pointed out that by divine law the Holy See could not grant to any civil power the right of creating bishops, but at most, the right of nominating candidates who may be deemed worthy of the episcopate ; and that such was the -correct and evident meaning of the text of the Concordat witjh Napoleon. He declared, morieover, that the Nobis nominavit had been employed in nearly all the Bulls for the" consecration of bishops since 1802 ; that "it had • been accepted by Napoleon, and even so late as 1872 by M. Thiers, the then President of the Republic.; (4) and that,, finally, the theory of the Vatican is borne out by the formula used in the letters sent by the President of the Republic to the Pope petitioning for the institution of a Bishop, Kn which the President states that he names and presents the candidate to his Hoiiness iti> order that it might please his Holiness to instal him in the said Bishopric. (5) But having proved the .justice of the Papal claims, the Cardinal - Secretary of State expressed his willingness to omit the Nobis, provided that the formula used in the letters of petition in " which the Papal doctrine was clearly expressed, were retained, and on this basis a settlement was agreed upon in December, 1903. . But the attack on the formula was only the expression of M. Combes' views on the relative rights of the Pope and the President in the selection of French Bishops. To his mind, the Bishop was a Bishop, precisely because he was" appointed by the Government'; and the Pope was bound to give his approval to any selection the Government might make. On the other ■handy unless the Pope were to shamefully betray the trust that is confided to him, he must reserve to him-

- (1) Article V.— ltem Consul Primus ad Episcopates sedes, quae in posf erum vacayorlnt. novos Antlstites .nominabit.iisque.ut- in articulo prsecedenti constitutum est, Apostolica Sedes canonicam dabit institutionem. (2) The phrase is :— Cum vigore Concordatorum inter Apostolicam Pedeni et Galliarum Gubernium jam pridum initorum, nominatio personee idonero ipsi vacanti Eccleina N. in episcopum prteflcienda), Bomano Pontiflci pro tempore existenti facienda, ad dilectum Nobis in Ohristo fllium N. hodiernum Qalliose Reipublica Praesidem, modo pertineat, et ipse dilectus fllius Noster a. Prases, Nobis ad hoc per suas patentesiitteras nominaverit te. etc., etc* (3) Document XVV (4) 27th September, 1872. This decree is reproduced in the E.\fos<! des Documents, pp. 189-192. ' - (s) ' Noun le.nommons et preaentons a Votre Saintete pour qu'il lvi plaise, aur notre nomination at presentation, le pourvoir dv dit evecbe.'

self the right ol judging finally and definitely, whether the can'dSdatt^ presented " to him for his approval is worthy of the high position to which he has-been named, and is likely to discharge . the onerous -responsibilities of the Episcopate, so as to promote the spiritual - welfare of his diocese -and the interests of ,reli- y gion. Hence it was that before* M. Cojabes had under-. taken the policy of provocation to which he devoted his energies, steps were always ta«<en- by the French Govern- ' ment to obtain the Popes views on the fitness or unfitness of the candidates before the formal diplomatic proceedings were. begun. The Minister of Worship was accustomed to discuss the candidates with" the Nuncio in Paris. If the Nuncio, after earnest inquiry, satisfiedhimself that the choice of the Government was suitable, the formal documents were , immediately prepared and forwarded to the French Ambassador it Rome ; if, - however, his investigations led him to believe that the Holy See could never accept the nominee of the Republic, he explained tho grounds to the Minister of Wor- . ship ; the matter was fully, discussed between them, "and in the end, an agreement one way or the "other was arrived at, and the matter, handed over to the ordinary routine of diplomacy. -Where, the' agreement of two powers for the selection of a candidate was necessary, . this was the ouly reasonable method of securing unanimity ; and by this . method the dangers of the deadlock which- must follow a formal and definite, refusal were judiciously avoided. ' ' J But M. Combes, considering this preliminary conference as a shameful abandonment of the rights of the State, (1) proceeded to designate two candidates for two vacant Bishoprics, and without any consultation with the Nuncio; haughtily informed him 4 that the Government had determined upon the following nominations.' (2) One of the candidates h*a:d been already rei jected several times by the Holy See for reasons which ' satisfied previous Cabinets, and the other was" already ~aBishop, who, according to the usage of the Church; could not be transferred to another diocese without some very serious cause. The Nuncio" in reply to this" demand sent a no t te, in which, after 'expressing- his rer gret that M. Combes had dispensed with" the usual , preliminary conference, he pointed out that the Pope could accept neither candidate : the one because he ha>d been already rejected more than once and for good reasons known to the Government, the other because- he - was already united to a diocese. (3) a few days later, (4) in an interview with the Nuncio, the President ol the Council informed him that he' was resolved to maintain his nominees 'unless it- could be shown that they had led - scandalous- lives, or had " been- guilty of heresy ; ' (5), and he added by the jway of threat that the - ' Nuncio - could have no idea of how. iar he (M. Gorribes) was resolved to go unless his candidates were accepted,' (6) The next day he forwarded to M. Nisardjf (7), the French Ambassador to the Vatican, a note which was intended to be . an ultimatum to the - Holy See, in which he stated that unless the canoni- • cal institution were . granted to his nominees, he would make no qther selections, and the dioceses must be left . vacant. (8). The Secretary of btate forwarded a courteous reply to this communication, in which the rights of the Pope according to the Concordat are clearly demonstrated ; but, at the same time ,he instructed - the Nuncio to say that the Pope was willing t0... al- <■ low the transference of the Bishop; as a favor, but ■ not as a right guaranteed by the Concordat. The only -reply to this note- of 'the" Secretary, of State was a speech delivered by M. Combes from the Tribune of the Senate, (9), in which, contrary to _ ii*e ordinary rules of international diplomacy, he published to the world his version of a delicate 'controversy, about which negotiations were still being carried on ; and at the same' time, by binding himself' in the presence of the Senate to the principle ?lof*>.all or none,. 1 he removed the possibility of' any peaceable agree-, ment. Later still, when the Diocese ' of Ajaccioliri "Corsica became vacant, he sent a notte which was

C 1) In. his speech, March 20th, 1903. he stated that he considered the entente prealable comme un marchandage humilitant, et comme une dupeiie, ou si vous eimez mieux, comme un abandon coupable del droits de l'Etat. (2) 'Le Gouvernement de la Bepublique a resoln.leH nomination* tuivants i Dec. 23, 1902). (3) Ist January. 1903. - ' '\ " " " (4) 9th January, 1003, (5) Tant qu'on ne lvi prouyerait pas que tel ou tel ont mene une vie ican-. daleuse ou enseigne des heresies. - * i : : (6) Vous ne p'ouvez pas vous imaginer jusqu'ou-je suia resoln 4 marcher, si on n-'accepte pas mes candidats. . . . . "(7; 10th January, 1903 (Doc. XVI.) f8) Oertes, le St. Fere est libre d'accorder ou de refuser I' institution canonique aux Oandidats que le Gouvernement a ohoisii. Mais en cap de refus les siege episcopaux resteront vacants. . . . Je ne ferais pat d'autres designations. (9) 21st March, 1903. , '

even more imperious in it's" tone -than his former one. He demanded canonical institution for- an old .man of seventy-six years of "age. Now considering the' vast size "of the diocese and the wild 1 mountainous region comprised hi it, one cannot be- surprised that the Holy See found itself obliged once more to refuse the nominee of the French Government. Later on, two other Sees became vacant, and the President of the Council proceeded to nominate candidates, and to demand the. canonical institution. The Pope, grieved that so many Sees should be left vacant, instructed the Nuncio (1) to seek a personal interview with M. Combes, explain to lAm all the difficulties of the .case, and leave no stone unturned to arrive at a settlement. At a banquet given by the President to the Diplomatic Corps, the Nuncio met .M; Combes and begged the favor of a personal interview. The latter replied that he hoped to have some free time the. following week and that he would notify the Nuncio what hour would be most convenient ; but time passed and the Nuncio received no inxfttation. A second request in writing (2) met with no better result ; and later on, at a reception (3) attended by the Nuncio and M. Combes, the latter's attitude to the Nuncio^ could hardly be characterised by any other adjective than unmannerly. Several notes passed between the Holy See and the President of the Council,' in which the latter insisfred'on the principle proclaimed in the Senate- all or none ; ' while on the other hand, the Cardinal Secretary 'of State politely but firmly refused to abandon the rights of the Church. (4) As a last resourse the Nuncio called upon M. Delcasse, the Minister of Foreign" Affairs, and begged' him to intervene. The Nuncio pointed out, that of the six candidates- proposed, the Pope was willing- to „ accept three. M. Delcasse was impressed—favorably and promised to communicate with M. Combes, then absent -from Paris ;• but since that time the Holy See has received no further communication regarding the Episcopal nominations. (To be continues.)

( 1) By telegraphic despatch, 18th January, 1904. (2) 2nd March, 1904.- " ( 3 ) 23rd March. C4l Documents, XIX.-X3JII<-