CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 7, 14 February 1907, Page 11

CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

VITAL POINTS IN LATER HISTORY

(Concluded from last week.)

The Bishop, however, did not come to Rome, On the contrary, -he fprw aided a letter (1), jn which, without any reference to the summons of the Holy Office, or his communication of its contents to the Government, he announced his intention of paying his ordinary visit ad limina in October. He fixed upon this time because he wished to bring with him - the Peter 1 s-Pence offering, and its collection would not be completed before October;. The Secretary of Stsite replied (2), that according to a decree of the Holy Office, approved by the Pope himself,' he (Cardinal Merry del Val) was instructed to inform . the Bishop,, that unless he appeared' in "person to answer;, the charges against him within fifteen days, he -should incur ipsb facto suspension from Orders and Jurisdiction. The Bishop communicated this letter to the Government, and wrote (3), to inform the Secretary that' although he asked permission to set out for .Rome,the permission was refused,- and requested the .Cardinal Secretary to communicate with the French Government, expressing himself, at the" same time, willing to '. carry out whatever agreement might be' "arrived at ; 'by' v the two Powers. The Secretary wrote (4.) immediately requesting the Bishop to_ appear in Rome" before the 20th June under pain pi "censure,.

(1) 24th June, 1904. (2) 2nd July, 1904". (3; 6th July, 1904. (4) 10th July. . . _ - . < : ,"

The case of Monsignor Nordea was somewhat similar: Charges of a serious =nature, in no- way nected with politics," were made against him. His diocese was in a state of rebellion, and the crisis, came, j-when in February, 1901, the students of his Seminary " refused to receive Holy Orders at his • hands. .The or1 dinations were adjourned, ami the Cardinal Secretary requested (5) the Nuncio to inform the- Bishop ""of . Dijon not to proceed with the conferring, of. Orders ■ for the 'P'resent.- The Nuncio carried (6) out these instruc- ■ tions, and the Bishop replied (7) that ,he entirely ' agreed with the. suggestion . that - had been , made. Meanwhile the letter, of "the Papal Nuncio to the Bi- , shop of Dijon had been communicated , to the. Government, and the Charge d 1 Affaires at Rome was ' instructed to inform the Secretary ; of State (B) 'that ' : . such a letter was contrary to , the „ regulations" of the- , Concordat, as the Nuncio at Par-is had no right to , communicate directly; * with the .^Bishops of France. - Such a contention ,had never. * been , admitted by 'the Holy .See, "and had never been " sustained in' practice even' by _ the French Government. But it: was necessary to do something with regard to the extraordinary state of affairs existing in the diocese of Dijon. Monsignor Nordez was requested by the Secretary *of State (9) . to present himself in Rome, to answer the serious charges that were^ made' -against him. He, fe- ■ plied (10)- that he would be at the disposition", of the Holy Father by the middle of "June. The month of June came and went, tlie Bishop remained, beyond the t Alps; and nothing remained for the Cardinal Secire-* : tary except to inform (11)' the Bishop that if he did not appear within fifteen days he should, consider himself suspended from Orders and Jurisdiction. The Bi- - shop wrote (IS) to. say that, he had communicated the letter to .the French Government, and protested, that nowhere in the world" hati\ the Pope.__a "more obedient or more devoted subject than himself. ~ TKe Secretary in response to this document made^a,' strong personal appeal (13) to the Bishop to spare&the Holy Father the agony his conduct was causing him, and .to come to Rome. ' '■'""', " " ' ' ' ' "" ' ' The French 'Government instructed ' its Charge d 1 Affaires to protest. (14-) against ■" the ■ unwarrantable liberty which the Nuncio had taken in communicating , directly 'with French Bishops ; and at the., same time tp demand that the Secretary of State should recall " the letters to the Bishops of Laval and Dijon in which they had. been threatened with suspension unless they

came to Rome. Such •"letter^, it wgEfc contended,- were - a violation of the Concordat. Why; -this should be so, "it is not easy io see. No doubt,- following the analogy of the methqid 'of - appointment— for there is- no-thin-g/-in 'the Concordat expressly dealing with the deposition—the consent of the two • signatory Powers should be required before a- French Bishop could be deposed ; but, here, there was no question ofiieposition. There was only a summons to come to Rome, to the non-compliance' witH which a- "censure was attached, just s as it is , attached, to .many, other regulations binding .even- 'Frcncli Bishops ; and if in ..lease* of ._ these general .laws the threat of ..censure does not violate ..the Concordat, it "is ~ not ~ easy to see why "it should do so in any particular case. .If the. trial went against the two - bishops in Rome, - it was' well understood . %that the Pope would have put himself into communication with the Government to bring about, their deposition, if they still persisted in refusing to resign. The Secretary of State replied in a. _ courteous but firmly worded- note. (15). He pointed out, that the Con- . cordat in- no way prevented the Pope from advising a Bishop to resign, or from calling him -to- Rome to to answer^ for his conduct; that ..the Bishops of France are not independent of the Holy See, but bound by their sacred oaths of office ' to j humbly receive and to diligently execute the apostolic commands ' ; and that they, too, like the rest of the 1 hierarchy, are obliged under pain -of censure ■to visit Rome at fixed times to give an account of .their stewardship. He added, however, that. ,to show his wish for conciliation, the Holy Father was willing to give the Bishops yet another month for their appearance in Bomd, provided they promised to. come in that time, and provided also that the French Government, . in , case they refused \ or were unable' to justify .themselves, agreed" to "diter into communications 'with .the Holy, See to provide for the -due administration..., oftheir- dioceses: "Four days later, the Charge d'Affaires" presented a -note (10) f-om his. Government announc-'

ing that it had been decided to- break. off diplomatic relations between the Republic of France and the Pope; and on the same day M. Delcasse communicated this information to the Muucio in Paris, and requested him to consider that his mission as Apostolic Nuncio .to France had ceased. Thus, on these two questions, the right of the Nuncio' to communicate directly with French Bishops, and the right of the Holy_ See to summon Bishops to Rome under pain of censure, the rupture, upon which French statesmen had set • their hearts, was effected ; and the- way "was prepared for the Separation of Church and a State.

It is too early to speculate as to how the fortunes of the Church in France may be affected by the Bill of Separation, but about its effects upon the State there can hardly be any doubt. The position of France, as- the recognised leader of the Catholic- nations and the special "defender . of the Holy See, won for it a respect and an influence in its relations with other countries to which it could otherwise never have attained ; and, besides, its being recognised, as the acknowledged protector of the' Christian missions of the East, gave it opportunities which it was- not slow to utilise, for the development of French commerce and French influence..;' J A,t home, relying, upon, the rights guaranteed by the > 'Concordat, the State, was able to control all the forces of the Church", and to use them in promoting its' own interests". It had the right of" nominating the candidates for . the vacant Bishoprics, and in this way care could be taken, and care was taken, that no man likely to prove dangerous to the Government "was appointed Bishop ; it could prevent them from taking part in public discussions, and from exercising their rights as freemen to criticise the actions of the Legislature or Executive ; while, as a last resource, it could appeal to the Holy Father, as it did appeal, requesting him to use his influence to allay the opposition of clergy and people.'

But by its rupture with the Vatican, France has sacrificed all claim to the sympathy and support of the Catholic world ; -it has lost its right to be regarded as the protector of the Eastern "Mission, and its place will be usurped to a large extent by Italy ami Germany. At home, it- has abandoned "its powers of controlling the influence of the Church ; it has no longer any voice in the appointment of Bishops , ox in the promotion of priests ; nor has it any claim to invoke the assistance of the Papacy in the difficulties which are sure to arise. The time, -too, that should have been spent on useful and necessary legislation has been given up entirely to this mad campaign, against the Church, which has resulted in stirring up the most dangerous feelings throughout the country and setN the children of the same nation at each other's throats, at a crisis, too, when unless we are mistaken, France has good reason to oppose a united front to the foe. " - - '