THE FRENCH PERSECUTION

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 18, 2 May 1907, Page 11

THE FRENCH PERSECUTION

FACTS ABOUT THE 'SEPARATION' LAW

Through the courtesy of his Grace the Archbishop, we are able to publish the following two articles on the so-called ' Separation ' Law by Father Marcault, parish priest of Esves-le-Moutier, ladre-et-Loire, France. (We may explain- that the ' blocaids ' referred to hereunder are the supporters of the dominant athetistic RadicalSocialdst ' Bloc ' or ' macliine ' that is bent on the extinction of- Christianity in Father MarCault's articles run as follows :— In an interview with a contributor to the ' Petit Parisien,' M. Briand said : ' JNo resistance is possible against a law voted by a tremendous majority of deputies, and ratified by the universal suffrage. '—ln the speech he delivered on 15th -August, M. Bienvenu-Martin expressed the same idea : ■ 'To the Pope's verdict, we oppose that of the universal suffrage, which has so strongly and clearly ratified the Separation Law.' Finally, in his manifesto and many sp'eeehes since. M. 01-e-menceauihas'declared tha-t ' lihe Separation Law would Up enforced, because it had b*en distinctly ratified by the country at the last elections.' This is absoljtely untrue. The Separation Law has never been ratified by the French people, for the elections were made in tihe country, not on a political* or religious programme, but on odious slanders circulated against priests and liberal candidates. A Catholic paper, • La Replique,' has made in the department of Indre-et-Loire, a searching inquiry into the Slrategems Used by th.3 Bloc in order to deceive the people. Here it is :— It was rumored everywhere in the department that liberal candidates were not at all republicans and could not be so (?). A few days before the elections, placards signed by the mayors and general councillors of the district were posted* in every parish, warning the electors that if the blocard were not elected, the Republic would be overturned ! At the same time, was shown . Ahe sum given back to the parish, by the de-

crease of the Worship .Grant. Nevertheless, taxes have considerably increased in France this year. Is it possible for the people to be more hoodwinked ? These written documents did not -make on the minds of the farmers an impression camparable to that of the rumors circulated at the markets and then in the parishes. They were especially telling in the district of Loctoes. In 1902, it was believed that if M. Duval (a liberal) were elected, he would restore the seven years' service in the army, overturn the Republic, and pro-v-oke war. It had even been asserted that he had bought a special machine to cut straw and hay into small pieces, to be then eaten as bread by farmers. This trash was so -well believed that the- manager of 'La Replique ' received, this year, a letter from an elector of the same district, informing him that he would not vote for M. Breton (a liberal), because he ' did ' not wish to come back to the time when farmers ate minoed straw ' ! - This year the same slanders were repeated against M. Breton as had been circulated against M. Duval. They were believed, for he was " not elected. This is so true, that at Esves-le-Moutaer 'ten young electors went to the cemetery to announce to the dead the "success of M. Chautemps (a^ radical) and invite them to come and drink his health because war was finally abolished ! In the district of Tours, whose deputy was M. Drake (a liberal) it was rumored in the country that, if he were re-elected, ' the farmers would be dispossesed and their larded property given back 'to the lords as formerly ' ! M. Drake was not elected. It is useless -to repeat the Rumors Directed Against Priests in Touraine as well as all over France. The-priests were accused : (1) of collecting money to provoke war ; (2) of having fomented and paid for the recent strikes' in the North ! They had, it was said, £2,000,000,000 in a pile somewhere (in the moon probably). This is the famous plot discovered by the honest" and sincere democrat Olemenoeau, who said after his success : ' there is tio conspiracy ' ! He did not want anyone longer to deceive the people ! In the district of Ohinon, another stratagem was used. Electoral agents were sent as postmen into the parishes to distribute the papers of the candidate®. Talking with the farmers, they furiously fell upon the liberal, but praised up the blocard. Finally they used to say they were quite disinterested -in the question. Of oourse ! - This is the way the elections were managed in La belle Touraine ! And it has been the same"" all over France. • Can it be truly asserted that the French people have ratified the Separation Law at the elections ?. It is needless* to ' give the answer. THE SEPARATION LAW EXAMINED. It is absolutely necessary to know exactly the meaning of the recent laws voted by tiie French Parliament in order to understand the attitude of the Holy Father. For this purpose vie shall briefly study each one of them. 1. — The Separat ; on Law of 1905. In the actual state of France, power comes from below, from the democracy. In the Church, power couies from above : it is a delegation from God, whose representatives are the Pope and the Bishops. It. is a fundamental principle of the Catholic "Church that the direction and organisation of worship belong to the Bishops under the authority of the Pope,'' By the Separation Law, M. Briand has tried to break down this principle. ' I have been anxious,' said he, ' not to allow the faithful to be bound by the discipline of Rome ! ' The Associations of Worship placed laymen at the head of the Church, gi/ing them the oouimand of seminaries, of. education, and of Church organisation in every way. These laymen cou'd decide against the priest in all matters concerning Mass, sermons, and the Sacraments. Is it not clear that the law of 1005 was intended to ruin the Divine constitution of the Church, by legally suppressing the Catholic hierarchy, and "making lay tribunals the judges of Bishops' and priests' orthodoxy ? The Holy Father could _not accept this new civiL constitution of the clergy. He condemned and interdicted it, for he swore, when receiving the tiara, to keep unsullied the moral patrimony of the Church : her doctrine, her hierarchy, her discipline. Experience is in his favor. In th<? East, there are Associations of Worship in the Greek Schismatic Church. Laymen compel the Bishops to obey them or to resign. They are their masters, not only in financial matters, but even in the appointment to the churches and other questions affecting episcopal jurisdiction. In the cities and village, it is' a secular council that choosesi the parish priest, the assistant priests, the confessor, the

schoolmasters. It settles the time for Masses or services, and controls the church ornamentation. To be a priest there is to belong to a. profession without honor. What prestige can the clergy have under those conditions ? M. 'Briands Associations of Worship would have produced the same result in the Catholic Church, for the same causes always bring about the same effects. The Pope, toy forbidding French Catholics to accept them, safeguarded the French Church from schism, and apostasy. After the Holy Father's refusal to recognise the Associations of Worship, M. Briand tried another way of subjecting the Church. II. — M. Briands Famous Circular. This Minister endeavored to place religious service on the same footing as public meetings, and insisted on a declaration for the holding of the bervices. However, the law of 1881 was drawn up with a view to meetings at which discussion might take place. But no discussion is allowed in the Catholic ceremonies. This law, then, could not be applicable to them. In 1905, M. Briand had acknowledged this- truth ; in 190G, he tried to make the law of 1881 applicable to religious services by requiring a single declaration and the organisation of a single board for the whole year. But this was in contradiction with the law, whioh. demanded as many declarations as meetings and the establishment of a responsible bureau for each meeting. The circular was, then, illegal, for a French Minister has not the right of modifying a law without the approval of the Parliament. ' At the same time, by this famous document, M. Briand pronounced for the confiscation of the seminaries and the destruction of the priests' independence. ' The parish priest,' said he, ' will be in the church an oocupier without any legal titK He will have no rights for any act of administration. Still less will he be qualified to make arrangements as to the disposal of property.' How could the Pope accept such a tyrannical ordinance for the Catholic clergy ? Besides, the ministerial circular was arbitrary. The law of 1881 on public meetings says (art. S), that a citizen who organises a meeting has the right to maintain order and silence, and even to put out noisy people. Does not this suppose a legal right ? It is clear that M. Briand wished to -deprive French citizens of a right given by the law. Persuaded that his circular was illegal, the French Minister presented a bill, which was adopted and promulgated on the 2nd of January, 1907. Hl.— Law on the Practice of Worship. According to the new law, the practice of worship is to 'be secured by three different ways : (l)vby Associations of Worship ; (2) by Associations ifi oShformity with the law of 1901 ; (3) by meetings held on private initiative in pursuance of the law ox 1881. 1 Convinced,' as he said to M. Jaures, ' that the common law would give a formidable power to the •Church in the State,' M. Briand gave her a mutilated law. He put aside an -article of the law of 1901 permitting Catholic Associations to be recognised as societies of public utility, but he insisted on the observance of the 12th article, giving the Government the right of dissolving them on the ground that the Pope their head, is a foreigner ! In -short, .the iaw of 1901 is not applicable to worship, for it does not authorise Catholics to receive anything besides subscriptions nothing for religious services, benches, and chairs. Is it fair ? If Catholics hold religious worship i n oonformi'ty with the law of ISBI, the parish priest wiill have to make a contract with the Mayor in order to use the church. At the same time, he will have to undertake all the repairs of the building. The use of the church is to be given by the Prefect or the Mayor. But it may be refused or given to an, unworthy priest. In case of an appeal against the Prefect's or the Mayor's decision, the law will have to decide. Could it he admitted that the Mayor or a legal tribunal may be the judges of a priest's orthodoxy ? Such is the law of January, 19071. Was not the Pope right to condemn it ? Lately, M. Briand has presented a new bill abrogating the notification for public meetings and dispensing those held for purpose of public worship from forming a responsible (bureau. But the -precedent law is maintained with its dangerous tendencies. It is easy to see that, with all these law;s, M. Briand has offered the Catholics of France war, not peace. He has confiscated the Bishops' palaces, tsie seminaries, the superannuation funds for oia priests'. He •has robbed the Church of her fu^rAtiire and transferable securities. Is such a policy fair or liberal ? By resisting it, the Catholic Church has given the world a splendid v example of her love of freedom and justice. .