CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume 31, Issue 44, 31 October 1907, Page 11

CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

LECTURE BY THE COADJUTOR - BISHOP OF HOBART

( Continued from last week.)

The Government promptly adopted this Delpech's motion, and the erstwhile- authorised teaching Orders were now involved in the general destruction. As it would- -cost the Treasury £2,400,000 to provide school accommodation for the children thus evicted with' their teachers and £320,000 a, year in salaries to additional lay teachers, Parliament thoughtfully . allowed -the Government a period often years to get rid of the congregations in question. M. Combes had little- scrupleß -on the score' of national economy. Personally, he evicted the religious from over 13>000 establishments. His last official act was to sign the order for the suppression of a batch of 400, Indeed, last January' M. Piou stated publicly at Lyons. that 16,000 religious establishments had then been closed. What has become of Those Eeligious and of Their Property ? They were thrust into the public street utterly unprovided. A Goveicment liquidator put their houses and- all contained therein under seal. If any of the expelled proprietors dared to enter in, or. take any of the goods or chattels, he .was liable to imprisonment for any period from six days to twelve months. If a kind-hearted Catholic sheltered the expelled religious, he was liable to the same penalty — he was guilty of encouraging an •unlawful association.' Two nuns accepted their father's in-

vitation to come and stay in his home. The police officer called upon them to disperse, because even there they constituted an unlawful- association.' If a member of an Order had brought a dowry into the common stock, he had an action at law against the hquidator-that is, the Government— for its recovery If any member had no means of support, he had a right to some meag-e dole from the proceeds of the sale. It is not hard to appreciate the irony )of the position when the Government first despoils you of every shilling, then casts you adrift to that extent tbU you no longer have even the support of your former feliow-rehgious, and then tells you that you may institute legal - proceedings. But, in fact, it, would be futile to do so, even if they were able. The liquidators are mosfly legal members of the Ministerial side of the House, and up to .the present have been so hard worked that the .ale of the properties has not realised enough to cover their bills of costs. More than a year and a-half ago advances from the Treasury to the amount of £230,000 had to be made for those legal costs. I believe that up to this moment after from three to four years' operations, the liquidation of hardly a single establishment has resulted in any aid to the State or to the former owners. It, is now seen that the valuation set on the property of the religious Orders Was Outrageous and Exaggerated " « ~ for political ends. ' And properties are sacrificed in the sale You will come across cases in which they are sold at an eighth of their real value, and at a twentieth of the value once put on IZoSI \ TT/ nt - A PTOpert y at Treguier-worth £16,00(K-was knocked down for £2,000. At Limoges a, convent was sold for 5 320 francs; the law costs ran up to 6,307, leaving a net balance for somebody of 13 francs! One reads of ques tions to calling atention to the utter destitution of the ex-rehgious, and asking why they do not receive some pitreply is that so far no money is available. He sends a -circular they n3 r' S ' t hDg th6m t0 Wy U P' but the y kn ™ well • Action • ♦ I™, that Vi ° ]ent an <<i-<^holic sheet, the Action, jeers at the fiasco. 'The liquidators,' It says 'arereceivmg considerable remittances. It is they alone who so ill We reaped the clearest gain from the operations resulting from do'ev^ £' J y J' mi ' lfc " natural that they "should possiWe/ g y t0 draW ' thdr P leasure « k»« « The Separation Law proper were it to any place in Italy but Rome Rome "w ever, was just the one place intended. We Catholics, Z' whatever nation, have the deepest interest in the perfect indlpen Bonan tT S ° V6r6ign - PiuS VII « ™ *»^2m£ fndudine e Enr S2S 2 t °' Cl ° Se hiS ' P °^ ™«™~ mcludmg England-then at war with France j the Pope was at war with no nation, and desired to remain 'at peace^ all The despot imprisoned him for not becoming his partisan. The Popes territorial independence is the one great safeguard of his untrammelled administration. Under a world JmZ \f conditions would be different; in a GlrirtJLT^Sto nationalities he must be the subject of none. Hence in pro testing against the usurpation of his capital he is really fil« ne rwrin^t 1 " If . hewithdr - «yen tacitly S pfot sfc to nominate persons for vacant sees, and several other righS and privileges besides. Now, sinee -1870 the most striking form of Papal protest against the usurpation of the House of Saw has consisted in the Pope's refusal to abide by the visiHf any Catholic ruler to the representative of that usurpation in Rome itself To show the necessity of such an attLde let me quote the words of the London 'Daily News' a year^ftel President Loubefs visit, when a false report got abroad to

the effect that the Emperor of Austria was likewise about to ?!w 1 T & ' ' This means '' said the Nonconformist, organ, that the Pajracy for good and all abandons its claims to the ancient temporal sovereignty of the Church; it means that the ■Tope accepts the fait accompli of thirtylfive* years ago of the consolidation of the' Kingdom of Italy with Eome-the Rome 2™* • P °P es - as ifc s capital. '-(May 5, 1905.) You will see .that the Pope could not but protest against the affront which -President Loubefs visit implied; for it was more' than a personal matter; it would have compromised the imprescriptible rights of the Holy See had it been suffered to pass off in silence. Still, it was not the Pope's wish to embitter relations which were already but too painful. He merely lodged thrSugh his representatives a formal protest with the various Powers, including France. ' The matter got into the Press. This 'was not done with the consent or connivance of the Vatican France-M. Combes's France-worked itself into a paroxysm of national indignation. M. Nisard, the Ambassador to the Vatican, was instructed to call for an explanation. That old gentleman was told by Cardinal Merry del Val that lie should have a full explanation in half an hour if he put his demandin writing; but for some reason known but to himself he did not. He was directed to return on an indefinite leave of absence, and it was now clear that more must follow. M. Combes Had ..Another Trump -besides the President's Roman visit, which he played with little regard to the rules of the game. Vacancies in French sees were filled according .to the terms of the Concordat, the President nominating suitable persons, whom the -Holy See then canonically instituted. Such joint action m a matter of so grave a nature presupposed, of course, that President and Pope we at one as to -the fitness of the subjects proposed. Now, the Pope is bound to be morally certain that persons so appointed are fit for the episcopal office. This is an obligation of which he could not divest himself, even if he would. And general y he had little difficulty jn approving of the subjects nominated over till M. Combes came on the scene. He" took care here again to put the Pope in a difficulty. His Holiness was unable to accept at least' one or. two nominations. M. Combes would not budge, and in course of time a dozen sees were still vacant, M. Combes insisting that none should be appointed unless all his selections were approved. Finally a letter sent by the Nuncio to the Bishop of Dijon, requesting hat prelate to desist from conferring orders on candidates "for the Priesthood until certain troubles cleared up, brought v, 1° h6 fwU meaSUre Of his wrath - The Nuncio T^r^t pais P° rfc ' and diplomatic relations were sus- " pended. This was in the middle of 1904. A Parliamentary Commission -was hard at work preparing a bill of separation, and matters might have come to a heal aJUttle earlier than they did but for M. Villeneuve's sudden exposure of General Andre's spy system. That 'individual on succeeding the Marquis" de Galliffet as Minister of War obtained from Parliament the abolition of the Promotion complexion But it was one thing to be certain of wha wa going on; it was quite another thing to be able to show it up This was what M. Villeneuve did in Parliament. He came ..An Annexe of that Masonic Head CentreOrfJw MiDiSt T- hiS S6Cretary ' re * veste <* the Grand Orient to give him information as to the behaviour of Ws heartedness of its creatures in the Chamber, zntYssued a manifesto, which for audacity is unique It KnX Tt ! the spying, and attempted its W2£ 'L^J^JS^

who had given the documents away, 'has absconded as a malefactor. We point him out to all the Masons of the world,\ »nd, pending the punishment of his crime, the Council of the Order arraigns him before the tribunal of Masonry. And now, in the name of Freemasonry, altogether we .will declare aloud that the Grand Orient of France, in furnishing' to the Ministry of War information regarding the Eepublic's faithful servants and regarding those who by their hostile attitude may give grounds for the most legitimate uneasiness, claims not only to have exercised a legitimate right, but to have fulfilled its most strict duty. .The Eepublic belongs to us, one and all. We have secured it at a great cost, and Masons more than any others may claim the honor of having brought about its triumph. 1 Then follows a string- of accusations against Nationalists and Beactionaries. 'And it is in the .face of the cries of dismayed shame,' it goes on, ' from that set that so many Republicans . in. Parliament, so many Si whom were, Masons, were for a moment influenced ; so much so that none of them at the opportune moment were able to say the right word or seize the occasion to glorify Masonry when it was assailed by its everlasting foes, and to proclaim in the face of all that it had deserved well of the Republic. We call the attention at all events of our lodges and of all Masons present .and future to the faint-hearted, timid, cowardly vote of a certain number of Republicans who, at the moment when they ought to have consolidated against the reactionary attack, went and joined their votes to those of our bitterest foes. In spite of them, the Republic has once more scored a victory. Many, we hope, will thus have the time to become themselves again. Meanwhile our workshops will- keep an eye on them.' This manifesto is signed by J. Lafferre, president of the Council of the Order (he is also a member of the Legislature); by Sincholla J. B. Morin, vice-president; and Bonley, secretary. The crack of the whip brought "the pack to heel again. Andre might go, and, later on, Combes as well, but the Grand Orient continued to rule through others. None but a Mason may hold a portfolio,- none but a Mason may be President of France. They make no vain boast in saying that the Republic is theirs. It was in their workshops that every tool was forged for the destruction, first, of the Congregations, and now, if that were possible, for the destruction of the Church in its bishops and secular clergy. The Separation _Law was promulgated in December, 1905. Like the Associations Law, it may be regarded as hinging on one chief contrivance of mischief

(To be concluded next week.)