By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The War Upon Religion - Being an Account of the Rise and Progress of Anti-christianism in Europe
Author: Cunningham, Rev. Francis A.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The War Upon Religion - Being an Account of the Rise and Progress of Anti-christianism in Europe" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

[Transcriber's Note:

In the original, chapter headings II-IX showed subtitles above chapter
numbers, disagreeing with the display of numbers above subtitles on the
Contents page and in chapter I. Those headings have been standardized.

Line spacing in the original varied inconsistently from single to 1.5,
making the identification of intended block quotes difficult. For
consistency, only speeches, quotes and reprints from document texts that
were contained entirely within whole paragraphs--with no other narrative
material--were treated as block quotes in this project (Exception:
beginning P. 430 "To My Countrymen...."; this quote continues over
several remaining pages and sections to the end of the book, and was not

Remaining transcriber's notes are at the end of the text.]

[Illustration: POPE PIUS X.]

    The War Upon Religion

    Being an Account of the Rise and
    Progress of Anti-Christianism
    in Europe

    Rev. Francis A. Cunningham

    The Pilot Publishing Company

       *       *       *       *       *

_Copyright 1911, By Rev. F. A. Cunningham._

       *       *       *       *       *

    _Nihil Obstat_:
    David J. Toomey, Ph. D., S. T. D.
    Censor Deputatus.

    Archiep. Boston._

       *       *       *       *       *



     Influence of the Reformation-- Jansenism-- The Abbey of Port
     Royal-- Quesnel-- The Bull "Unigenitus"-- Destructive
     Influence of Jansenism-- Not Quite Extinguished Even Yet--
     Quietism-- Molinos and Madame Guyon-- Louis XIV. and
     Gallicanism-- The Gallican Liberties-- Resistance to Them--
     Gallicanism One of the Chief Causes of Anti-Christianism in
     France-- Van Espen and the Pseudo-Canonists-- Johannes von
     Hontheim, Known as Febronius-- His Hostility to the Papal
     Supremacy-- Scipio di Ricci-- The Congress of Ems-- Joseph
     II. of Austria and the Josephine Schism-- Suppression of the
     Society of Jesus-- The Sophists-- Voltaire and the
     Encyclopaedists-- Freemasonry-- Neo-Paganism
                                                         Page 1


     Immediate Causes-- The States General-- Confiscation of
     Church Property-- Persecution of Religious Orders-- The Civil
     Constitution-- Sorrow of Pope Pius VI.-- His Condemnation of
     the Civil Constitution-- The Constituent Assembly-- Massacres
     of September-- The Convention-- Changing the Calendar--
     Persecution of Catholics-- The Reign of Terror-- The Goddess
     of Reason-- The Worship of the Supreme Being-- The Council of
     Five Hundred, or the Directory-- Arrest and Exile of Pope
     Pius VI.-- The Death of the Pontiff in France
                                                           Page 51


     State of France at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century--
     The Conclave of Venice-- Cardinal Chiaramonti Elected Pope
     Pius VII.-- Sketch of His Life-- Cardinal Consalvi-- Napoleon
     Makes Proposals of Peace With the Pope-- Preliminary
     Deliberations for the Concordat-- Diplomacy of Cardinal
     Consalvi-- The Concordat Signed and Ratified-- Text of the
     Concordat-- The Organic Articles-- They Are Repudiated by the
     Pope-- The Case of Jerome Bonaparte-- The Coronation of
     Napoleon-- The Emperor Becomes a Persecutor-- Excommunication
     of Napoleon-- Arrest of Pope Pius VII.-- His Imprisonment at
     Savona-- The Council of Paris-- The Pope is Imprisoned at
     Fontainebleau-- Defeat of Napoleon-- Triumphant Return of
     Pius VII. to Rome
                                                          Page 105


     The Holy Alliance-- The Carbonari-- Mazzini and Young Italy--
     Hostile Congresses-- Accession of Pope Pius IX.-- Generous
     Dispositions of the Holy Father-- Eighteen Hundred and
     Forty-eight-- Flight of the Pope-- Garibaldi-- Rome Retaken
     by the Papal Allies-- Conspiracy Against the Holy See--
     Iniquities of Piedmont-- Hypocrisy of Napoleon III.--
     Usurpation of Victor Emmanuel-- Fall of Rome in 1870--
     Accession of Leo XIII.-- Leo XIII. and Labor-- Accession of
     Pius X.-- Modernism-- The Methodist in Rome-- The Insult of
     Mayor Nathan-- Character of Pope Pius X
                                                          Page 177


     (1) The Causes-- The Liberalism of the Rationalists-- The
     Liberalism of Pseudo-Catholics-- Günther-- Frohschammer--
     Doellinger-- The Desire for Protestant Ascendancy-- The
     Hatred for Catholic Nations-- The Determination of Caesarism
     to Reduce All Religion to the Domination of the State-- (2)
     The Men-- Bismarck-- Bishop Ketteler-- Windthorst--
     Malincrodt-- The Centre Party-- The Laws of Hate-- May Laws--
     Courage of the Bishops-- War of Violence-- The Turn of the
     Tide-- Reconciliation
                                                          Page 209


     The Franco-Prussian War-- The Commune of 1870-- Its Victims--
     Establishment of Third Republic-- Beginning of the War on the
     Church-- Gambetta-- Paul Bert-- Jules Ferry-- War on the
     Religious Orders in 1880-- Irreligious Education--
     Secularization of Schools-- Peaceful Advances of Pope Leo
     XIII.-- Anarchy and Socialism Gaining Ground-- The Affair of
     Dreyfus-- France at the End of the Nineteenth Century
                                                          Page 276


     Beginning of the War-- The Cabinet of Freemasons--
     Waldeck-Rousseau-- The Associations Law of 1901-- Its
     Hypocritical Character-- Suppression of the Congregations--
     Combes-- The Closing of Religious Establishments-- Expulsion
     of Monks and Nuns-- Character of Combes-- Early Attempts at
     Separation-- The Affair of "Nobis Nominavit"-- The Bishops of
     Laval and Dijon-- The Visit of President Loubet to Rome-- The
     Rupture of Diplomatic Relations With Rome-- The Discussion
     Upon the Separation Law-- Speech of M. Ribot-- The Separation
     Law Passed-- Its Chief Measures-- Sufferings of Catholics--
     The Associations of Worship Condemned by the Holy See-- The
     Liquidation of Ecclesiastical Property-- The School Question
     in France
                                                          Page 313


     Accession of Ferdinand VII.-- Apostolics and Liberals--
     Disaffection of Ferdinand-- Carlist War-- Hatred of the
     Jesuits-- Atrocities of Espartero-- The Pope Protests-- Papal
     Encyclical-- Balmes and Cortes-- Concordat of 1851-- Attempt
     on the Life of the Queen-- Revolution of 1854-- Persecution
     and Calumny-- Protests of the Holy See-- Espartero Fails--
     The Campaign of 1867-- Trickery of Napoleon III.-- Spain a
     Republic-- Persecution of Catholics-- Amadeus of Savoy-- The
     Republic of 1873-- Castillo-- Canovas in Power-- The
     Twentieth Century-- Canalejas-- Ferrer and the Barcelona
                                                          Page 379


     Old Glories of Portugal-- Pombal the Infamous-- Portugal and
     Napoleon-- English Influence-- Dom Pedro-- Maria da Gloria
     and Dom Miguel-- The Revolution of 1833-- The Present Time--
     Assassination of Carlos I.-- Revolution Always Active-- The
     Young King a Victim of Conspirators-- The Revolution of
     1910-- Violence Against the Religious and the Clergy
     Generally-- Letter of the Jesuit Provincial-- Spoliation--
     Treatment of the Prisoners-- Outlawed and Exiled-- The
     Charges and Their Answers-- Armaments and Subterranean
     Galleries-- Alleged Wealth of the Jesuits-- Another Charge--
     Alleged Secret Association-- Charge of Political Activity--
     Reactionary Influence
                                                          Page 418


If it is true that a nation is what its doctrines are, it becomes very
easy to discover in the doctrines of contemporary Europe the last reason
of the troubles and revolutions which keep it in constant turmoil. It
has sowed the wind, now it is reaping the whirlwind. It has destroyed
the foundations, and it is but natural that the edifice should begin to
fall to its ruin.

The English Socinians, followed by Voltaire, uprooted the Christian
idea, and Rousseau after denying the true nature of God, set up the
worship of man in His place. From these ancestors was born a generation
of rationalists and atheists, who celebrated their triumphs, first in
the French Revolution, and afterwards in the general dissolution of
organized society. Out of the jumble of confused systems arose all those
philosophic, religious, moral, and social aberrations which strive to
root themselves in the human mind of the twentieth century. Among the
Catholics themselves, whenever ambition or the malign influence of
worldly allurements were in the ascendant, there were here and there
excrescences of error which tended to diminish the vigor and integrity
of the Christian spirit, and lead to that mongrel condition
characterized under the name of "Liberal Catholicism."

Rationalism, properly speaking, began in Germany, a country which, until
lately, has effected little in the domain of thought, and in the fields
of faith and reason, except to ravage and destroy the creations of
centuries. Unhappily, however, it has built up nothing in their place.
Emmanuel Kant, born in Prussia in 1724, began the process of demolition.
Materialistic philosophy had already denied the existence of the soul,
and of the invisible world; Kant proceeded to the denial of any
certitude regarding the material and visible. With him everything
assumed the character of the mythical and ideal. To explain his process
he invented in man a second reason, the practical reason, which
reconstructs what the speculative reason destroys. In fact, by
separating the faculties of the human soul from the objects which they
perceive, he led the way to systematic scepticism.

Kant was followed by Fichte. As the former instituted a doubt as to the
reality of external objects, Fichte declared that there was no external
reality, that the universe surrounding us is only a fiction of the mind
to which we alone give reality, and the world is only a form of our own
activity. Kant and Fichte assailed the reality of things outside the
"Ego," the personal mind; it remained for Schelling--born in 1775--to
destroy both subject and object, and to confound all things mind and
matter in one immutable, eternal existence. With Hegel, a disciple of
Schelling everything becomes pure obscurity, absolute confusion, chaos.
Hegelianism was, in principle, the identity of contradictories, the
identity of truth and error, of good and evil. In him was verified the
prophesy of Isaias of those "who call evil good, and good evil; who put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter." It was a system that insinuated that nothing
really exists, that existence is merely a happening; that truth is not
truth in itself, that there is no definite truth. It was the affirmation
and negation of one and the same thing, fact, or being, at one and the
same time. It was important inasmuch as it led the way to systems even
more bizarre and destructive in the intellectual and moral order.

Not to speak of the eclecticism of Cousin in the earlier days of the
last century, which consisted in culling what he considered truth out of
all the various philosophies of the past, without, however, having any
definite idea of what was the truth, the chief product of German
rationalism in the first half of the century was the system of
Positivism. It consisted in confining human knowledge within the sole
domain of the observation of the forces of matter, and the study of the
mathematical laws and conditions which regulate these forces. Beyond
that domain it declares that nothing exists scientifically. Neither
first causes, final causes, nor the essences of things, ought--according
to it--to be the object of scientific research, for these, it considers,
are not science, but metaphysics. Under the name of metaphysics it
included religion, theology, and moral teaching, all of which were to be
simply eliminated as of no interest to men of intellect. Hegelianism had
closed the eyes of human understanding; Positivism had mutilated and
crippled its activities.

This disorderly system would have died with its author, August Compt,
had not two of his disciples taken it up and given it a certain
stability. One of these, M. Littré gave a resume of its teachings in
1845; but it was Taine who endowed it with a species of life, especially
in his later writings. According to Littré, Positivism would do away
with God, the Creator, the First Cause, the Final End, as subjects
"worthy of childish minds." He declares that "outside the sphere of
material and positive things the eye of the intelligence can perceive
only an infinite void." He considers the soul, anatomically, as the
_ensemble_ of the functions of the brain and spinal column, and
psychologically, as the _ensemble_ of the functions of the cerebral
sensibility. He denies all immortality and future life. "The dead," he
declares, "survive only in the ideal existence which presents them to
our memory, or in the part they played in the collective life of
progress accomplished by humanity." There was to be no more religion or
worship. Instead of supernatural ideas and the dogmas of faith it would
substitute the cult of "humanity." Finally, in denying the existence of
God he ceased to recognize the divinity of Christ, His miracles, and the
divine authority of His Church.

The new philosophy became the fad. It was welcomed by young men
impatient of restraint; it was preconized by free-thought in a congress
of students at Liege; it descended into the workshops, infested the
schools, and became a necessary accomplishment for professors in
academies and colleges. The danger was increased by the hypocrisy of its
writings. "One of the characteristic traits of modern irreligion," says
Mgr. Baunard, "is that taint of poetry mingled with mysticism which
accompanies the most blasphemous negations."

Out of the union of Hegelianism and Positivism--the negation of absolute
truth, and the disdain of metaphysics--was born a new historical
criticism, which repudiated a priori the supernatural as false and
impossible. This new system taught that: "When criticism refuses to
believe in the narration of miracles, it has no need to bring proofs to
the support of its negation. What is narrated is false, simply because
it cannot be," and again, it declares--"The foundation of all criticism
consists in setting aside in the life of Christ the supernatural," and
again, "Nothing enters into human affairs but what is human; and every
science, particularly history, must bid farewell definitely to the
supernatural and the divine."

This perversive philosophy once launched needed only a leader to present
it in a concrete and popular form. For such a purpose the German Life of
Christ by Strauss could serve as a model. A hand was ready in France to
take up the enterprise, Ernest Renan, the modern Voltaire, put forth his
notorious "Life of Jesus," which might be called the great crime of the
nineteenth century. Renan wished to show that Jesus is not God, and at
every page his demonstration is shattered like glass against the
evidence of the texts. These texts he knows, but he is content to
falsify them. He does so because in his Hegelian school no one assertion
is truer than its opposite. Sometimes he adopts the respectful, unctuous
tone of those who cried out: "Hail, King of the Jews." In this frame of
mind he speaks of Christ as "the man who even yet directs the destinies
of humanity," "the man who has given the most beautiful code of perfect
life that any moralist has ever traced." But almost in the same breath
he insults, minimizes and reproaches our Lord as a pedantic peasant, an
eccentric, an anarchist, and the like.

This intermingling of adulation and insult to the divine character of
Christ had its effect. It seduced the simple-minded, and brought the
book into the hands of the imprudent and deluded multitude. It blinded
the masses, it brought tears to the eyes of the faithful, it crushed the
great heart of Mother Church, it gave a tone to lying criticism, it gave
to blasphemy the character of elegance; it lent assistance to a policy
oppressive of truth and liberty; it performed its part in the war of
spoliation and sacrilegious confiscation; it renewed the hours of
darkness around the Cross of the dying Redeemer; it essayed to make
humanity, regenerated through the Blood of the Son of God, return back
to Arius and to paganism. The work of Renan and his followers has been
the great crime of the century.

During the last half of the century anti-Christianism underwent a
change. The position held by Positivism was taken by evolutionist
transformation. Its authors were Charles Darwin, the naturalist, and
Herbert Spencer, the philosopher. Their doctrines were received with
enthusiasm by thousands who had been seeking some new fad in the
intellectual line. The anti-Christian looked to it to replace
Christianity. In France it became the religion of the Third Republic.
Jules Ferry, in the Lodge _Clemente Amitie_, 1877, declared openly: "We
can now throw aside our theological toys. Let us free humanity from the
fear of death, and let us believe in a humanity eternally progressing."
It was the religion of atheism, and it has been forcing its creed upon
humanity ever since.

Scepticism, born of Kant and Hegel, had come to its throne. With Hegel
all things were only relative; with Kant objects are only phenomena, and
the truth of things is merely subjective; religion itself was to him
only subjective, and was, moreover, relegated to the things unknowable.
In this he resembled Spencer with whom Religion held the first place in
the category of the Unknowable, and that vast, dark, and bottomless pit
into which he consigned everything which could not be known by
experimentation. This glorification of ignorance, elevated into a
system, became known as agnosticism.

The vagaries of sophism in the English-speaking world were hardly less
prolific than in Continental Europe. The great intellectual forces of
the nineteenth century allied themselves to two movements, the
transcendental and the empiric. The former sprang from the writings of
Rousseau; created the French Revolution, developed into German
rationalism, passed into England to the poetry of Wordsworth and
Coleridge, generated in France a whole tribe of soliloquists and
dreamers, and was finally crystallized in the half-prophetic,
half-delirious preachings of Carlyle. Crossing the Atlantic it inspired
and originated New England Transcendentalism through the Concord School
of Philosophy, of which Emerson, a pupil of Carlyle, was the chief

It was a vague and abstract school. It took its very name from the fancy
that this new knowledge transcended all experience and was quite
independent of reason, authority, the testimony of the senses, or the
testimony of mankind. It spoke freely of the Infinite, the Infinite
Nothing, the Infinite Essence of Things. Carlyle spoke of Eternal
Verities, the Immensities, the Eternal Silences. Emerson wrote of it as
the Over-soul, the Spirit of the Universe. It permeated all literature,
it directed the study of history, it inspired poetry, it became a
religious creed; it hypnotized a large portion of the studious world.

About the middle of the century men began to question it, especially
when it was perceived that its conclusions did not correspond with its
premises. Human thought suddenly veered to the opposite extreme. The
world was tired of abstractions; it called for facts. Thenceforth reason
was to be omnipotent, and Nature began to be studied. The philosophy of
the new order made her a god. "She will give up her secrets to us, and
we will build our systems upon them. We will tear open the bowels of the
mountains, and read their signs. We will pull down the stars from the
skies, weigh them, and test their constituents. We will seek the
elemental forces of Nature, and there we shall find the elemental
truths. We will dredge the seas, sweep the rivers, drag fossils out of
forgotten caves, construct the forms of dead leviathans from one bone,
examine the dust of stars in shattered aerolites, and the structure of
the animal creation in the spawn of frogs by the wayside, or the
tadpoles in the month of May. And we shall find that all things are made
for man; and that man alone is the Omnipotent and Divine." The world
took up the cry and called it Progress. Mankind was shaken by new
emotions. Through steamship, telegraph, telephone, and wave currents,
distance was annihilated. The world was moved from its solid basis. Vast
buildings were flung into the sky; the populations flocked to fill them
in the dense cities; and in the exultation of the moment men looked back
upon the past with a kind of pitying ridicule, and cried: "This is our
earth, our world; we want no other. Humanity is our God, and the earth
its throne!"

Then in the very height of all this pride, men suddenly discovered that
under all this huge mechanism and masonry they had actually driven out
the soul of man. The building of sky-scrapers, the slaughter of so many
millions of hogs, the stretching of wiry networks over cities and
states, the underground railways and sea-tunnels--all these were but a
poor substitute or compensation for the ideals that were lost. Beneath
all this material splendor every noble quality that distinguishes man
was utterly extinguished, and one saw only the horrors of the midnight
streets, the masses festering in city slums, the great gulf broadening
between the rich and the poor, selfishness, greed, Mammon-worship, the
extinction of the weak, the sovereignty of the strong, the cruelty, the
brutality, the latent meanness of the human heart developing day by day
like a monstrous disease upon the face of humanity.

Then came the mutterings of a new terror, the very offspring of the
materialism that was worshiped, the spectre of socialism and anarchy,
the new belief in the terrible destructiveness of a Godless science. The
intellectual world drew back in horror at the sight of the child it had
begotten. It began to repudiate the transcendentalism that made
pantheism, and the empiricism which made Nature a god, and now it
strives to justify itself by a futile attempt to reconcile God with
human fancy. Its new religions are but the sugaring of the pill that a
docile humanity must swallow. The vagueness of transcendentalism is
united with the materialism of nature worship, and the resulting
equation is pessimism. Charity, kindness, love, the smile of friendship
and the laughter of innocence, all must vanish into the black night of
despair before the mandate of a Moloch who has eaten the heart and
smothered the thinking soul. It is the moment of crisis, when the world
is beginning to look for a savior; and out of the darkness only one
source of hope is seen glowing with eternal fire, one shelter for poor
persecuted, over-ridden, oppressed humanity--the mother of order and
happiness, the protectress of the home, the warmth of the heart, the
life of the soul--the mistress of all true philosophy--the old, the
never changing Church.


In following up the various assaults made by the Gates of Hell upon the
Church established by Christ, one is struck by the absolute method and
order they betray. There is a mind behind them all, and that mind has
been working vigorously for nineteen centuries. Arianism, Manicheeism,
the paganism of the sixteenth century, Protestantism, all were conceived
along religious lines, and the thought of God was ever their central
proposition. With the French Revolution, born of Deism in England and
Rationalism in Germany, there came into view the spirit of Paganism,
which has set itself against Christianity for over a hundred years. Even
Paganism, with its aping of the ancients and its depreciation of
Christian doctrine and morality, has yielded before the human craving
for spirituality, and is falling to pieces rapidly. But the Gates of
Hell never grow weary, and the mind that in past ages could trouble the
peace of the Church rises to a new effort, an effort that, with strange
fatuity, it dreams will be final. Arianism, Protestantism, Paganism
failing, the new religion of degeneration takes on a darker, a more
repellent aspect. It no longer hides behind religious phrases, but comes
out into the open, and those who can read its character have called it

Under the guise of Modernism it strove to plant its poisonous weeds even
in the vestibule of the Church, but, exposed through the vigilance of
our great Pontiff, it made use of the Protestant churches to propagate
its errors, until in many pulpits the authority of Jesus is as much a
stranger as if Christ had never been born. Out of this chaos came the
strange philosophy of Charles W. Eliot with its use of Christian phrases
and its negation of the Christian religion. Eliot's nonsense, however,
was but a stepping stone whereby the last assault might be made upon the
Church. The plans of this assault have been developing for years in many
universities of the country, in the yellow press, and in many
organizations of men who have grown weary of law and seek in absolute
license the gratification of animalism. Satanism is thus the danger of
the day.

After many exemplifications of the creed of Satanism in the matters of
divorce, abortion, race suicide, white slavery, not to speak of burnings
at the stake and the thousand and one horrible crimes that a "wicked
and adulterous generation" perpetrates in the open light of day, the
world was prepared to hear its praises sung from the rostrum of one of
America's largest educational establishments.

One evening last year an eminent professor, speaking in one of our
largest universities, formulated some of its tenets, the horror of
which, let us hope, will shock even the most depraved of minds. In
Satanism charity shall be no more; that spirit of love which made life
tolerable, which brought the smile to the face of poverty and suffering,
which, born of Divine love, spreads its wings over the darkness of earth
and creates faith in better things and hope of higher destinies--that
charity shall have no place in the creed of these men, no more than it
shall have place in that land of eternal despair whence first that creed
came forth. More satanic still, the hand of this new religionist is red
with the blood of the helpless, the infant whose feeble wailings wring
the heart of a human mother, the blood of the infirm whose hollow cheek
bespeaks the pity of the more fortunate, or whose halting step awakens
the manhood of the young and noble, the blood of the aged who have given
the years of their lives to the cause of humanity. To Satanism all
these, to whom Christ had said, "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are
heavy burdened, and I will refresh you," are obstacles, in the pathway
of conquest to the Gates of Hell. This Satanism gives as its excuse the
cause of economy as against humanitarianism, as if Divine Providence
during the many centuries that have passed has not fully demonstrated
Its ability to care for the world, to prevent by natural means the
danger of over-population to keep the balance in human affairs as
wonderfully as It has in the circling of the stars in the firmament.

One notes these various assaults not with any sense of fear for the
Church to which Christ has promised His assisting presence, until the
end of time, but as signs of the times, as warnings to those who
thoughtlessly are led into the toils, to those who for a little
temporary gain would deliver up the souls of their children that they
may drink the doctrines of Satanism and lie down in pleasant places to
die of its noxious poison.


The day has gone by when the discussion was between Christian and
Christian; it is now a stand-up fight, a fierce struggle, every day
becoming more fierce, between faith and infidelity. A spurious
philosophy has prevailed under one name or another in every age, from
the days of Democritus down to our own; but it has received recently an
impetus from the teachings of Materialists. Emboldened by their success
in research, the professors of the Materialistic school have attempted
to lift the mysterious veil of nature, and have challenged the truths of
Revelation on the most fundamental principles of the Christian creed.

In fact the Materialistic theories which today deify reason and make
matter eternal, and which recognize in matter the principle and
perfection of every form of life, are the substratum underlying almost
every species of modern literature. It is this materialistic philosophy
in the trappings of popular literature which is filling the earth with
crime and making the lives of men a veritable inferno. Its pernicious
influence has been stealing over the minds of men till it has succeeded
in shaking to its centre the whole fabric of social life in almost every
civilized country.

The irreligious works of the European continent have been translated
into English, and circulated in every variety of form from the most
ornate to the cheapest and most accessible. They are on the counters in
the department stores, in the most flashing advertisements where their
most prurient qualities are held out as inducements to the buyer. Nor
are works of a similar spirit and tendency wanting in our own
literature. And these works, adapted to every class of readers, and to
every grade of intellect, revive the old errors, while fertile in the
production of new ones, flatter the pride of the understanding,
stimulate the passions of the heart, and diffuse their poison in every
department of human learning and through every form of publication by
which the popular mind can be reached.

An evil press, largely circulated and read by many who suspect no evil,
is rapidly sapping the faith of the multitudes.

Unfortunately there exists in our nature a propensity to evil. Whatever
flatters our passions or vicious inclinations we, as a rule, are readier
to follow than what is good and virtuous. Hence we find that bad books
are more generally read than good ones, and that newspapers wherein
religion and morality are outraged, have a very wide circulation. If
anything more than bad example tends to propagate vice, it is bad
reading. Vice in itself is odious, but when decked out in the false
coloring of a cleverly written book it becomes enticing. Young
inquisitive people--and young people are generally inquisitive--are

After perusing such a book their horror of vice is much lessened; they
take up another, and so, by degrees, their ideas become perverted.
Nearly all men agree that it is the familiarity with vice which develops
all the immoral and vicious propensities of human nature, and it is this
familiarity with the face of vice which is so contagious, and draws so
many into the vortex of crime in the large cities while its absence
keeps country life so pure and untarnished.

It is indeed hard to say which is the more dangerous among books--those
which are written professedly against Christ, His Church and His laws,
or the furtive and stealthy literature which is penetrated through and
through with unbelief and passion, false principles, immoral whispers
and inflaming imaginations. To read such books is a moral contagion--it
is to imbibe poison--it is certain spiritual death.

It is certainly a melancholy reflection, that any such books should be
extant among us. It is sad to think that any of the human species should
have so far lost all sense of shame, all feelings of conscience, as to
sit down deliberately and compile a work entirely in the cause of vice
and immorality, which, for anything they know, may serve to pollute the
minds of millions, and to propagate contagion and iniquity through
generations yet unborn--living, and spreading its baneful influence long
after the unhappy hand that wrote it is mouldering in the dust.

It is a striking observation made by one of the Fathers of the Church
that "as the authors of good books may hope to find their future crown
lightened by the degree of wisdom and virtue which their writings impart
through successive generations, so the writers of evil books may well
dread an increase of punishment in the future world proportionate to the
pollution which they spread, and the evil effects which their writings
shall produce as long as they continue to be read."

To what frightful deserts must the writers of modern literature look
forward in accordance with such a prediction! The literature of today,
light and popular, stately and philosophical alike, teems with
immorality and infidelity. It displays itself in every form of poetry
and prose, in lectures, essays, histories, and in biblical criticism.
There it stands palpable and terrible, like Milton's Death, black and
horrible, obstructing the light of heaven, and overshadowing God's fair
creation. The press is a Catholic institution: a Catholic invented it; a
Catholic first printed books, and the Catholic Church first fostered it.
But the enemies of Catholicity have seized it and turned it into an
engine of destruction to faith and morals.

The newspapers in most cases teem with scandals which absorb the
thoughts or arouse the passions. Such reading familiarizes the young
with the details of vice, and their better nature is overshadowed by the
vicious existences pictured, while the moral strength to resist
temptation is slowly but surely weakened.

Then there is that inward strife and struggle--that warring of the
passions from which no one is free--that tendency to evil which seeks to
cast off the salutary restraints of religion, and which has carried down
with the current of innate corruption the greater part of mankind. All
these things are borne in upon the soul, day by day, and year by year,
as though life were to last forever, until the unhappy reader begins to
abandon the absolute realities of life and law and to dwell in the house
of a diseased imagination like a leper waiting for the moment of final

What we want thus today is an arousing of the Catholic conscience in
this regard, the cultivation of Catholic instincts, and the acquiring of
Catholic habits of thought. While the banners of atheism and anarchy are
waving throughout Europe, the forces of infidelity and indifference are
doing their deadly work at home. The spirit of revolt, born of
corruption and bred of disease, has swept across the ocean and finds a
resting place nearer home. The enemy has laid hold of a great part of
the Press and is using it for the destruction of morality and the
perversion of truth. The wells of knowledge and the fountains of truth
are being daily and hourly poisoned by means of the current literature.
A spiritual pestilence is passing over the earth, and the souls of
millions are perishing through its foul agencies.

If God, therefore, has given to Catholics wealth of ability and strength
of mind, and richness of opportunity to engage in the intellectual
combat which is being fought everywhere around us, they ought to use
these means to oppose the tide of infidelity and indifference which is
sweeping over the nations by putting against it the barrier of good
books and Catholic reading. In many quarters the mists are beginning to
lift; many intelligent people are beginning to look to the Catholic
Church because of her openly proclaimed doctrines, her magnificent works
in building up the mighty fabric of the social world, and her lofty
ideals of humanity. Secularism in education is confessing its failure at
home and abroad.

The toiling masses are turning to the Church for the solution of the
vexed problems of labor. The creeds are falling to pieces for want of
unity, cohesive principle and authority. Thousands are flocking back to
the old Church in sheer weariness of spirit. The thousands would swell
into millions if we were up and active in the dissemination of good
books, and did our part in helping on the cause of Catholic literature.
The Catholic book, the Catholic magazine, the Catholic newspaper is the
fiery cross spread from hand to hand, to light up the darkness and to
kindle the faith of the multitudes.


One of the forces that make most of contemporary conditions is that of

Modern Socialism originated in a group of uncompromising materialists.
Marx was one of the young men who revolted from the extravagant Idealism
of Hegel, into the crassest Materialism, along with such men as
Feuerbach, Bruno, Bauer and Engel. His theory of the universe reduces it
to matter and force, and that of duty to the pursuit of pleasure in its
material forms. The man's life was better than his creed, for there were
some heroic sacrifices in it, for the good of the cause. But his theory
neither called for nor sanctioned any such sacrifices. They were due to
the pervading atmosphere of an imperfectly Christian civilization, with
its ideals of pity and sympathy. They could not find their roots in a
materialist view of the process of human history, which is but the tale
of "conflict of existence and survival of the fittest," not much above
the wrangling of wild beasts in the forests.

While it is only the errors of Socialism that meet with opposition from
sound minds--the good points not being identified with the system except
by accident--there are some of its errors that are fundamental and
therefore deserve a larger exposure than the rest.

Among these is its false conception of the relation of individuals to
society. Socialism of its very nature absorbs the individual into the
State in such a way as to sacrifice the individual rights to the State's
authority. This is an essential feature of all forms of real Socialism,
and it puts an end to morality because it destroys all personal freedom
and responsibility.

In the early days the Christian Church vindicated the inherent rights of
conscience against the unholy tyranny of pagan Rome, which claimed
authority to dictate the belief and control the religious practices of
its subjects. Socialism would sacrifice the rights which the Church has
won and must continue to defend, and proposes to erect a State, with
unlimited power in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres.

In the view of the Socialist the State does not exist to furnish
opportunities for personal development or defend our rights. In that
State the individual must exist only for the sake of society, and his
principal function is to promote the temporal well-being of the
governing section. To this conception of man's nature they attempt to
give a scientific authority.

They borrow from biology the idea of an organism and then, passing over
the essential differences, they apply it in an unqualified sense to the
State. Thus we are not surprised to read that "the relations of
individuals to the social organism are on a par with the relation of
cells to an animal organism." This monstrous doctrine implies that man
is not a person, a free moral agent, with God-given rights and duties
independent of the State.

It is Gronlund who says of rights: "There are none save what the State
gives," and he adds "this conception of the State, as an organism,
consigns the rights of man to obscurity." It certainly reduces man to a
condition of physical and moral slavery.

Could it be established Socialism would thus prove a more frightful
despotism than any pagan government of the past. Not a remnant of
freedom would be left. The nature of our work, its place, time and
reward would be fixed for us. The State could dispose at pleasure of our
persons, our families and our property. It would lay its hands upon the
family to destroy its unity and stability.

The masses of mankind would be placed completely at the disposal of a
small and closely centralized body of politicians whose judgments would
have the force of infallibility and who would be armed with irresistible
power to enforce their ideals and to compel the observance of their

The Socialists continually assert that religion in their system will be
a private affair and no concern of the State. But they also take it for
granted that once Socialism is realized religious belief must vanish.
Indeed, it is impossible that Church and State, which both claim to be
supreme and conflicting directors of mind and conscience, should

An omnipotent collectivism would not long bear with a spiritual
authority which speaks in God's name, which necessarily disputes its
jurisdiction and the truth and justice of its fundamental principles,
and which is therefore a constant menace to its stability. In order to
save itself such a State would naturally try to suppress and destroy the

In the face of such a proposed revival of pagan society, it becomes more
and more necessary to insist upon the doctrine of man's spiritual
dignity and moral freedom, and the unassailable basis upon which they
rest. A personal God, whose essence is absolutely moral, is the
fundamental truth, which alone can safeguard our rights from unjust

The obligation to obey the laws which God has imposed upon our
conscience carries with it the power and the right to obey. Our rights
thus are not given and cannot be taken away by such a State. They have
their origin and authority in the supreme Author of our being. Their
validity is bound up with the sovereign rights of God, and are
therefore, absolute and inalienable. It is in this Divine right that we
find the broad and strong foundation of our freedom and of all the
rights of man.

Thus Socialism is antagonistic to human liberty. Inseparably bound up
with it is a materialistic philosophy. In the name of science--a word
more abused than liberty--its adherents claim the right to revise and
revalue all standards of morality. Experience shows that it thrives and
propagates best in the soil of materialism. Its natural allies are the
Secularists. Its irreconcilable foe, and the most formidable obstacle to
its progress, is the Catholic Church.

It is, in fact, not merely a party for social reform, but a wing of the
irreligious army, operating among the working classes, doing its utmost
to sow mistrust and hatred of religion and to excite the hope and belief
that the amelioration of the condition of labor depends upon the success
of materialism.

While thus a warning is in order to those who are led by its utterances,
its greatest danger lies in the fact that it may do much mischief in
spreading an irreligious spirit, and weakening the foundations of belief
among men whom it may not capture to its economic heresies, but who
permit themselves to be influenced by what it might term its philosophic


Out of the multiplicity of religious sects and philosophical systems
with which Europe was deluged at the beginning of the present century,
came the new form of Modernism, which is, as the Holy Father has said,
but the synthesis of all errors. That vague endeavor to reduce Christian
life and teaching to the vagaries of modern thought found its exponents
in Germany, Italy, France and England. Schell in Germany sounded the
note, and Fogazzaro in Milan took it up, picturing it in his novel "Il
Santo." In England it found favor with the unhappy Father Tyrrell, and
in France, with the Abbe Loisy and Houtin. The latter, according to
present reports has become reconciled with the Church.

The watchful eye of the present Pontiff, Pope Pius X., detected the
nature and aims of the new sect before it had yet time to fasten itself
upon the minds of the faithful. Accordingly, on September 16, 1907, he
issued to the world his famous Encyclical, _Pascendi Dominici gregis_,
treating of the errors of Modernism.

The Encyclical was divided into four parts as follows

I. The Errors of Modernism--_Agnosticism_--This error declares that the
human reason is merely a phenomenon, and cannot raise itself to the
knowledge of God. This negation offers free access to scientific
atheism, which is an opposition to what Faith teaches.

_Immanence_--Agnosticism is the negative side of Modernism; immanence
constitutes its positive constituent. This doctrine would have it, that
religion is a fact and as such demands an explanation; this is not to be
sought from without, but from within. Religious immanence thus places as
the basis of faith the _sensus cordis_, or a feeling of the heart,
taking its origin from a _need of the Divine_ hidden in the folds of the

_Subjectivism_--Modernism supposing that the religious conscience is the
supreme rule in all things relating to God, declares that that
conscience, attracted by the unknowable, either exalts the phenomenon,
that is, transfigures it, or deforms, that is, disfigures it, according
to circumstances, persons, places or time.

_Symbolism_--Modernism declares that man, before thinking upon his
faith, creates that faith, either in an ordinary and vulgar manner, or
in a reflex and studied way. In this second case there come what are
called the dogmas of the Church. These dogmas, Modernism says, are the
instruments of the believer, the symbols of his faith.

Thus the essence of Modernism tends, from a social point of view, to
subject the doctrines of the Church to the vague but dominant ideas of
the moment, unknown yesterday, and forgotten tomorrow. From the point of
view of the individual it would subject objective, theological and
philosophic truth to the sensation of the individual and to the
sentiment of the ego.

II. How these errors are employed.--The Pope then points out the
principles which the Modernist theologian makes use of. For the
theologian of this kind, dogma arises from the need which the believer
has of elaborating his own religious thought. For him the Sacraments are
only the symbols of faith, the consequences of worship, or something
instituted for its nourishment. Inspiration is the need which the
believer has of expressing his thought by writing or by word; in this
way it approaches very nearly to poetical inspiration. It teaches,
moreover, that the Church is only the product of the collective
conscience, which, in virtue of vital immanence, comes down from a first
believer; autocratic at first, it must now, according to Modernism bend
itself to the popular forms.

To the historian, history is only the relation of phenomena, and should
thus exclude God and everything divine. It declares that the apologist
ought not to depend upon the Church, but should seek the aid of
historical and psychological researches in the treatment of religious
questions. The reformer would thus reform everything according to the
above principles. It would replace positive theology by the history of
dogmas, which it would write in accordance with history and science. As
to worship, the Modernists while desiring to be indulgent in its regard,
would nevertheless gradually diminish it. Finally, they look for the
abolition of the Roman Congregations in general, and particularly of the
Holy Office and of the Index.

_Condemnation_--The Holy Father then condemns Modernism: "But these
suffice to show by how many ways the doctrine of the Modernists leads to
atheism and to the destruction of all religion. Indeed, it was
Protestantism which made the first step upon this path; then followed
the error of the Modernists; atheism will follow next."

III. The causes, the results and the purpose of Modernism. The proximate
cause are the errors of the intellect; its remote causes are curiosity
and pride: _non sumus sicut ceteri homines_, and philosophical
ignorance. The purpose of Modernism is threefold: the abolition of the
scholastic method in philosophy, the abolition of tradition and of the
authority of the Fathers; and the abolition of the ecclesiastical
magisterium, the teaching Church.

IV. _The Remedies_--First. The teaching of scholastic philosophy and
theology in all Seminaries and Catholic Universities, and at the same
time the study of positive theology, which ought to be prosecuted in a
sincerely Catholic spirit.

Second. The expulsion of all Modernists from the rectorship and
professorships of Seminaries and Catholic Universities.

Third. The care which bishops as delegates of the Holy See, should take
to keep from their priests and the faithful all Modernist writings. They
should be exceedingly careful not to give their _imprimatur_ to books
which are Modernist in any way.

Fourth. The institution in each diocese of a council of censors to
revise carefully all Catholic publications. The formula _Imprimatur_ of
the Bishop will be preceded by the _Nihil obstat_ of the censor. The
priest may not undertake, without permission of the Bishop, the
direction of journals or reviews, and the Bishop will carefully examine
those who write as editors or correspondents.

Fifth. The Bishops will forbid congresses of priests, except in rare
occasions, when they shall be certain that there is no danger of
Modernism, laicism, or presbyterianism.

Sixth. There shall be instituted in every diocese a council of
vigilance, to watch over books and schools. They shall make certain as
to the authenticity of the relics venerated in the churches, and see
that the truth of pious traditions are not ridiculed in the newspapers;
they shall maintain a surveillance over institutions of a social
character and the publications pertaining thereto.

Seventh. One year after the publication of this Encyclical, the Bishops
and religious superiors shall hand to the Holy See a diligent report,
detailed and complete on the matters which constitute the object of the
articles of this Encyclical; and thenceforth they shall do the same in
their triennial report to the Holy See.

Such is in brief the resume of this famous document, whose appearance
aroused the interest of the whole world. That its measures were
effective is evident from the history of Modernism in the last three
years. The incipient heresy is practically dead in the pale of the
Church itself. Without it has invaded Protestantism, giving rise to
pragmatism and all those vagaries which fill the philosophical
curriculums of many universities. The Holy Father himself has gained a
signal and complete victory.

And now a word as to the purport of the book which begins in the
following pages. It is intended primarily to demonstrate that the
struggle against the Church has ever been a struggle against the Holy
See as the head and centre of all Catholicity. The repudiation of
authority began with the Reformation. Then indeed it was merely an
outcry against the claim of the Church to possess her authority from
God. Later this error developed into a repudiation of human authority.
Finally there came the repudiation of all lawfully constituted authority
whether human or divine. It was the sequence of Protestantism,
Rationalism and Radical Socialism.

Moreover, in the Catholic countries themselves the Church ever remained
strong as long as all looked loyally to the centre of unity in the Holy
See at Rome. The whole history of Jansenism, Gallicanism, Febronianism
and Josephinism, is but the history of human ambition battling against
the divine authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. And even then the result
would have been a calming down of inordinate ambition before the claims
of reason and Revelation, had not an impetus come from without. For a
hundred years there has not been a revolution in the Latin lands which
has not been aroused and engineered by the influence of English speaking
powers. So that it may be said that if the Catholic countries were left
to their own ways, they would remain not only Catholic, but up to date
in every form of enlightenment and progress.

The War Upon Religion


The Earlier Crises.

The history of Christ's Church on earth has ever been a story of storm
and stress. The faithful heart of today mourns in discouragement over
the evils that afflict the Church in the opening decade of the twentieth
century; yet it needs but a glance at the past to convince us that the
severest trials of the Spouse of Christ have happened in times long gone
by. She has seen the tempest arise out of the clear sky; the clouds of
persecution have hung low, at times even enveloping her in their gloomy
shadows; she has seen the lightning's flash and heard the loud roar of
the thunders of human wrath, while the hurricane swept over the face of
the earth overturning the fondest memorials of her progress, and
levelling to the dust the proudest monuments of her civilization. She
has prostrated herself to the ground and with buried face has called
upon the mercy of God to comfort her sorrow and heal her wounds. And
when the storm has passed, she has lifted up her eyes to behold the
glory of a newer day, the rainbow of hope, telling of that ancient
promise: "For, behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation
of the world."

The story of the past has been told too often to need repetition in this
place. Our interest lies entirely with modern days, with the struggle of
the Church against the spirit of anti-Christ incarnate in all the
movements of error from the sixteenth century until our own times. And
thus, while we are seeking the causes of that anti-Christian spirit, we
cannot help regarding with interest the influence exerted by the
Protestant Reformation upon the intellectual and moral life of Europe.
The abandonment of the old faith led, by a natural sequence, to
estrangement from Christianity itself. This is so palpable that it is
surprising how the innovators could have overlooked the fact that to
abuse and ruin the one meant the wounding and destruction of the other.
Indeed, had not organized Catholicity existed at the time, and in its
then form, there would have been no concrete Christianity to reform, but
only some archaeological remnants out of which it would have been
difficult to construct even an imperfect idea of the religion of Christ.

Coincident with the great revolt against the Church was the impetus
given to the study of the natural sciences. This coincidence, unhappily,
assumed to the unthinking the appearance of cause and effect, as if the
intellectual powers of man had been stunted and repressed under the
regime of ecclesiastical authority, to be freed and exercised in a time
of revolt against the Church. This unfortunate conviction was gradually
instilled into the minds of the masses by men brilliant of intellect,
but unscrupulous in their hatred of the Church and of her teachings. The
people accepted the premise and followed it out to its conclusion; that
Catholicity should be regarded as an enemy, and as such should be
persecuted and destroyed. They were unable to measure the force of
circumstances surrounding the new unfolding of the physical sciences, to
recognize the evil character of many champions of the new order, or the
glamor which the awakening of new studies cast upon minds hitherto
engrossed with the sober logic of the schools. The fact, moreover, that
many of the old theories with regard to natural phenomena must
eventually have yielded to the processes of scientific evolution had not
occurred to them. All these were forgotten or missed in the enthusiasm
for the novelties of nature, and under the influence of a gaudy
literature they permitted themselves to believe that the Church was
responsible for the tardiness of the awakening, and hence that she
should be discarded, that Christianity as a consequence should be
uprooted, and that the intellect should acknowledge no other deity than
the impersonal God of nature.

Moreover, the Church had ever been recognized as the supreme authority
in the matter of Christian morality. To attack, therefore, her existence
could mean nothing less than to open wide the floodgates of iniquity, to
cast down the barriers that had hitherto restrained the evil passions,
and to proclaim the reign of license and anarchy. These fatal
conditions, taking their rise in the sixteenth century, grew into
palpable being and gave place later to that monster of iniquity which
today holds half of the world in its grasp.


The influences of the Protestant revolt were more far-reaching than the
limits of any provincial or national territory, for although the Council
of Trent, in 1545, had met the challenge of European discontent with a
rigid investigation into every disputed point of ecclesiastical
discipline, nevertheless the roots of the new heresy penetrated by
secret channels into those very countries which had repudiated the
advances of Luther, and taken their stand upon the basis of Roman
Catholic unity. It was but natural that a people nurtured upon the
living bread of Apostolic doctrine as delivered to them through the
ministry of the Holy See should look with distrust upon the excessive
and destructive theories of the German Protestantism. They found,
however, in the morbid doctrines of Calvin a certain weird and uncanny
attraction, which like an hypnotic obsession led them on until they
mistook empty and high-sounding formulas for the clear light of truth.
It was not that they did not see much that was repugnant and absolutely
untenable in Calvinism; nor would they openly espouse the outward
organization which the heretic called his church; but they hoped to find
a middle path as far removed from the rigid fatality of the Genevan
heresiarch as it would be from what they would call, the laxity of the
Roman Church. Out of the resulting confusion was born the spirit of
Jansenism, which proved to be little else than the Calvinistic heresy
disguised under the external forms of Catholic unity. It was a heresy
all the more dangerous that its assaults were not directed in the open
and from the outside, but were nurtured within the very household of the
faith, where it spent its arrows of discontent upon the children of the
Sanctuary kneeling in devotion under the shadow of the altar.

Midway between the strongholds of Luther and Calvin lay the country of
the Netherlands, rendered important at the time through the influence of
its celebrated University of Louvain. Out of its curious people came
that Cornelius Jansen whose name was to acquire a questionable celebrity
through his championship of the new idea. A quondam conspirator in the
interests of Philip II., he had been raised, for his services in that
direction, to the See of Ypres. For twenty years he studied in his own
way the great tomes of St. Augustine, reading his whole works ten times
over, and his refutation of the Pelagians as many as thirty times. It
was a period when theologians were much interested in grace, free will,
predestination, and kindred questions. The Church had already condemned
the theories of Baius in that regard, and Calvin's errors, which he
claimed to have found in St. Augustine, had been refuted time and again.
It was the work of Jansen to revive in a more classical form all these
condemned doctrines and to seal them by an appeal to St. Augustine. To
this end he finished before his death, in 1638, an immense work entitled
_Augustinus_, which, however, was not published until 1640, two years
after his death.

Its heretical character was immediately recognized. The University of
Paris censured five leading propositions extracted from the work, which
were in turn formally condemned by Pope Urban VIII., in 1642. The
Jansenists, however, endeavored to meet the Papal condemnation with
casuistic subtlety. They resorted to a distinction between the orthodox
sense of the propositions and the heretical sense in which they might be
read; they thus claimed that Jansen understood them only in their
orthodox sense, while they agreed that the propositions were rightly
condemned in a heretical sense. Hence they declared that the five
propositions were either not at all contained in the work of Jansen, or
at least that they were not there in the sense condemned by the Bull of
Urban VIII. To these observations Pope Alexander VII. replied by the
Bull of 1656, wherein he condemned such distinctions, declaring that the
five propositions were taken from the work of Jansen, and that they
were condemned in the sense of that author. The Jansenists retorted by
asserting that the Papal Bull was only a simple regulation of
discipline, and that it could exact nothing more than a respectful
silence. Practically the whole action of the new sectaries amounted to
an effort to restrict the scope of Papal infallibility, in as much as
they declared the Pope might rightly adjudicate in regard to dogmatic
doctrines, but not in regard to dogmatic facts. Thus, he was right in
condemning the five propositions, as they held, but wrong in declaring
that Jansen taught them in a heretical sense. This distinction was
formally condemned by Clement XI. in 1705, and the bishops and prelates
of France were obliged to subscribe to a formula declaring that they
condemned the propositions with heart as well as with lips, according to
the mind of the Holy Father.

The novelty of the Jansenistic ideas raised up, especially in France, a
coterie of supporters, brilliant of intellect, but entirely dominated by
pride and egotism. Foremost of these was the Abbe St. Cyran, who became
the sponsor of the Jansenistic doctrine after the death of its inventor.
A Calvinist in sentiment, however orthodox by profession, his career was
hardly such as might be expected of an apostle of truth. His treasonable
life had awakened the hostility of the great Richelieu long before the
advent of Jansenism, and he had spent years of weary confinement in the
prison of Vincennes. His character was one of duplicity as is evident
from his general tone of teaching. It was he who, one day, informed St.
Vincent de Paul, that he would speak the truth in one place if he
thought the truth would be appreciated there, and its opposite where
ever he should find the people unable to apprehend the truth. It is
significant of his pride that he declared that the Holy Scriptures were
clearer in his own mind than they were in themselves. This strange
individual upon his liberation from prison, at the death of Richelieu,
set himself up as a martyr and contrived to chant his woes into the ears
of the courtly set that hovered about the French throne. He succeeded in
casting the glamor of fashion over his Jansenistic theories. He was
welcomed especially by the members of a family destined to hold the
destinies of Jansenism in their grasp, the Arnaulds of Port Royal. There
were two brothers of especial prominence, and two sisters, Angelique and
Agnes, who had received their initiation into Jansenism in all good
faith, but who became later on most bitter in their advocacy of
principles which no true Catholic could hold. The Abbey of Port Royal,
near Paris, thus became the very stronghold of the new sect and drew to
its doors some of the brightest men of the day. Among these was that
celebrated Pascal whose "Provincial Letters" exerted such an influence
in stirring up a national hatred of the Jesuits. The Abbey of Port
Royal, however, proved itself too great a factor in the seditious
movements of the day. It was suppressed by a royal order in 1709, and
its buildings demolished in the year following.

Just at the moment when the followers of Jansen seemed most ready to
yield to the claims of saner thought, when the instructions of the Holy
See were already bearing salutary fruit, the heresy took on a new lease
of life, and opened up an avenue to greater dissension and error. In the
year 1693 appeared a work entitled: _Moral Reflections Upon the New
Testament_ by Pasquier Quesnel, an ex-priest of the Oratory of Jesus. He
was a man who had already incurred suspicion and censure. The book,
although conceived in a tone of lofty piety and deep meditation, was
found nevertheless to be a very storehouse of Jansenistic ideas. It was
received with enthusiasm even by many pious souls whose mental acumen
could not perceive the poisonous spirit that it harbored. Cardinal
Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, was at first one of its strongest
supporters until the book, after a critical examination by a Papal
commission, was condemned by Pope Clement XI. in 1713. The Bull by which
this condemnation was proclaimed was the celebrated "_Unigenitus_," a
factor not alone in the religious, but in the political history of the
eighteenth century.

After the appearance of the Bull, Cardinal Noailles forbade his people
to read the "_Moral Reflections_," but at the same time he refused to
receive the Papal Bull without some qualification. Other prelates
proceeded to greater extremes than this, four of them having the
hardihood to appeal from the Bull to a further Ecumenical Council. This
attitude was a declaration of open rebellion; it was a call to many who
had hitherto hidden behind the screen of prudent silence. A new
religious faction was formed and rapidly grew in numbers. They termed
themselves the Appellants from their appeal to a future council. To meet
the disastrous effects of this growing schism Pope Clement XI. in 1718
put forth the severe Bull, "_Pastoralis officii_," wherein it was
declared that anyone, though he be cardinal or bishop, refusing to
accept the Bull "_Unigenitus_" should thereby cease to be a member of
the Church. The contest went on ten years longer before Cardinal
Noailles and the French episcopate with but few exceptions yielded
entirely to the demands of the Holy See. The affair, however, though
quieted to a great extent in the ranks of the clergy, was nevertheless
secretly supported by a number of contumacious persons, and openly by
the Parliament of Paris and other governmental bodies, who brought
persecution to bear upon the issue. In 1746 de Beaumont, Archbishop of
Paris, forbade his clergy to administer the Sacraments to any sick
person who should be unable to produce a certificate from the parish
priest stating that he had been to confession. He was cited before the
Parliament in 1752, and was later banished from Paris. The controversy
was finally settled by Clement XIV. who permitted that the Sacraments
might be given to a person whose opposition to the Bull, "_Unigenitus_"
was not notorious.

Such are the barest outlines of the rise and progress of Jansenism
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Beneath its surface lay
strong and lasting issues, the effect of which is often perceptible even
in our own day. One of these was its determined opposition to the
Society of Jesus. Ever loyal to the Holy See and to the sound doctrine
of the Church, the Jesuits could not but be an obstacle in the path of
the sectaries, who in turn strove by every means for their annihilation.
Both in the circles of religious life and among the courtiers and ever
restless against the restraints of morality, the Jansenists pursued
their foe with relentless energy. Through Pascal and his followers the
resources of polite literature were brought to bear against the
defenders of the faith, until, just as Jansenism was losing its last
hold upon European society, their great purpose was accomplished, and
the Society of Jesus was suppressed.

Into the private life of the ordinary Catholic the principles of
Jansenism injected a gloom and sadness similar to the extravagant
sullenness of Puritanism or its sister, Calvinism. Rigor and haughty
reserve were accompanied by a false humility which caused its votaries
to shun the Sacraments, to despair of God's mercy, to abandon all hope
after the commission of one sin, or on the other hand a presumption
without grounds upon an election which God had denied to others less
fortunate. It threatened for a moment a total overturning of belief in
the salutary life of grace and an utter misconception of the free will
of man which must lead eventually to a wandering away from God and
ultimate atheism.

That the spirit of Jansenism is not altogether dead our Holy Father,
Pope Pius X. assures us in recommending the daily reception of Holy
Communion: "The poison of Jansenism," he says "did not entirely
disappear. The controversy as to the dispositions requisite for the
lawful and laudable frequentation of the Holy Eucharist survived the
declarations of the Holy See; so much so, indeed, that certain
theologians of good repute judged that daily Communion should be allowed
to the faithful only in rare cases and under many conditions." Our
present Holy Father disposes of Jansenistic doctrines by opening up
freely the graces of the Holy Sacrament even as far as its daily


A movement which rivaled Jansenism in its peculiar fanaticism was that
Quietism which owes its public notoriety to a Spanish priest, Michael
Molinos, who in 1675 published a work entitled: _Spiritual Guide Leading
the Soul, by Means of Interior Progress, to Attain Perfect
Contemplation, and to the Rich Treasure of Interior Peace_. Therein was
developed a religious system that was apparently in harmony with the
most orthodox asceticism, but which upon examination proved to be
fundamentally false and seducing towards the most rampant error. The
writings of Molinos were condemned by Pope Innocent XI. and their author
compelled to do severe penance for the harm they had caused. In
substance Quietism taught that the interior life or spiritual
perfection is reached when the soul, by union with God, holds itself in
a thoroughly passive state with regard to everything else. In all things
whether of this life or of the next, in questions of virtue as in
questions of sin, the perfect soul wishes for nothing and fears nothing,
not even hell; it is simply in a state of inactivity. Hence good works
are not only unnecessary for salvation, but are even a hindrance to
perfection, since the soul must act to perform them. Farther still went
this theory in insinuating that when a person is attacked by even the
grossest temptations he should never offer any positive resistance, such
resistance being in itself action. Hence that the tempted person was
never responsible for his actions, be they ever so infamous, since the
criminality affects only the sensitive part of the soul, not the higher
part which is united with God.

It is quite evident that a theory such as this could only lead to grave
excesses not only in the matter of doctrine, but especially in that of
morality. Examples were not wanting to show the practical workings of
the new movement, which, however, rapidly disappeared under the watchful
eye of the Holy See. It is worthy of note that a discussion over the
orthodoxy of the writings of one of this class, a certain Madame Guyon,
residing at the time in France, effected an estrangement between those
two brilliant lights of the French Church, Bossuet and Fenelon. The
latter, in his too great sympathy for one whom he believed too harshly
judged, published a sort of defence of her. The defence was at once
condemned by the Pope, and Fenelon out of the humility and true loyalty
of his great heart submitted immediately and without reserve to the
decision of the Holy See.


[Illustration: LOUIS XIV.]

In a line with Jansenism as a force destructive of the influence of
Catholic grace upon modern life was the movement of Gallicanism. It
differed, however, from Jansenism inasmuch as the latter affected the
interior life of the Church while the former touched upon her external
regimen. Its genesis can be traced far backward in history, though it
never attained to proportions capable of inspiring fear until the middle
of the seventeenth century. A feeling of restless annoyance at the
restraints exercised by the Court of Rome upon his absolute dominion in
France caused the young King Louis XIV. to regard the Holy See with
something of hostility even from the beginning of his reign. In fact,
were he disposed in his youth to act with fairness towards his
ecclesiastical neighbor there were not wanting courtiers who instilled
into his ear the notion that the Holy See was seeking his utter
abasement and ought therefore to be reminded strongly of its true
position. An unfortunate event in the year 1662 brought this hidden fire
to a flame. At that time the Duc de Crequy was acting as ambassador of
France in the Eternal City. This ambitious and testy nobleman signalized
his residence in Rome by permitting and even encouraging his retainers
and friends to defy the city's laws, to insult the Roman authorities and
to abuse in every way possible the hospitality extended them by the
Papal government. Their acts of rowdyism at length inflamed the police
and the soldiery to such an extent that a body of Corsican troops in the
service of the Holy Father threw off all restraint and attacked the
French retainers, killing three or four of them. The ambassador
abandoned Rome in an excess of fury and brought a garbled version of the
affair to the ears of Louis XIV. The King in his anger retaliated by
dismissing the Papal Nuncio, and demanding from the Pope the most absurd
and extravagant conditions as the price of reconciliation and peace. The
Holy Father, Pope Alexander VII. had been guiltless in the whole affair,
he had suffered patiently the impositions of de Crequy and his lawless
band, and he displayed an extreme anxiety to repair any evil committed
by his own soldiery; he could not, however, yield to the exactions of
the French King. Thinking to meet the warlike threats of Louis by the
aid of the Catholic sovereigns, he found himself abandoned by all of
them, and thus left at the mercy of the infuriated monarch. Louis XIV.
had already proceeded to take possession of the Papal city of Avignon,
and his armies were already on the march towards Rome for the purpose of
intimidating the Holy See. The Pope perceiving that the crisis demanded
immediate and radical action, agreed to many of the humiliating
conditions, and thus secured an exterior appearance of peace. This was
in the year 1663.

The passions of Louis XIV. were not, however, composed, and were
awaiting only a favorable occasion for breaking forth into open heat.
This occasion was offered in connection with a dispute concerning
certain royal privileges in the ecclesiastical order, termed the
_Regalia_. This was the right of the kings to enjoy the revenues of a
vacant bishopric, and to confer, during the vacancy of a See, benefices
without care of souls. The Parliament of Paris, by a sentence of 1668,
had extended the regalia to all benefices which might be included in
countries where the regalia had not previously obtained. King Louis
XIV., by his edicts of 1673 and 1675, had confirmed that sentence, and
the French clergy for fear of greater evils had approved. Two bishops,
however, stood out against the edicts, and were deprived of their
revenues in consequence; they were at the same time supported in their
opposition by Pope Innocent XI. The Holy Father, when the question was
brought before him, appealed to a decision of the Second Council of
Lyons, held in 1474, which opposed the extension of the regalia. In two
briefs of March and September 1677, he exhorted the French monarch to
respect the rights of the vacant Sees; but when his exhortations were
only disregarded, he issued two other briefs in 1678 and 1680, adding
ecclesiastical menaces to his exhortations.


It was at this juncture that Louis XIV. had recourse to his influence
over the clergy in France, and perceiving that his encroachments were
meeting with firmness upon the part of the Pope, he determined to effect
a legal enactment whereby the powers of the Sovereign Pontiff should be
made forever subservient to the will of the French king. Already in 1662
the University of the Sorbonne had signed six articles denying not only
the divinely constituted primacy of the Pope, but asserting an undue
independence in the powers of the king himself. To revive these articles
as well as to strengthen his position in regard to the Holy See, the
French Monarch convoked at Paris in 1682 an assemblage of the clergy
which was attended by thirty-four archbishops and bishops, besides as
many minor prelates. The members of this assemblage were invited
individually by the king's order, and only such were called as were
known to be in harmony with the pretensions of Louis XIV. Fenelon was
not there, nor Mabillon, nor Bourdalone, nor many another brilliant
light of the French Church, for the simple reason that they could not
support the king in his unjust usurpations. The Convocation possessed at
least one strong mind, that of Bossuet, the celebrated Bishop of Meaux,
whose presence and action in such an assembly it is difficult to
reconcile with his usual manly loyalty to Catholic principles. His
excuse, that he hoped thereby to ward off greater evils and even schism
from the Church is hardly of any value against the depressing influence
of the act itself. The result of this assembly was the formal framing of
the notorious Gallican Liberties which in a few words meant:

     "1. That the Pope could not interfere with the temporal
     concerns of Princes either directly or indirectly.

     "2. That in spiritual matters he was subject to a general

     "3. That the rules and usages of the Gallican Church were

     "4. That the Pope's decision in points of faith was not
     infallible, unless attended by the consent of the Church."

Four days after the signing of these articles the king put forth an
edict imposing their observance strictly upon all the country. His
commands were as follows:

     "1. We forbid all our subjects, and all foreigners resident
     in our kingdom, secular or regular, of whatever order, to
     teach in their houses, colleges, or seminaries, or to write
     anything contrary to the doctrine herein stated.

     "2. We order that all those hereafter to be chosen to teach
     theology in all the colleges of each university, whether
     seculars or regulars, shall subscribe to the said declaration
     before being permitted to act; that they shall submit to
     teach said doctrine, and that the syndics of the faculty of
     theology shall present to the local ordinaries and to our
     attorneys-general, copies of the said submission, signed by
     the secretaries of the said faculties.

     "3. That in all the colleges and houses of the said
     universities, in which there are several professors, secular
     or regular, one of them shall be annually appointed to teach
     the doctrine contained in the said declaration; and in those
     colleges in which there is but one professor, he shall be
     bound to teach that in one of every three consecutive years.

     "4. We enjoin upon the syndics of the faculties of theology
     annually to present, before the commencement of the lectures,
     to the archbishops and bishops of the cities in which they
     shall be, and to send to our attorneys-general, the names of
     the professors appointed to teach said doctrine; and we
     enjoin the said professors to present to the said prelates
     the writings which they will dictate to their scholars when
     they shall order them.

     "5. It is our will that hereafter no bachelor shall be
     licensed either in theology, or in canon law, or received as
     doctor, until he shall have maintained that doctrine in one
     of his theses, and having shown proof of such support in such
     theses to those having power to confer the degrees.

     "6. We exhort and enjoin all archbishops and bishops to exert
     their authority to cause the doctrine maintained in the said
     declaration to be taught within their dioceses."

Artaud de Montor, in his _Lives of the Popes_ writes in this connection:
"Assuredly, if the archbishops and bishops made no resistance to the
signing of the four articles; if they thought that such a notification
might become useful to the Church; if they recognized that the authority
of the Pope was to be thus boldly limited; if they thought it requisite
to curb what Bruno called the Tiberine tyranny, they must now at length
have discovered that they were subject to a perfectly insatiable
authority, which would employ not even the language of the country to
exhort and enjoin them to exert their authority in diffusing a doctrine
more administrative than Christian, and more military than religious,
with a view to substitute for the words of peace, concord, and mildness,
new words of command, injunction, unbridled will, to which Catholicity
was no longer accustomed. From the Attorney-General who thus lectures
the bishops, to the Attorney-General who has immediately under his hand
the secular power, there is, in such times, but a step. The same hand
countersigned a document, and ordered the sword to leap from the

In the meantime the Roman court was not idle. On the 11th of April,
1682, Pope Innocent XI. annulled the propositions by a brief, and
refused to grant canonical bulls to the bishops named by King Louis XIV.
The hostile attitude of France continued openly for ten years, and it
was only in 1693 that the King agreed that the provisions of his edict
were not to be enforced. The spirit of Gallicanism, however, after being
thus fostered for a decade in the schools and colleges of France was not
to be eradicated by a mere permission of tolerance. A generation had
grown up imbued with its false principles and ready to cast broadside
through the country the seeds of a lasting hostility towards the Papal
prerogatives. In fact, all through the whole course of the eighteenth
century the creed of Gallicanism governed in a large measure the whole
action and liturgy of the French Church. Its attitude of independence in
regard to the Holy See very naturally encouraged that rising
anti-Christianism which found its most potent foe in the successor of
St. Peter. Even in the nineteenth century it possessed a certain life.
Napoleon, in his Organic Articles, imposed it upon the seminaries of
France even more strictly than did Louis XIV., at an earlier day. It has
ever been the great obstacle to Catholic unity in France, the source of
persecution against the Church; and if it virtually died in that country
about the time of the Vatican Council, in 1870, its absence was never
more noteworthy and consoling than at the present day when the whole
French episcopacy stands united to a man in its loyalty and devotion to
the Holy See.


Scarce had the battles of Jansenism and Gallicanism been ended, than a
new campaign of destruction was inaugurated against the peace and unity
of the Church. Born of the confusion of Jansenism, it found a sponsor
in Bernard Van Espen, the Flemish canonist, it was introduced to the
world by Febronius, and it reached its development under the Austrian
Emperor, Joseph II.

Until the eighteenth century the student of canon law believed his task
fulfilled if he had read diligently the great Code of ecclesiastical
law, if he had commented upon the Decretals, and had drawn therefrom
conclusions entirely in harmony with the mind of the Church. This mode
of procedure seemed altogether too slow and antiquated to Van Espen,
Professor in the University of Louvain, who accordingly put forth,
between the years 1693 and 1728 a new work upon the laws of the Church,
the method of which was startling as its purpose was revolutionary. It
was styled the _Universal Ecclesiastical Law_. It was no attempt to
study or tabulate the old laws; it was rather an investigation,
conducted in a spirit of prejudice, into the origin and authority of the
laws by which the Church was governed, and an endeavor to minimize
thereby the rights and prerogatives of the Roman See in favor of lesser
and more recent human institutions.

The new system of Van Espen was taken up with avidity by every student
who imagined he had a grievance against the Holy See. It became the
order of the day to wander back piously to the primitive days of
Christianity, to explore its history for evidences of modern
institutions, to seek therein for the organization of the Vatican and
the Roman Curia, and not finding them in days of Clement and Cletus, to
raise the voice in loud protestation against the novelties introduced by
the Popes. They scoured the ages of history to gather up every
expression of hostility against the Temporal Power or the institution of
the Cardinalate; they recorded scrupulously every complaint against the
revenues of the Holy See; they revived the epithets concerning the
"superstition, the fanaticism, and the darkness" of the Middle Ages. In
a word they framed a system whose watchword was the destruction of the
Papal supremacy, the exaltation of episcopal pretensions, and the
ultimate domination of the State in the affairs of the Church.


The theories of these pseudo-canonists nowhere found greater favor than
among a certain class of prelates in Germany, who besides their
jurisdiction as bishops of the Roman Catholic Church enjoyed the further
dignity and revenues of prince-electors in the German Empire. These
combinations of politician and churchman could hardly regard with favor
the pre-eminence of a Bishop in Rome who claimed however justly the
rights of jurisdiction in any manner over them. They thus welcomed with
open arms any daring spirit who would minimize or destroy the value of
the Papal supremacy, and thus leave them in undisturbed possession of
their pretended rights, carrying as these did with them a broad license
to all the worldly luxuries and distractions of a political court.

The prince Bishop of Treves in Germany was one of this kind, and it is
not surprising that when a canonist or theologian of the new order
suddenly appeared at his court that the latter should receive all the
honor and encouragement such a bishop could bestow. The court of the
Bishop of Treves produced in the middle of the eighteenth century such a
spirit in Johannes von Hontheim, a suffragan of the electoral diocese,
and better known under his pseudonym of Febronius. In 1763 appeared in
Germany some copies of a mysterious quarto entitled: _The State of the
Church and of the Legitimate Power of the Roman Pontiff_, bearing the
name of _Justinus Febronius_, and the place of publication _Bouillon_,
though the author was in reality Johannes von Hontheim, and the place of
its publication, Frankfort-on-the-Main. The book, finally increased to
five volumes, was rapidly spread throughout Europe. In Venice it
appeared in two editions, Latin and Italian. In France it was translated
twice. In Spain the Council of Castile defrayed in part the expenses of
a new translation, and that edition according to Cardinal Capara became
the law for the Court and the Nation. Portugal provided both a Latin and
a Portuguese text which latter was distributed gratuitously. Germany
also produced both a Latin and German edition.

The book was condemned by Clement XIII., in 1764, and anathematized by
the greater number of the German bishops upon its appearance, yet it
made so much noise in the world, was so highly eulogized by the
ignorant, and so greedily welcomed by the enemies of the Church, besides
the fact that it has served to sanction so many desolating assaults upon
the faith, the hierarchy and the discipline of the Catholic Church, that
it is necessary to discuss it in detail, in order to undeceive many who
even today hold some of the views espoused by Febronius.

And first as to the theme around which the author has woven his network
of sophisms. George Goyau, in his _Catholicism_, thus synopsises the
whole teaching of Febronius: "Febronius recognized the Pope as the Vicar
of Jesus Christ; he professes that the Church has need of a chief to
direct it, and that the bonds which unite the members to the chief ought
to be sacred and inviolable; he desires that the primacy be conserved in
the Church with care, and that it be piously honored; and Photius who
strove to sap its foundations appears to him a fool. But this primacy is
to Febronius only a simple pre-eminence; all that it imports is a right
of inspection and direction over the different dioceses, similar to that
which an archbishop possesses with regard to his suffragans; but it does
not signify that the Pope has any jurisdiction." He holds, moreover,
that "The power of the keys was conferred by Christ to the whole body of
the faithful; it belongs to them all _radicaliter et principaliter_; the
bishops exercise it under the title of _usufruct, usualiter et
usufructualiter_; while as to the Pope, he is superior to each bishop in
particular in virtue of what Hontheim terms the _majoritas_; but that
majoritas does not extend over the whole episcopal body in its entirety;
the episcopal body is thus the real sovereign of the Church."

It was a consequence of such ideas that Febronius should utter the usual
outcry against the "abuses" of the Roman Church, and recommend a general
council of all Christians to the decisions of which all must bow. In all
this he pretended to seek the furtherance of unity in the great
Christian body.

The false doctrines of Febronius were met with denunciation and
refutation from all reliable sources. Clement XIII. in 1764, Clement
XIV. in 1769, and Pius VI. in 1775, raised their voices solemnly in
condemnation of the book. The ablest theologians of the Church gave
their services to combat its errors. Among these were especially
Zaccaria, Amort, Kleiner and St. Alphonsus Liguori. It is noteworthy
that the first refutation of Febronius came from the pen of a Lutheran,
Frederick Bahrdt, in Leipzig.

Among the many able discussions upon the work of Hontheim that of the
Abbe Bernier deserves to be reproduced in part, not only because it
reflects the sentiment of the time, but especially for its keen
exposure of the falsehoods and inconsistencies which abound in the work
of the heretic. It is found in a letter to the Duke Louis Eugene of
Wurtemburg dated 1775.

     "It is astonishing how the Treatise on the Government of the
     Church and the Authority of the Pope, by Febronius has made
     so much noise in some of the states of Germany; neither in
     its depth nor in its form was this book ever capable of
     impressing men of intellect or such as pretend to the faculty
     of reasoning. Whatever of truth the author produces is taken
     from French theologians, particularly from Bossuet, in his
     _Defense of the Declaration of the Clergy of France of 1682_;
     his falsehoods and errors are extracted from Protestants and
     Jansenists, or from those canonists who seek to humiliate the
     Court of Rome in her time of trouble. Various materials,
     which were never intended to be taken together, have been
     maladroitly compiled by Febronius; he has lighted torches
     which destroy each other; as he never takes his stand upon
     principles universally admitted, he is continually falling
     into contradictions; he denies in one place what he affirms
     in another; he sustains one theory at the very time that he
     professes to reject it; it would be sufficient to compare the
     titles of the sections and chapters of his work, to perceive
     that he either does not understand what he writes, or that he
     is not in accord with himself."

The Abbe thereupon goes on to point out the most glaring contradictions
in the work, and to show that to any person not yet blinded by
prejudice, the very contention of the author is destroyed by his evident
lack of truthfulness.

In 1778, through the influence brought to bear upon the Archbishop
Elector of Treves by the Papal nuncios, Caprara and Bellisomi, Febronius
was led to reconsider his action, and signed a retractation of his
errors in a letter sent to Pope Pius VI. Three years later, however, in
1781, he published a _Commentary_ on his _Retraction_, which served to
show the spirit of insincerity which dominated him throughout his whole
career. He died in 1790.

Febronianism was not so disastrous in itself as (it proved to be) in its
consequences. Its immediate result was a weakening of that loyalty which
Catholic peoples owe to the centre of unity in the Holy See; but through
all that, it affected, in a certain way, the very foundations of the
social and political life of Europe. Although its immediate effects were
almost simultaneous in their action, yet for the sake of brevity we
shall notice them in order. 1. The revolt of the Elector archbishops of
Germany. 2. The schism of Scipio de Ricci. 3. The final development into


For two centuries, there were three nuncios sent by the Holy See to
Germany: to Vienna, to Cologne, and to Lucerne. In 1777, the new Elector
of Bavaria petitioned Pius VI. for a fourth nunciature, to Munich. This
measure, so just and useful in itself, irritated the German archbishops,
already too jealous of the jurisdiction of the nuncios in the Empire.
The three Electors, Clement Wenceslas of Saxony, Archbishop of Treves;
Maximilian of Austria, Archbishop of Cologne, and Baron d'Erthal,
Archbishop of Mayence, were the soul of the resistance to the will of
the Sovereign Pastor. Jerome Collerodo, Archbishop of Salzburg, and
Legate of the Holy See, joined forces with them, and when Cardinal
Pacca, the papal nuncio, arrived at Cologne, the Archbishop forbade any
official reception, pretending that henceforth he would recognize no
external jurisdiction. A like treatment was accorded to Zogno, the new
nuncio to Munich.

In August, 1786, the delegates of the above-mentioned four prelates,
assembled in a congress at Ems, near Coblenz, and agreed upon measures
to be taken in order to restrict the authority of the Pope in his
relations with Germany, a restriction that, in their anticipations, was
to mean nothing less than complete annihilation. The Congress of Ems
formulated twenty-three decisions, which have become known as the
Punctuations of Ems. Their purport was to suppress the immunities which
were enjoyed by convents in regard to episcopal jurisdiction, to forbid
all intercourse between the religious orders of Germany and their
superiors in Rome, to suppress the nunciatures to Germany; they would
also abolish the custom by which the Holy Father granted to German
bishops the faculty, to be renewed every five years, of granting
matrimonial dispensations. Moreover the Pontifical documents might not
be circulated without the formal acceptance of each bishop; they changed
the formula of the oath of fidelity to the Pope as fixed by Pope Gregory
VII. The Electors, in fine, made themselves thenceforth the legislators
for the Church of Germany, and as such addressed their "Punctuations" to
the Emperor for his approval.

It is significant that Joseph II. much as he had encouraged the
Electors, one of whom, Maximilian, was his brother, in their hostility
to the Holy See, nevertheless he received the acts of the Congress
coldly; it was not his policy to permit so much power to the German
bishops when he had already decided that all ecclesiastical authority in
his dominions was to reside in his own hands. Nor was the King of
Prussia, Protestant as he was, any more enthusiastic in support of the
rebellious Electors. On the contrary he accorded to the Papal nuncio,
Mgr. Pacca, every reasonable service, even receiving the latter, with
all the formalities due to his ambassadorial character, at Wesel, in
1788. In fact the advent of this great representative of the Holy See
proved a God-sent blessing to the Catholic people of the German States;
for the spirit of revolt so obstinately settled in the minds of the
ecclesiastical princes, found no echo in the hearts of their subjects,
always as loyal to the Holy Father as they were disgusted and humiliated
by the time-serving attitude of those to whom they had the right to look
for guidance and example.

The anger of the four archbishops against Mgr. Pacca increased despite
all reverses. In 1788 they petitioned the Diet of Ratisbonne to cause
the framing of a law suppressing altogether the nunciatures. The German
princes, however, had no intention of issuing thus a formal insult to
the Court of Rome, and the law was not passed. Moreover, the archbishops
had by this time discovered that their suffragans had taken umbrage at
the fact that they were not officially notified as to the proceedings of
the Congress of Ems, thus weakening the effect of that assembly in its
most vital point, the adhesion of the episcopate to the repudiation of
Papal authority. Finally, after various vain attempts to gain the aid of
the secular princes, three of the archbishops, those of Salzburg,
Treves, and Cologne, yielded a tardy obedience to the authority of the
Pope; the Archbishop of Mayence, von Erthal, held obstinately to his
position until after seeing himself abandoned by his quondam friends, he
was at length driven from his See by the advent of the French
revolutionary troops in 1793. By this event Febronianism lost, for a
time at least, the influence it had exerted for thirty years over the
Church in Germany.


While these events were taking place in Germany a like movement was
observable in Northern Italy. The Diocese of Pistoia, presided over from
1780 by Scipione di Ricci, was the scene of the trouble. This bishop,
fanatically addicted to the reforms introduced into the Austrian States
by Joseph II. held himself in constant opposition to the Holy See,
especially because of the Pope's rejection of his errors. As counsellor
to the Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany, he permitted the government to
meddle with ecclesiastical affairs, to regulate all matters of worship
and ceremony, and to assume full control of ecclesiastical teaching.
Catechisms were composed without consulting the bishops, and schools
were established by professors imbued with doctrines accredited by the

In 1786, at the instance of the Grand Duke, Ricci assembled at Pistoia a
synod which was to formulate regularly the reforms he had in view. The
schismatical bishop placed as moderator in this gathering that Tamburini
who had been deprived of his professional office by Cardinal Molino, and
who had not the right even to be present at an ecclesiastical assembly.
The synod adopted all the doctrines of the French Appellants, and
reconsecrated the old errors of Baius, Jansen, and Quesnel. The year
following, the people of Prato, in the Diocese of Pistoia, arose in arms
against the tyrannical bishop. They overthrew his episcopal throne and
burned his coat-of-arms, after having despoiled his palace and seminary
of the books and manuscripts found therein.

Despite these reverses Ricci, still sustained by the Grand Duke, held
firmly to his position. He caused new edicts hostile to legitimate
religion to be put forth, which might have had disastrous effects but
for the death of Joseph II., which caused Leopold to abandon Tuscany for
the Imperial throne. The errors of Ricci were formally condemned by Pope
Pius VI., in the Constitution _Auctorem Fidei_ of 1794. Ricci, however,
held his See in opposition to the will of the Sovereign Pontiff until
1799, when at length he sent his resignation to the Emperor. He was
finally reconciled with the Church through the good offices of Pope Pius
VII. in 1805, and died in 1810.


Joseph II. of Austria, son of the celebrated Maria Theresa, Emperor of
the Holy Roman Empire, was the incarnation of that spirit which,
beginning its active life in Jansenism, was formulated in the doctrines
of Febronius. More anti-Roman than all his predecessors, except perhaps
Frederic II. of Hohenstaufen, he was destined through his practical
alliance with the anti-Christian spirit of his day, to sound the knell
of that same Holy Roman Empire, which was dissolved fifteen years after
his death.

[Illustration: JOSEPH II. OF AUSTRIA.]

It was not, indeed, that Joseph II. desired to be, or to be considered
un-Christian or un-Catholic. He had his own ideas of the Church of
Christ, which were not the ideas of the rest of Christendom. His
principle of rendering to God what belongs to God, and to Caesar what
belongs to Caesar, he interpreted with a large margin in favor of
Caesar, to such an extent, indeed, that the tribute to God besides being
determined wholly by himself, was to be so meagre as almost to be
non-existent. Following the lead of his too liberal counsellor Heinke,
he distinguished, much in the manner of the Modernists of today, between
what he considered essential and immutable in the Church, and what was
only accessory and changeable. The former he would accept as coming from
Christ, and as manifested in the primitive Church; under the latter
category he classed all that might not suit his caprices, especially all
that was bound up in the authority and functions of the Holy See, its
supremacy, for instance, its infallibility, its temporal power, its
court of Cardinals, its Curia, and all else that, according to him, were
but abuses arising from the mutations of history. Hence he looked upon
himself as one whose duty it was to reform the Church, at least within
the extent of his own dominions, and he entered upon that work with a
vigor worthy of a nobler cause.

In the Church as conceived by Joseph II. everything was to be
subordinate to the needs of the State. It was to be his Church, and its
bishops and priests were to be his bishops, his clergy. Persuaded that
he was the absolute and sole source of authority he employed all his
energies in isolating his bishops, clergy and people from the centre of
Catholic unity. The system of vexatious persecutions which he introduced
to uphold his ideas gave to his system the name of Josephinism, a system
which, but for the intervention of the French invasions, might even
today have become the ruling force of Germany.

On April 2nd, 1781, he issued his edict against the religious orders; it
was at this point, in accordance with the ideas of Frederic II. and the
Encyclopaedists, that his subversive work ought to begin, a process
indeed, which has been imitated in our own days by Jules Ferry, and by
Combes. Eight days later, another edict exacted the imperial _placet_
for all bulls or other documents emanating from Rome. The canonical oath
of the Austrian bishops at their consecration, was modified to restrict
all loyalty to the Holy See; the Papal nuncio, Mgr. Varampi, was made
the object of vexatious measures, and all recourse to Rome, even for
marriage dispensations was interdicted. Still more, the Emperor
suppressed all sodalities and confraternities, abolished processions,
restricted the number of the holy days, and even went so far in his
meddlesome measures as to regulate the number of candles to be lighted
at the various devotions, and forbade the use of coffins for burial,
making it obligatory to bury the dead in shrouds of cloth. At the same
time, however, while interfering with and persecuting his Catholic
subjects, his mind assumed a spasm of broadness to such an extent as to
induce him to offer freely to Jews and Protestants, what he denied to
his co-religionists.

At the same time it must be acknowledged that the headstrong attitude of
the Emperor owed much of its obstinacy to the influence of counsellors
in whom the spirit of flattery was more pronounced than any care for the
welfare either of the Church or the people. Foremost among these was
that Prince Kaunitz, who after serving through many successive reigns
had acquired an ascendancy in the imperial household which would require
strength of character in the sovereign to destroy. The mind and policy
of Joseph II. were almost entirely in the hands of this politician, who
had imbibed every rampant theory that the times could offer. Influenced
by Voltaire and the encyclopaedists his reverence for religion was
dictated only by the demands of expediency. Throughout his whole reign
the Emperor listened to the counsels of this statesman in every matter
of State or religion. Nevertheless, in order that his reforms might
appear to have the sanction of ecclesiastical law, the Emperor gathered
around him canonists and professors only too willing to prostitute their
casuistry to the imperial will. Riegger, a disciple of the Jesuits in
his youth, and later a Freemason, compiled in his _Outlines of
Ecclesiastical Law_ a new digest out of all sympathy with the laws that
bore the Papal approval. Eybel published an _Introduction to the
Ecclesiastical Law of the Catholics_, and by his teachings in regard to
the laws of marriage, created such scandal as to require his resignation
from the professor's chair which he held; this fact, however, in no way
diminished his credit at court. Pehem, another professor of the same
kindred, diffused his untenable theories among the priests of the
Empire. Chief among these destructive canonists was the Benedictine
Rautenstrauch, whose influence extended throughout the dominions of the
Emperor. It was through the instrumentality of this cleric that Joseph
II. brought about the unification of the Universities and Seminaries of
the Empire, building them up upon a plan of utter independence of all
Papal control, and making their programme of ecclesiastical studies
emanate from the powers of the State. Naturally the guidance of teachers
such as the above could lead a selfish and ambitious mind like that of
Joseph II. to any extreme of absurdity; nor was the Emperor slow in
following their counsels.

In the meantime Pope Pius VI. regarded with grave anxiety the eccentric
tactics of the Emperor. At first he made use of all his paternal
condescension in the hope of leading Joseph to better sentiments.
Perceiving, however, that he was gaining nothing by his representations,
the Pope resolved upon a decision which surprised the world. Breaking
with all traditions of the Holy See, he declared his intention of
proceeding in person to Vienna. With this end in view he accordingly
wrote to the Emperor stating his desire for an interview close at hand,
with the hope of thus reconciling the rights of the Emperor with those
of the Church. To this letter full of touching kindness, and announcing
so unusual an action on the part of the Holy See, he answered in his

     "As the object of your journey touches upon matters which
     Your Holiness regards as doubtful, but which I have settled,
     permit me to believe that you are giving yourself needless
     trouble. I ought to warn you that, in my resolutions, I act
     only in conformity with my reason, equity, and religion.
     Before coming to a decision, I weigh the matter long and
     well, and I consult my council; but once having decided, I
     remain firm."

[Illustration: POPE PIUS VI.]

Pope Pius VI. was not discouraged by the discourteous reply of the
Emperor; nor did he give heed to the remonstrances of the cardinals and
of his own family. On February 27, 1782, he set out for Vienna, reaching
his destination on March 22 following. The Emperor and his brother
Maximilian, that Archbishop of Cologne who had already so deeply wounded
the heart of the Pontiff, came to meet him some leagues from the
capital. As soon as the Papal carriage was seen, the two royalties
descended and walked forward to meet it. The greeting on both sides was
most affectionate. The visit of the Holy Father, however, did not prove
in every way a consoling event. An imperial ordinance had forbidden the
Austrian bishops from appearing in the presence of the Pope. The latter,
nevertheless, could officiate pontifically on Easter Day, and a few days
later were opened the negotiations which had determined this journey of
the Sovereign Pontiff. Unfortunately these conferences produced no
result at all commensurate with the sacrifices entailed. Joseph showed
himself inflexible in every main contention, and his concessions
affected only points of the slightest importance, namely the promised
cessation of new encroachments, and the renewal of the official
relations between the nuncio Varampi on the part of the Holy See and
Cardinal Herzan, representing the Emperor. The departure of the Holy
Father from Vienna called forth the same official courtesies as marked
his arrival.

On his return to Rome, Pius VI. was pained to see that his journey,
which had met with disapprobation at its start, was more loudly censured
now on his arrival in the Eternal City. These criticisms, indeed, seemed
somewhat justified in the events which happened almost immediately, for
the news was brought that the Emperor still continued to abolish
convents and to confiscate their property. Moreover, the See of Milan
being then vacant, Joseph appointed its new incumbent, although he knew
very well that such right belonged to the Holy See. Prince Kaunitz, the
Austrian Premier, who had added brutality to hostility during the
Pope's sojourn at Vienna, continued his insults, and threatened the
Bishop of Rome officially that he would bring about a startling rupture
of relations. The feeble and too confiding Emperor encouraged these
audacious menaces. Indeed, writings of the most venomous character were
being circulated throughout the Empire, their object being to throw
discredit upon the Papal authority to the exaltation of that of the

A visit of Joseph II. to Rome in December of the following year, 1783,
effected little towards softening his sentiments in regard to the rights
of religion in his dominions. A change of heart, however, came to him at
length, but only when the evil seeds he had sown had sprung up into a
harvest of destruction for that Empire which he valued more than God. In
his mania for regulating everything, he decided to consolidate all the
Seminaries of his States into four principal establishments at Vienna,
Pesth, Pavia, and Louvain; and in these institutions the tribunes were
to be given only to enlightened professors, that is, to professors in
harmony with Josephist ideas. At Louvain this measure met with a
particularly hostile reception: Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of
Malines, refused absolutely to send his young men to Louvain, until he
had obtained the promise that he should have control of the professors.
When the University opened, in 1786, the Emperor's professors, Stagger
and Leplat, were driven away by the students, who themselves soon
abandoned the establishment. Cardinal Frankenberg and the nuncio
Oppizzoni, were accused of inciting this movement and were punished, the
one by being recalled to Vienna, and the other by an order to leave the
Netherlands. At length, in 1789, the Netherlands, disgusted with the
conduct of the Emperor, declared their independence, and signalized the
last day of that year by signing their own Constitution. Movements of
unrest and rebellion began to manifest themselves at the same time in
Hungary, and in the Tyrol, and although Pope Pius VI., forgetful of the
injuries he had received at the hands of the Austrian monarch,
interceded with the angry people in his behalf, the harm was too great
to be remedied. Joseph II., who had brought these evils upon himself by
his disregard of the duties he owed to God and His Church, died of a
broken heart on February 20, 1790, begging that his monument should bear
the inscription: _Here lies Joseph, who was unfortunate in all his

The purpose of Joseph II., however, like those of his teachers, bore
fruit more abundant that they would have desired. Out of their
determined efforts to undermine the authority of the Holy See, and the
sanctity of Catholic institutions, the forces of revolution and anarchy
drew their inspiration. The way was prepared, and the enemy had only to
march dry-shod to their sanguinary victories.


The rapid rise of the Society of Jesus in the various countries of
Europe, naturally attracted the attention of all those whose aim was the
acquisition of as much personal power as was possible, to the detriment
of individual, family, and social rights, and who had reason to fear an
influence that stood for human progress and equal rights to all. The
Jesuits soon assumed great prominence among the religious orders. Their
excellence was admitted both in school and seminary; their learning
gained for them the spiritual direction of influential persons; they
became the confessors to princes and kings; they displayed extraordinary
zeal in the practices of devotion, especially that in honor of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, and they had already embraced the whole world in
the field of their missions. They became a power that excited the envy
of the less active, and the fear of potentates whose greed and
inhumanity found a check in the gentle teachings of the followers of
St. Ignatius. More than all, they had ever shown themselves energetic in
their support of ecclesiastical authority, especially in times when the
latter was threatened by the vagaries of Gallicanism, Jansenism, and
like movements; in the state itself they showed themselves veritable
defenders against the machinations of those secret societies which even
in the eighteenth century were very much in evidence.

[Illustration: FATHER RICCI, S. J. The last General of the Society of
Jesus before the suppression in 1773.]

It was impossible that an organization such as theirs, blessed by the
spirit of religion, going about doing good, defending the principles of
true Christianity against any and every assault, should escape the odium
and persecution of spirits whose chief claim to existence lay in the
desire to pull down the structure of civilization and to erect in its
place the temple of anti-Christ. The vials of irreligious wrath were
poured out upon them to the last dregs. In the various countries of
Europe they met with proscription and expulsion. In 1759 they were
driven from Portugal through the efforts of the infamous Pombal; in 1764
they were forbidden to live as a society in France; they were exiled
from Spain in 1767, from Naples in 1767, and from Parma in 1768. Finally
every effort of anti-Christianism and Masonry was exerted to bring about
their complete extinction in the whole world. In 1773 pressure was
brought to bear upon Pope Clement XIV., who, while refusing to listen to
the invidious complaints brought against them, nevertheless, for the
sake of a temporary peace, was compelled to sign the decree of their

The suppression of the Society of Jesus may be regarded as the first
great blow in the modern war of anti-Christianism. It was the
annihilation of the vanguard of the army of civilization and
Christianity. With the Society of Jesus out of the way, the campaign of
social, moral, intellectual and religious subversion found an open road
to the excesses of anarchy and revolution. The Jesuits, however, like
well-disciplined soldiers of Christ, bowed to the will of the Vicar of
Christ, and bore their humiliation in silence for forty years, till the
day when the Pope, Pius VII., freed from the chains of persecution,
called them back to honor and usefulness.


The suppression of the Jesuits met with no greater joy than in the
hearts of a certain class of intellectual perverts who may be regarded
as the actual founders of modern anti-Christianism; these were the
sophists who in that period of the eighteenth century were already
flooding France and Europe with a deluge of immoral, irreligious and
uncivilized literature.

It is to England that we must go to find the immediate origin of this
desolating spirit. There, among the Socinians and Deists, a school arose
that taught men to trifle with the sublime truths of revelation and to
undermine the foundations of religious belief, men like Shaftesbury,
Collins, Tindal, and Bolingbroke, who strove to subject religion to the
state, and regarded virtue as a mere human instinct; who declared reason
antagonistic to revelation, and saw in the Holy Scriptures nothing more
than a collection of pretty fables. It was not until the eighteenth
century that the influence of their theories began to ruffle the
Catholic atmosphere of France. There were not wanting birds of passage
who, while hibernating among the philosophic haunts of London, gathered
up the seeds of infidelity to scatter them broadcast upon the soil of

[Illustration: ROUSSEAU.]

The writings of Montesquieu (1689-1775) display a sneering attitude
towards the most sacred teachings and institutions of the Church. Jean
Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) in his _Social Contract_ and similar
works endeavored to destroy the social order and bring back humanity to
primitive barbarism. But more terrible in the rage of his iniquity than
all others, in the great war of anti-Christianism, was the arch-infidel,
Francois Marie Arouet, later called Voltaire (1694-1778). Of him might
have been written the lines which Milton puts into the mouth of Satan:

    "To do aught good never will be our task,
      But ever to do ill our sole delight;
      As being contrary to his high will,
      Whom we resist. If then his providence
      Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
      Our labor must be to pervert that end,
    And out of good still find means of evil."

                        Par. Lost, Bk. I.

Born in Paris of a mother whose loose morals made her a by-word to all
who knew her, he imbibed at her breast that appetite for lawlessness and
iniquity which ruled him to the last hour. His mother dying during his
infancy, he became the protege of an abbe who had abandoned the duties
of his sacred calling for the allurements of the world. In his boyhood
he was sent to the Jesuit school of Louis le Grand, where the perversity
of his character manifested itself to such an extent that one of his
teachers prophesied that he would one day become the coryphee of deism.
Thereafter his career was one of unlicensed depravity. More than once he
was arrested and cast into prison; he had reason to hate the Bastille,
for he himself had experienced the life of a criminal therein.

[Illustration: VOLTAIRE.]

That writer was not far wrong who asserted that irreligion is but one
form of the insanity which is born of immoral living. It is remarkable
in the anti-Christian literature of all times, and of none more than our
own, that its heroes and heroines are the abandoned roués and harlots
who, having defiled the temples of their own bodies, seek to carry the
abomination of desolation into the holy places of God. In this matter
Voltaire was no exception. His immoral life was lived ostentatiously and
boastingly. We will not, however, enter upon a list of the criminal
observances of this man, preferring to leave such details to their
proper place. It will be sufficient to point out the purpose that
underlay all the actions and words of his life. This purpose is best
indicated by citations from his letters and other written works.

His hatred for the Church and for morality is clearly displayed in the
works that he gave forth during the later years of his life. In his _Age
of Louis XIV._, a work that has been made an obligatory text book in the
educational establishments subject to the University of France, we find
passages full of insinuations and falsehoods directed against the Holy
See. "The Pope's spiritual authority," he says, "is now destroyed and
abhorred in one-half of Christendom; and if in the other half he is
regarded as a father, he has children who sometimes properly and
successfully resist him." Again he asserts: "To swear fidelity to any
other than one's own sovereign is high treason in a layman; in the
cloister it is an act of religion." He terms the Pope "the foreign
sovereign." His _Pucelle_ is a diabolical attempt to besmirch the pure
character of Joan of Arc. It was a work, however, which excited so much
disgust in all circles that Voltaire endeavored at first to disclaim it,
and it was many years before the whole poem could venture forth with his
authorization. The high society that could welcome its foetid pages was
already ripe for the horrors of the Revolution.

From 1760 to the end of his life Voltaire assumed as his motto the
impious expression: _Ecrassez l'infame_, "crush the infamous thing,"
intending thereby to indicate Christ and His Church. Throughout all
these years the term appears constantly in his own and his disciples'
letters. How he revels in his insane and satanic hatred, hardly finding
words that can fitly convey his utter aversion for the things of God!
The Christian religion he proclaims "an abominable hydra, a monster
which a hundred hands must destroy." He bids the philosophers scour the
streets to destroy it "as missionaries journey over land and sea to
propagate it." He bids them dare everything even to being burned in
order to destroy Christianity. Again he calls upon his fawning admirers
to annihilate Christianity, to hunt it down, to vilify it, to ruin it.
The perusal of his works leaves one with the impression that Voltaire
was constantly troubled with a nightmare, in the effort to free himself
from which he emitted his lugubrious wailings.

In 1778 the mob of Paris united to crown him at the Theatre Francais.
Referring to these manifestations the impious one wrote: "My entry into
Paris was more triumphant than that of Jesus into Jerusalem." The
further work of Voltaire was in accordance with expressions like these.
His intimacy with Frederic II., of Prussia afforded the blasphemer many
opportunities of indulging his satanic impulses. Among the
anti-Christian sophists who made the Palace of Berlin their rendezvous
was a school of Freemasons who had already begun to celebrate the final
downfall of the Papacy. For the more rapid realization of this hope
various expedients were advocated, among them being the pet resort of
irreligious tyrants,--the abolition of the monastic orders, a project
which found its foremost exponent in Voltaire.

Such was the man to whom anti-Christianism looks up, as to its great and
original patriarch, a man utterly devoid of the human moral sense, a man
to whom all that savored of the good or virtuous was an abomination and
a thing of infamy, a man whose methods of deceit are expressed in his
own words: "Lying is a vice only when it harms. You ought to lie like
the devil, not timidly or once only, but boldly, and all the time. Lie,
lie! my friends, and some of it will be sure to stick." From his works
anti-Christianism took the chief formulas of its creed, and following in
the footsteps of its master, it has performed deeds worthy of his

Close in line with the irreligion of Voltaire was the work of Denis
Diderot, the founder of the infamous _Encyclopaedia_, a huge mass of
calumny against the religion of Christ, abounding in falsification of
history, in doctrines inviting to immorality of life and subversion of
all lawfully constituted authority. The poison of the _Encyclopaedia_
was quickly assimilated by the aristocratic element of Paris. At first
the salons, those rendezvous of the higher classes, took up the work,
and by their discussions gave it a tone. It was highly acceptable to a
social order, at that time immoral and impious to a degree; but its
venom gradually overflowed to the masses, ever eager to imitate the
excesses of the great.

The efforts of the leaders of irreligion were ably seconded by the
various systems that arose towards the close of the eighteenth century,
as so many developments of Deism and the worship of nature. The
Sensationalists, under the tutelage of La Metrie, Condillac, Helvetius,
and Holback, would make of man a mere machine, more ingeniously
organized than the brutes; thought was reduced to a mere physical
operation of the human body; hence the negation of the spiritual world,
the spiritual soul, and the hope of immortality. The Rationalists in
Germany led to disbelief in the inspiration and authenticity of the Holy
Scriptures. Pantheism, Agnosticism, Idealism, and a thousand and one
like branches of error, sprang forth from the revolt of the earlier
sophists, all contributing their part to inflame and destroy the souls
of men, and leading them on by sure steps to final anarchy. The very
multiplicity of such sophistic theories, arising amidst the darkness of
anti-Christian night, like the constantly changing figures in a
kaleidoscope, were but the ghosts of a hideous phantasmagoria, that,
scarcely seen, resolved themselves into something more strange and more
appalling. It was the gathering of the spirits of iniquity for the grand
assault upon the City of God.


Prominent among the subversive forces of the eighteenth century was that
of Freemasonry and its kindred associations. As to its real origin but
little is known. The modern order seems to have taken its rise in
England in the year 1717, its first constitution appearing in 1723. The
new association spread with remarkable rapidity over the Continent,
founding its lodges in Berlin, Leipzig, Brunswick, Naples, Paris, and
other places, before the middle of the century. On its first appearance
it was denounced as subversive of government, and as a peril to the
social order. The members of which it was composed were men of evil
omen, Voltaire, Condorcet, Volney, Laland, Mirabeau, Frederic II., and
the like. Pope Clement XII., in his Constitution, _In Eminenti_, of
1738, condemned the order. Thereby all who should join a Masonic lodge,
assist at any Masonic assembly, or have any connection with the sect,
were _ipso facto_ excommunicated. Benedict XIV., in 1751, issued the
Bull, _Provides_, renewing the decrees of his predecessor, and giving
many cogent reasons for his act.

The deep secrecy which involved all the operations of regular
Freemasonry in the eighteenth century was not so closely guarded in one
of the independent forms of its spirit, known as the Society of the
Illuminati. The founder of this order was Adam Weishaupt, a professor of
ecclesiastical law at Ingolstadt. The end of this secret society, and
the purpose which was to dominate it, was clearly the overthrow of all
existing social and religious institutions. The statutes exacted from
the members a blind obedience. Instead of works of devotion,
prayer-books and the lives of the saints, it prescribed for its devotees
the works of the ancient pagan authors or modern books of a similar
description; its books of religion comprised such titles as: _The System
of Nature_ and the works of Rousseau.

The new order gained many disciples even among the crowned heads, who
were slow to perceive that the very spirit of the organization was
centred in hatred of the throne as well as of religion. As soon as the
real nature and purposes of the _Illuminati_ became known, efforts were
at once made by the civil authorities for their suppression. In this
they were aided greatly by the inevitable dissensions introduced into
the order in the course of time. In 1784 all secret societies,
communities, and confraternities, were prohibited in Bavaria. In 1785
Weishaupt was expelled from Ingolstadt, and after many wanderings
finally found refuge with the Duke of Saxe-Gotha. Before his death he
had the good fortune to repent and was reconciled with the Church. The
order, everywhere fallen into disfavor, was gradually either disbanded,
or incorporated into the other forms of the Masonry of the times. Its
influence, however, like that of Freemasonry, remained, and was exerted
with great vigor in the unhappy events that began in the year 1789.


Towards the end of the eighteenth century, the youth of Europe, and
especially of France, educated to admire merely natural virtue, enamored
of the ideal beauty and of the political and civil institutions of other
times, found in their schools a spirit of paganism. Little in touch with
the true spirit of Christianity, it was easily led by the glamor of
resounding phrases and classical figures. These classical studies, in
which the excellent and virtuous teachers of the time found only
literary and philological exercises, became through the evil influence
of outside doctrinaires a subtle poison to the young mind, and brought
to a point that rage for pagan antiquity which formed one of the most
dangerous and misleading features of anti-Christianism.

From the time of the Reformation heterodoxy had sought its weapons in
antiquity, whose uncertainty and obscurity could easily provide material
for the desolating revolt against Christian authority. Machiavelli had
already denounced modern Christianity as the cause of popular and
national decadence; politicians lost themselves in adoration of the
Greeks and Romans; to the sophists everything was grand and noble, in as
far as it was pagan, everything was barbarous in as far as it receded
from the ancient type. It was one of the methods of the war of impiety:
anti-Christianism had need of antiquity as a mantle to cover its
emptiness: it felt it must needs seek aid in the names of celebrated
pagans, and thus strengthened, it might dare to abandon the Christian
era, and take refuge around a Roman or Greek civilization resurrected
and placed in a position of honor. Classical education unconsciously
aided in this mode of warfare, and while the school teacher, with the
best of intentions in the world, taught his pupils to admire the great
beauties of the classical authors, without attending to the false
principles and doctrines, intended for a social order entirely different
from the Christian, there were not wanting those who profited by these
studies to lead the pupil to a love of the pagan philosophy therein
contained. By their efforts the Roman and Greek world was held up as the
only condition that could provide true happiness, the only political
society worthy of man.

[Illustration: LOUIS XV.]

Throughout the whole reign of Louis XV. this mania for paganism invaded
every part of society, so that when Louis XVI. ascended the throne, he
found it dominant not only in literature, but in art and in life itself.
It was reflected in the corruption of the Court, in the sensual
epicurism of the people, in the very manners of those whose
ecclesiastical dignity ought to lead to more modern types of excellence.
The hope of a return to the conditions of pagan Rome and Greece was one
of the saddest hallucinations of the new anti-Christianism.


The French Revolution of 1789.

All the various forces indicated in the preceding chapter came together
in one appalling union towards the year 1789, forming a veritable
cauldron seething with malign influences. An unhappy public opinion had
been created, "a power vague and terrible, born of the confusion of all
interests, strong in its opposition to every power, constantly caressed
by princes who feared it, and feared by those who pretended to defy it."
The masses of France, provoked by the arbitrary government of Louis
XIV., angered by the feeble and scandalous rule of Louis XV., broke out
into license and destruction under the gentle and paternal
administration of Louis XVI. The latter monarch had come into an
inheritance vitiated by the extravagances and follies of his
predecessors; with all the virtues and noble characteristics of a
sincere Christian and refined gentleman, he was destined to bear the
punishment for the sins of his fathers. He had long foreseen the
hastening storm, and trembled before its coming. The exhausted state of
the treasury and the diminution of credit gave the excuse for demands
of the most far-reaching extent. The nobility, regarding the situation
with indifference, remained inert before the approaching ruin of the
social order. Unwilling to be disturbed in their round of pleasure, they
permitted the evil to grow until the very moment of the crisis.

The royal government betrayed its weakness when it convoked the States
General, which held its first session on May 5, 1789. It was an assembly
constituted of the three classes of the French nation--the nobility, the
clergy, and the common people. Of its 1148 members, the Third Estate was
represented by 598; there were 308 members of the clergy, of whom
forty-four were bishops, 205 curés, fifty-two abbes or canons, and seven
religious; the remaining 242 comprised the representatives of the noble
class. The States General was an event of rare occurrence in French
history, and was called together only in the most extreme crises of the
State. It was now nearly two centuries (1615) since a gathering of a
similar nature had been convoked, and from its unusual character and the
gravity of its purpose much was expected on all sides. In the heat of
its first debates, and in the rancor aroused in the public mind through
the foolish and humiliating etiquette of the aristocratic elements, a
strong sentiment of hostility made itself manifest between the people
and their former masters. The popular element was conscious of its
power, and made it felt almost from the beginning: in the space of a few
months it was master of the situation: it had inaugurated a revolution
before which the court, the nobility, the clergy, and every order that
stood for law and decency went down in ruin. With the political phases
of this great crisis we are not particularly concerned at present; the
religious aspects of the conflict will suffice for our consideration.



On the night of August 4, 1789, the privileged classes abandoned their
feudal rights, and the clergy renounced their titles, and the offerings
usual at baptisms, marriages, and funerals. This sacrifice, however, did
not suffice to appease the revolutionary spirits, and on August 6th, the
right of the clergy to hold property was called into question for the
first time. It was then that Buzot pronounced that phrase which was soon
to re-echo through the halls of the Assembly: "The property of the
clergy belongs to the nation."

On October 10, Talleyrand, the Bishop of Autun, so soon to become an
apostate and indefatigable persecutor of the Church, returned to the
charge. After a fawning address to the popular passions he concluded in
proposing a law whose first article declared that "the revenues and
property of the clergy are at the disposition of the nation," with the
condition that the State should recompense the ministers of worship with
a suitable salary, which should be solemnly recognized as a public debt.
The project of Talleyrand was espoused with fierce eloquence by Mirabeau
and became a law on Nov. 2, 1789, framed in these terms:

     "The National Assembly decrees: First. That all
     ecclesiastical property is at the disposition of the nation
     which charges itself with providing in a suitable manner for
     the expenses of worship, the maintenance of its ministers,
     and the relief of the poor, subject to the surveillance and
     according to the instructions of the provinces. Second. That
     in the dispositions to be made for the maintenance of the
     ministers of religion, there shall be assured every curé a
     payment of not less than 1,200 livres a year, not including
     his house and garden."

[Illustration: TALLEYRAND.]

On April 9, 1790, Chasset demanded the actual confiscation of all
ecclesiastical property, a motion that was voted a law on April 14th
following. The possessions of the clergy, valued at $400,000,000, were
then put up at auction, and sold to speculators at prices that at once
betrayed the venal spirit of the agitators. Indignant protests went up
on all sides against a sacrilege whose effect could be nothing less than
the destruction of religion; but all efforts to stay the action were


The religious orders have ever been the object of peculiar hatred on the
part of all that stands for anti-Christianism. Their close
identification with the best interests of the Church, and the
exemplification in their life of that evangelical perfection to which
the whole doctrine of Christ invites, became a crime in the eyes of a
generation delivered up to lawlessness, and the slavery of passion. It
was only natural, therefore, that the impious spirit of 1789 should
fasten its fangs upon this order of men and women and do them to death.
The laws of the time tell the story very graphically. A decree of
October 28, 1789, suspended the taking of monastic vows. The monastic
orders were suppressed by a decree of February 13, 1790:

     Article 1. The constitutional law of the realm shall no
     longer recognize solemn monastic vows of either sex; in
     consequence the orders and regular corporations in which such
     vows are taken are and will remain suppressed in France, nor
     may they be again established in the future.

     Article 2. All individuals of either sex living in
     monasteries and religious houses, may leave such houses by
     making a declaration before the municipality of the place,
     and they shall receive a suitable pension. Houses shall also
     be indicated to which all religious men who do not desire to
     profit by the present disposition shall be obliged to retire.
     For the present there shall be no change in regard to houses
     charged with public education and establishments of charity,
     until measures have been taken for that purpose.

On March 11, 1791, a law was passed abolishing the monastic habit. On
July 31, of the same year, all religious houses were declared for sale.
On August 7, 1792, a new decree declares that the pension accorded to
religious shall be granted to such as should marry, or who have
abandoned or shall abandon their monasteries. On August 12, 1792, a
decree orders the evacuation before October 1, following, and the sale
of "all houses as yet actually occupied by religious men or women,"
excepting such as are consecrated to the service of hospitals or
establishments of charity.

On August 18, 1792, a decree was passed suppressing "the corporations
known in France under the name of secular ecclesiastical congregations,
such as the priests of the Oratory of Jesus, of Christian Doctrine, of
the Mission of France, of St. Lazare, etc., etc., and generally all
religious corporations of men and women, ecclesiastical or lay, even
those devoted only to the service of hospitals and the relief of the
sick, under whatever denomination they may exist in France." All such
persons, however, were authorized to continue their care of the poor and
sick, "but only as individuals, and under the surveillance of the
municipal and administrative bodies, until the definitive organization
which the Committee on Aid shall present as soon as possible to the
National Assembly. Those who shall continue their services in houses
indicated by the directories of departments shall receive only a part
of the salary which would have been accorded them. All irremovable
property of such societies shall be put on sale, except colleges still
open in 1789 which may be utilized for seminaries. Pensions shall be
accorded all members of the suppressed societies on condition that they
take the oath of fidelity to the nation, of maintaining liberty and
equality, and of being ready to die in its defence."


The defenders of the Revolution take great pains to demonstrate that the
object of the earlier laws was not anti-Christian or subversive of
religion, alleging that the spirit of demolition appeared only after and
because of the hostile attitude of the Church. One has only to read the
speeches in the National Assembly, and the early laws emanating
therefrom, to perceive the hypocritical nature of such assurances. The
spirit of Voltaire is evident from the first day of the States General,
and its tactics of falsehood and deception mark every stage of
revolutionary progress until the end. The pretext of establishing a
national church is a fact in evidence, whereby under the pretence of
safeguarding the liberties of Catholics in France, an effort was made to
uproot all idea of religion from the minds of the people. The signal for
the opening of such a perversive campaign was the passing of that
iniquitous law to which was given the name of the Civil Constitution of
the Clergy.

On August 20, 1789, an ecclesiastical committee was formed for the
regulation of all affairs pending between Church and State. It was
composed of thirty members, chosen with great care from among the most
violent sectaries of the Assembly. Out of the thirty only nine were
able to approach the discussion of ecclesiastical subjects with any
appearance of justice, and this small minority soon found it impossible
to advance their views in the face of the twenty-one radicals sworn to
enslave and degrade the Church; they were consequently compelled to
resign from the commission, leaving the great work of Church affairs in
the hands of an impious cabal. The result of the deliberations of this
diminished committee is found in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy,
which was voted in the Constituent Assembly, from July 12 to July 24,

The adversaries of religion betray a naive surprise that the Church
should refuse to accept a law so worded as the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy. Yet to anyone acquainted with the spirit of Christianity the
reasons for such hostility are sufficiently evident. The Abbe Hubert
Mailfait in his comprehensive little work upon the subject thus sums up
the most objectionable features of the wholly iniquitous law:

     First. It destroys the religious hierarchy and annihilates
     the pontifical supremacy when it stipulates: (a) that the new
     bishops can no longer address the Pope to obtain from him the
     bulls of confirmation (tit. II., art. 19): (b) that the
     canonical institution shall no longer be given by the Pope,
     but by the metropolitan (tit. II., art. 16 and 17): (c) that
     the old division of France into dioceses and parishes shall
     be substituted by a new repartition, decreed without the
     advice of ecclesiastical authority, and without the
     approbation of the head of Christianity (tit. I.).

     Second. It destroys ecclesiastical discipline: (a) by
     attributing the election of bishops and pastors to the laity,
     by way of the ballot and the absolute plurality of votes
     (tit. II., art. 2) and in decreeing the conditions of
     eligibility which should be found in candidates to a
     bishopric or parish (tit. II.): (b) in determining the number
     of foundations, prebends, abbeys, priories, etc. (tit. I.,
     art. 20-24 and 25); in restricting to the point of
     annihilation the power of the bishops in the nomination to
     ecclesiastical employments (tit. II., art. 22, 24, 25, 43).

     Third. It sanctions an inadmissible domination of the
     temporal over the spiritual power, in subordinating the
     exercise of ecclesiastical functions to the taking of an oath
     of fidelity to the Constitution decreed by the Assembly (tit.
     II., art. 21 and 38).

The Civic Constitution of the Clergy thus established in France not only
a schism, by depriving the bishops of the right of recourse to the Pope,
but heresy also in denying the effective primacy of the Pope and his
sovereign power in the direction of the Church and the nomination of her


When the news was brought to Pope Pius VI. that the Assembly was
actually engaged in voting the several articles of the Civil
Constitution, his sorrow knew no bounds. Public prayers were at once
ordered in the churches of Rome, while at the same time the Holy Father
addressed an impressive appeal to Louis XVI., insisting on his refusing
his sanction to the impious measures. Letters were also sent by the Pope
to the Archbishops of Bordeaux and Vienne, requesting them to use their
good offices in dissuading the king from sanctioning the law. Unhappily
these two prelates betrayed the trust reposed in them and used their
influence to the opposite end. It is to their credit that they soon
perceived their error and repented bitterly for it.

In the meantime Louis XVI. wrote to the Pope beseeching him to approve,
at least provisorily, of the first five articles to which he was in a
manner forced to give his sanction. The Holy Father placed the matter in
the hands of a commission of cardinals for examination. On October 30,
of the same year, the thirty bishops who occupied seats in the Assembly
subscribed their names to a carefully prepared memorial entitled
_Exposition of Principles Concerning the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy_, wherein the new code of laws was unequivocably condemned. In
this position the episcopal deputies were supported by the adherence of
nearly all the French bishops. Their expression of disapproval, however,
came too late, as the civil constitution had already received the royal
sanction (August 24, 1790), and thereby became a law of the realm.

[Illustration: MIRABEAU.]

A test of the new decrees developed an unexpected resistance, so bitter
and decisive in many quarters as to awaken newer outbursts of harshness
from the enemies of the Church. On November 27, 1790, after a violent
diatribe delivered by Mirabeau against the independent bishops a law was
voted in the Assembly declaring that all clergy "shall take the oath
within eight days" under the penalty of being debarred from the exercise
of their functions. It stipulated, moreover, that in case of resistance
the offending clergy should be treated as disturbers of the public
peace, and deprived of their civic rights. This law received the royal
sanction on December 26, and went into execution from that date. In the
Assembly itself were many bishops and priests who were called upon to
give the example of subservience. Only a few, encouraged by such
notorious characters as Talleyrand, Gregoire, Camus, and Gobel, and
tempted by the hope of preferment under the new order, yielded to the
demands of the revolutionaries. Of the one hundred and thirty-five
bishops of France, only four, including Talleyrand and Cardinal de
Brienne, took the oath. During the following year the latter prelate was
degraded from the honor of the Roman purple, for his unworthy act.

When the question was put to the priests of the country it met with a
like reception. One should not be deceived, in reading the
anti-Christian records of this time, by the long lists of names
purporting to be the official register of priests who had subscribed to
the oath. An examination of these lists reveals the usual duplicity of
irreligious hatred, for in many cases, notably in the lists of Paris,
they contain the names of church employees, sacristans, choir-singers,
bell-ringers, and other ordinary laymen. In other cases we find the
names of young men just preparing for the seminary, and school teachers
who taught the catechism. Often, too, country pastors were deceived into
believing that the taking of such oath was an act demanded by their
bishop; these, however, were only too anxious to retract as soon as
the true state of the case was made evident to them. Of the real pastors
of the Church the number who proved unfaithful to their duty was
inconsiderable; the loyalty of the vast body, both of bishops and
clergy, forms one of the brightest pages in the dark history of those
unhappy years.


In the midst of the general anxiety there came to Paris on April 13,
1791, the Bull of Pope Pius VI., formally condemning the Civil
Constitution and calling upon the bishops and priests of France to stand
firmly to the principles of their faith. This act of the Holy Father was
the signal for outbursts of fury in the hostile camp. The Papal Bull was
publicly burned amidst outcries of hatred and execration; women coming
from Mass were whipped through the streets; ruffians interrupted the
divine services and threw disorder into congregations of the faithful,
while in many places disorderly mobs invaded the convents and dragging
the nuns out to the public squares inflicted upon them the degrading
punishment of the scourge. It was in vain that the Directory of Paris,
frightened at the prospect of civil war, permitted Catholics to hire
places for the use of divine worship; the very appearance of leniency
only drew forth greater exhibitions of hatred and persecution. The king
himself was compelled to attend at Mass celebrated by a Constitutional
priest, as a pledge of his adherence to the principles of the Civil
Constitution. Throughout the departments the persecution had already
gone to great lengths; priests were everywhere imprisoned, and the
Catholic laity who had dared to assist at the Catholic Mass, or who had
refused to take part in the election of schismatical priests, were
declared incapable of all civil functions. On June 9, 1790, the
Constituent decreed that no bulls or briefs of the Pope might be
published or propagated in the kingdom without the authorization of the
Legislative Corps and of the king.

In the meantime, the apostate bishop of Autun, Talleyrand, had
consecrated two constitutional bishops, who in their turn proceeded to
ordain to the priesthood a list of unworthy, illiterate, immoral, and
dishonest rascals. The legitimate clergy, shut out from their churches,
and driven to the homes of their friends, had nevertheless the
consolation of knowing that the faithful were refusing everywhere to
acknowledge the authority of the unlawful priests, and demanding in
quiet, but significant ways, the services of those who alone had been
called to the sanctuary.


The Constituent Assembly was dissolved on Sept. 30, 1791, and was
succeeded on the following day, by the Legislative Assembly. The new
government, in the hands of men more impious than those of the
Constituent, began their proceedings with the passage of new laws of
persecution, to which, however, the king had the courage to refuse his
sanction. In spite, however, of the royal opposition new decrees
continued to be published. On the twenty-ninth of November, a law was
voted declaring that all ecclesiastics, other than those who had
conformed to the decree of November 29 last would be obliged to present
themselves before the municipality of the place in which they lived, and
there take the civic oath, in the terms of Art. 5, title II. of the
Constitution, and sign a legal attestation of the same. Such as should
refuse would be held as suspects in revolt against the law, and with
evil intent against their country, and as such particularly subjected
and recommended to the surveillance of all constituted authorities. If
trouble should arise in the place of their residence they could be
evicted from their domicile, arrested by the directory of the
department, and, in case of disobedience, condemned to prison.

On May 27, 1792, the Legislative Assembly published another decree,
stating that the deportation of non-juring ecclesiastics would take
place as a measure of public safety and police regulation. Ecclesiastics
were considered as non-juring who, being subject to the law of December
26, 1790, had not taken the oath; those also who, though not subject to
that law had not taken the oath posterior to September 3rd, preceding,
the day on which the French constitution was considered as completed;
those also, who had retracted their oath. The deportation could be
pronounced by the local authorities upon the denunciation of twenty

A law of August 26, 1792, prescribed that "all those ecclesiastics who
have not taken the oath, or who having taken it have retracted and
persist in their retraction, shall be compelled to leave within eight
days, the limits of the district or department in which they reside, and
within fifteen days they must leave the country. After fifteen days such
ecclesiastics as shall not have obeyed the preceding dispositions should
be deported to French Guyenne. Every ecclesiastic, who should dare to
remain in the country after such procedures, should be condemned to ten
years of imprisonment." This law was applicable to all priests--both
secular and regular. About 50,000 priests became victims of these
violent proscriptions.



The passion of hatred for religion never abated during the sad days of
1792. Law followed law proscribing, persecuting, hunting down all who
dared to oppose the evil suggestions of the revolutionary despots. On
August 16, an order was issued appropriating all the sacred vessels of
the churches, with the design of converting them into money or utensils
of war. Another project of the government had for its purpose the
banishment of all clergy within a fortnight. This method, however, of
getting rid of the priesthood, seemed too slow to suit the ferocious
lust of the tyrants--a quicker and surer plan suggested itself. To
secure its execution, the leaders of the anti-Christian party sought to
inflame the minds of the rabble with stories of plots and treason,
perpetrated by the priests against the safety of the nation. Above all
the threatened invasion of the Prussians was laid to their door, and the
report of the same circulated through every street and alley of Paris.
The populace, already made familiar with the sight of blood, seized upon
the wild reports with the avidity of hungry animals, and needed only a
suggestion to lead them on to acts of violence. This was not wanting. In
the Assembly, Marat, Legendre and others openly demanded the slaughter
of the priests, while Danton, the Minister of Justice, was appointed to
see that the project was executed. In the meantime hundreds of priests,
and thousands of Catholic laity, men, women and children, had been
arrested, and filled the prisons of the country to overflowing. On
August 31, the Commune of Paris put up everywhere placards containing a
proclamation of Robespierre: "We have arrested the priestly disturbers;
we hold them behind prison bars, and in a few days, the sun of liberty
shall be purged of their presence." All was ready for a massacre of
gigantic proportions. A signal was agreed upon, for the commencement of
the bloody deed; it was to be the third discharge of the cannon on
Point-Neuf. On the morning of September 2, the dreadful carnage began in
the prison house of the Carmes, where 120 fell by the sword. The
massacre lasted four days, while bands of assassins went from prison to
prison, and in that short space of time took the lives of 1,400 persons
of every sex, age and condition, 300 of whom were priests.


The Abbe Lecard, an eye-witness, describes the awful scene at the prison
of the Abbey:

     "The massacre took place under my window. The cries of the
     victims, the blows of the sabres as they fell upon the heads
     of the innocent victims, the shouts of the murderers, the
     applause of the witnesses, all resounded in my soul. I even
     distinguished the voices of my confreres, who were arrested
     and brought in the night before. I heard the questions put to
     them, and the responses they gave. They were asked if they
     had taken the civil oath, but none had done so. All could
     have escaped death by a lie; but all preferred death. All
     said when dying: 'We are subject to your law, we die faithful
     to your constitution, we except only what regards religion
     and what has reference to conscience.' They were immediately
     pierced by numerous swords, amid the most frightful
     vociferations. The spectators while applauding cried out:
     'Long live the nation!'--at the same time executing
     abominable dances around the corpses.

     "Towards three or four o'clock in the morning, similar cries,
     tumult and ribaldry were repeated. This was in consequence of
     their bringing into the court-yard, now strewn with corpses,
     two priests whom they had dragged from their beds. The
     executioners jested over the horrible scene. The two priests
     were asked to take the oath, but they refused with mildness
     and firmness. Seeing themselves on that account condemned to
     death, they demanded a few hours to prepare themselves, and
     they obtained their request. The assassins employed the
     interval in removing the bodies, in washing and sweeping the
     court-yard, red with blood--a work which caused them
     considerable difficulty. To avoid this in the case of others
     who were about to be massacred, they proposed various
     expedients and, finally, agreed upon employing a quantity of
     straw on which they would butcher their victims and which
     would absorb the blood and prevent the pavement from being
     stained. One of the assassins complained that the aristocrats
     died too quickly; that only those in the front row had the
     pleasure of striking them. It was accordingly determined that
     the victims should be struck only with the back of the sword,
     and that they should be made to run between two files of
     assassins. It was determined that around the place where the
     victims were to be immolated there should be benches for the
     ladies and gentlemen. All were free to enter. All this I have
     seen and heard with my own eyes and ears."

These frightful scenes of Paris were equalled if not surpassed by the
terrorists of the provinces, and especially in the cities of Lyons,
Rheims, Nantes, Bordeaux, and Avignon. It was but natural that the
flight of priests from the insane fury of the Revolution should be
hastened by the events of those days. Many succeeded in gaining the
frontier and found refuge in the Papal States, in Spain, Portugal and in
England where they were received with respect and welcome. Many returned
secretly to France and bravely defied the dangers of martyrdom in the
exercise of their sacred ministry.

[Illustration: MARAT.]

The Legislative Assembly, after a final law granting divorce upon mutual
consent, or upon the demand of one of the parties, was dissolved on
September 20, 1792.


On September 21st, 1792, a new government, entitled the Convention,
began its sittings. It has been justly characterized as an organization
the most bloody and atrocious in history. It was during its
administration that that dark period occurred to which has been given
the significant name of the "Reign of Terror." Composed as it was of
the vilest and most unscrupulous element of the nation its inauguration
gave little promise of peace or security to the country. Its sessions
were dominated by the Jacobins, the Girondists, and the Mountaineers,
parties sworn to oppose each other in all political matters, though
uniting in all measures of oppression to religion and the Church.

Their methods of tyranny were conceived with system and precision worthy
of a better cause, and were executed by a machinery whose organized
efforts reached into every village and hamlet in the land. Its Committee
of Public Safety, the supreme secret council of the Convention, included
men like Danton, Marat, and Robespierre. There was a Committee of
General Security for the detection of political crimes, and the
punishment of all suspected or proscribed persons. The Revolutionary
Tribunal condemned the victims indicated by the General Security, and
condemned them to death without a hearing.

There were Revolutionary committees in every department and municipality
throughout the country, whose office it was to imprison suspects, and to
employ the guillotine regardless of trial. The Revolutionary
Army--composed of only such as had proven themselves devoted to the
anarchistic doctrines of the times--was employed in the guarding the
prisons, arresting suspects, demolishing castles, pulling down belfries,
ransacking churches for gold and silver vessels, and other like
purposes. It had its regiments in every city of France. It was by means
of such powerfully organized associations that the Convention was able
to perpetrate the atrocities of the Reign of Terror.

The first act of the new Assembly was to declare the abolition of
royalty, and to proclaim France a Republic. At the same time it began
the attempt to inaugurate a new era, the first day of the first year of
which was to be September 22nd, 1792.


In the new Revolutionary calendar the Christian order of months and
weeks was set aside for an arbitrary arrangement whose awkward and
frivolous character was evident, even independently of its sacrilegious
intent. Instead of weeks of seven days, periods of ten days, or decades,
were substituted. As there was to be no Sunday, the tenth or last day of
the decade, called "Decadi," was to be observed as the day of rest, and
have all the importance of the Lord's Day, the place of which it had
taken. The months were twelve and consisted each of thirty days; to make
up the necessary 365 days of the year, five intercalary days, called
_sans culottes_, were added.

The months were adorned with festive names taken from Nature; thus
Vendemaire, the vintage month; Brumaire, the foggy; Frimaire, the
frosty; Nivose, the snowy; Pluvoise, the rainy; Ventose, the windy;
Germinal, the month of sprouting; Floréal, the month of flowers;
Prairial, the haymaking; Messidor, the time of harvest; Thermidor, the
month of heat; and Fructidor, the month of fruit. To obliterate, as far
as possible, every Christian idea associated with the days of the year,
the new calendar abolished the Christian festivals and substituted
strange and uncouth denominations for each successive day. It was a bold
stroke, and though the Convention succeeded a few months later in
causing its execution throughout the country, nevertheless it was never
heartily accepted even by the most radical, and only a favorable
opportunity was wanting for its final abolition with the Revolution

[Illustration: DANTON.]

On the twenty-seventh of September, the Convention reduced
ecclesiastical pensions to 1000 livres, and on October 23rd, it decreed
that all who had flown the country were to be considered as banished in
perpetuity, and should they return they were to be punished with death.
On November 27th, a decree was passed, declaring that if a priest should
marry, and be therefore inquieted by the residents of the commune in
which he resided, he might retire to any place he liked, and his salary
should be paid by the commune which had persecuted him. It was an effort
to render the marriage of priests popular, an attempt, however, which
always met with failure.

It was during the month of December, 1792, and that of January, 1793,
that the trial of Louis XVI. took place. The Convention voted the death
sentence, and the crime of regicide against one of the mildest
sovereigns of the century was perpetrated January 17th, of that year.

The prescriptive laws against the clergy and the Church went on apace.
On January 22nd the constitutional clergy were ordered to disregard all
canonical rules in regard to marriage, and to bless the marriages of
divorced people as well as those of constitutional priests. On February
14th, a reward of one hundred livres was offered to whoever should cause
the arrest of an émigré, or of a priest under sentence of deportation.
On March 18th, it substituted for the penalty of ten years for such
priests the sentence of death. April 23rd, it put forth the article:
"The national Convention decrees that all ecclesiastics, regular and
secular, brothers or laymen, who have not taken the oath to maintain
liberty and equality conformable to the law of August 15th, 1792, shall
be deported without delay to French Guiana."

Immediately on the appearance of this law the sea-ports of France began
to witness thousands of captive priests who were placed on board the
waiting vessels, ostensibly for transportation to America. As, however,
such voyage was at the time impracticable because of danger from the
English fleets then patrolling the seas, the victims of proscription
were left in the miserable hulks, in some cases for as long as two
years. Their sufferings in this regard were extreme. Huddled together in
the holds like so many packages of dead merchandise, the bare floor for
a bed, covered with rags and devoured by vermin, their torment was truly
horrible. Many of them perished; others lost their reason; the survivors
bore away with them many souvenirs of physical and moral torture which
they carried to the grave. The story of the deportation of priests
during the Reign of Terror is one of the ugliest records of the times.

The Convention next turned its attention to the constitutional clergy,
whom it compelled by every means of proscription and exaction to
dishonor the little remnant of sacred character that still remained
within them. Hence the laws of 1793, decreeing deportation for any
bishop who should directly or indirectly oppose an obstacle to the
marriage of priests, or who should refuse to recognize divorce. It
reduced the salaries of the bishops and limited the number of their
curates. It, moreover, dismissed from the exercise of their functions
all pastors who failed to display a pronounced enthusiasm for
revolutionary principles, and put in their stead men whose ignorance was
well known, and whose wives were willing to occupy a prominent position
in the Church.

[Illustration: THE GODDESS OF REASON.]


During the latter part of 1793 the country had virtually delivered
itself up to the will of its tyrants. The war against religion had
assumed an open and defiant character, under the influence of the
guillotine; churches had already lost their sacred significance, and the
names of the saints or holy mysteries which they had hitherto borne gave
place to profane and often impious titles; the Republican calendar had
been formally adopted and enforced upon the nation; everywhere priests
were called upon to burn their letters of ordination and to bring to the
Convention their crosses, chalices, ciboriums and other objects destined
for the Holy Sacrifice. The Archbishop of Paris, the infamous Gobel,
entered the hall of the Convention at the head of other constitutional
clergy, and there despoiled himself of all insignia of episcopal or
priestly office, declaring at the same time that he renounced forever
all his rights and duties as a minister of Catholic worship.


It was at this time, November 10th, 1793, that the Convention proclaimed
the worship of reason, and deified that abstract idea by a sacrilegious
ceremony in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, at Paris. An actress was placed
upon a throne within the sanctuary of that ancient temple, and received
amidst the hymns and maudlin praises of the multitude the adoration of a
fallen nation. The example of Paris was imitated in all parts of the
country, until the strange spectacle was observed of a whole nation gone

The new worship brought with it renewed hostility to Christianity.
Almost every day the Convention was called upon to review processions
whose object was to ridicule and cast odium upon the things of God.
Bands of _Sans-Culottes_ defiled through the streets, or passed through
the Assembly halls, attired in copes, chasubles and dalmatics which they
had pillaged from the churches. No limit was put to these exhibitions of
horrible sacrilege. In many cases the processions were headed by an ass
bearing a mitre upon his head, a chalice upon his back, with a cross
hanging from his tail. It seemed as if the Revolution could go no
further in its impiety, though men still held their breath waiting
anxiously for the next move in the horrible nightmare.

In the midst of the general madness the Revolution turned against its
own creatures and denied its own religion. The people had already begun
to mock at the absurdity of the worship of reason, and tired of one
false god, looked to their leaders to supply them with another. It was
at this juncture that Robespierre, the man of blood and crime, suddenly
became the apostle of a new cult, which was baptized in the blood of the
adorers of reason. The guillotine reaped rich harvests, numbering that
year among its victims the apostates, Gobel, Lamourette, Clootz,
together with Hebert, Danton, Desmoulins and others.

In the beginning of the year 1794, Robespierre caused the Convention to
pass a decree proclaiming the existence of a Supreme Being, and
constituting feast days "to recall mankind to the consideration of the
divinity and to the dignity of his being." On June 8th, he presided
personally as high priest, at the first solemn feast of the new worship.
The latter, however, proved even less popular as a religion than its
predecessor, and served only to demonstrate how the human heart craves
for the worship of God, and will not be satisfied with the human
imitations of a religion whose origin is divine.


In its proscriptive decrees the Convention hitherto had not included the
aged and infirm priests; by a decree of Floréal 22, these also were
subjected to all exactions imposed upon others. Another decree demanded
the accusation of all enemies of the people, and pronounced the penalty
of death, without trial or witnesses, upon simple verbal denunciations.
The Terror was now in its blindest spasm of madness, and in Paris alone,
during three months, more than two thousand victims laid their heads
upon the block, including many constitutional priests, who had the good
fortune, through the pious offices of the Abbe Emery, to retract their
errors and become reconciled to God.

A pall of moral darkness hung over the nation from end to end, a deep
silence, full of anxiety and terror, was broken only by the shrieks of
the dying and the insane laughter of the murderers. The silence and
holiness of the Lord's Day was desecrated by labor and unseemly orgies;
the _decadi_ was observed instead of Sunday, and peasants or others
daring to work on that day, or daring to rest on Sunday, were treated as
suspects and punished with all the violence of irreligious hatred.
Throughout the land every symbol and remembrance of religion had
vanished: the church steeples had been torn down, the bells no longer
called the faithful to divine service, the cross was treated as an
object of public shame. Everywhere men and women suspected of fanaticism
or denounced as enemies of the Revolution were condemned to death and
executed. In the city of Lyons the guillotine severed thirty heads a
day; but its work proving too slow for the blood-thirst of the
assassins, the victims were ranged in rows, and mowed down by storms
of bullets. In this way fully one thousand seven hundred fell in a short
period of a few months.

[Illustration: ROBESPIERRE (1758-1794).]

In the departments of the Ain and the Saone-et-Loire, liberty was
decreed to priests who should agree to marry within a month; the aged
were exempted from this law upon the condition of adopting a child of
Revolutionary parents, to care for as their own. In Savoy, one thousand
two hundred livres was offered as a reward for the arrest of a
non-juring priest; all who refused to apostatize, whether faithful or
constitutional, were arrested and condemned. At Marseilles and at
Avignon, the infamous Maignet emulated his predecessor, Jourdan
Coupetete, with the guillotine and fusillade of bullets. In the South, a
young girl was arrested and put to death for having crossed over into
Spain to confess to a legitimate priest. An aged official was sentenced
to imprisonment and a heavy fine for having assisted at the "Feast of
Reason" with an air of sadness and arrogance. Six women were guillotined
for having assisted at the Mass of a non-juring priest.

In the Vendee one thousand eight hundred persons were murdered within a
period of three months. And so the list went on through all the first
half of 1794, which has left a record of millions murdered, deported,
exiled, imprisoned, or tortured in a thousand and one ways. They were
red letter days in the Revolutionary calendar, but the red color was
made from the blood of Frenchmen. A mitigation of the horrors of those
days came at last when the head of the arch-assassin, Robespierre,
rolled away from the block on July 27th, 1794.


Among the oppressive laws enacted by the Convention, before its final
dissolution in 1795, were those concerning education and the separation
of Church and State. The decree of October 21st, 1793, decided that
primary schools should form the first degree of instruction; therein
should be taught all that was rigorously necessary for a citizen to
know. Persons charged with instruction in such schools should be known
as institutors. The decree determined the number of schools to be
founded in each commune, according to the number of its inhabitants, and
fixed the programme of instruction.

     The children shall receive in these schools the first
     physical, moral, and intellectual education, the better to
     develop in them republican ways, the love of country, and a
     taste for work. They shall learn to speak, read and write the
     French language. They shall be taught those virtues which do
     most to honor free men, and particularly the ideas of the
     French Revolution, which shall serve to elevate their souls
     and render them worthy of liberty and equality. They shall
     acquire some notions of French geography. The knowledge of
     the rights and duties of man and citizen shall be taught them
     by example and experience. They shall be taught the first
     notions of the natural objects that surround them, and the
     natural action of the elements. They shall be exercised in
     the use of numbers, the compass, weights, measures, etc.

Another decree, of October 28th, 1793, declared that "no ci-devant
noble, no ecclesiastic or minister of any worship whatsoever, can be a
member of the commission of instruction, or be elected a national
institutor. No women of the ci-devant nobility, no ci-devant religious
women, canonesses, nuns, who have been placed in the old schools by
ecclesiastics or ci-devant nobles, can be nominated as institutors in
the national schools."

A decree of February 21st, 1795, read as follows:

     Art. 1. Conformable to Art. 7 of the Declaration of the
     Rights of Man, and to Art. 22 of the Constitution, the
     exercise of no worship shall be troubled. Art. 2. The
     Republic shall pay salary to no minister of worship. Art. 3.
     It shall furnish no locality either for the exercise of
     worship or for the residence of its ministers. Art. 4. The
     ceremonies of every kind of worship are interdicted outside
     the enclosures chosen for such exercise. Art. 5. The law does
     not recognize any minister of worship; no such minister may
     appear in public with the habit, ornaments, or costume
     affected in religious ceremonies. Art. 6. All assemblages of
     citizens for the exercise of any worship whatsoever shall be
     subject to the surveillance of the constituted authorities.
     This surveillance shall be fortified by measures of police
     guard and public security. Art. 7. No particular symbol of
     any worship may be erected in any public place, neither
     exteriorly, nor in any manner whatsoever. No inscription can
     be put up to designate such place of worship. No public
     proclamation or convocation can be made to draw the citizens
     thither. Art. 8. The communes or sections of communes may not
     hire or purchase, in their collective name, any locality for
     the exercise of worship. Art. 9. No donation, perpetual or
     temporary, may be formed, and no tax imposed to pay the
     expenses of such worship. Art. 10. Whosoever shall, by
     violence, disturb the ceremonies of any worship whatsoever,
     or who offers outrage to its objects, shall be punished,
     according to the law of July 19-22, 1791, in regard to
     correctional police. Art. 11. The law (of 2 des
     sans-culottides, an II.) with regard to ecclesiastical
     pensions, is not hereby abrogated, and its dispositions shall
     be executed according to their form and tenor. Art. 12. Every
     decree whose dispositions are contrary to the present law
     formulated by the representatives of the people in the
     departments is annulled.


A decree of May 30th, 1795, decided that "no one shall fulfill the
ministry of any worship in the said edifices, unless he shall have
given legal declaration before the municipality of the place in which he
desires to exercise such functions, of his submission to the laws of the
Republic. The ministers of worship who shall contravene the present
article, and the citizens who shall invite or admit them, shall each be
punished by a fine of 1,000 livres."

A law of September 30th, 1795, decreed:

     It is forbidden to all judges, administrators, and public
     officials whomsoever, to have any regard for the attestations
     which ministers of worship, or individuals calling themselves
     such, shall give relative to the civil condition of citizens.
     All officials charged with registering the civil state of
     citizens, who shall make mention in their records of any
     religious ceremonies, or who shall exact proof that they have
     been observed, shall also be condemned to the penalties
     contained in Article 18.

The Convention concluded its sanguinary existence on October 26th, 1795,
after the conclusion of the Constitution of the year III.


The Convention was immediately followed by the government of the
Directory, which lasted until the end of the Revolutionary period, in
1799. It was composed of a Council of Five Hundred, whose duty it was to
propose laws, a Council of two hundred and fifty Ancients to approve or
reject the laws thus proposed, and a supreme body consisting of five
members--all regicides--which was called the Directory.

The new government was less bold in its persecutions than its
predecessor, though the spirit that had actuated the Convention still
lived in both houses of the Directory. The pursuit of priests was still
continued, and the laws against them and their protectors enforced
with the greatest rigor. In the year 1796 eighteen priests were executed
under the orders of the government. Nevertheless a sentiment of
hostility to the oppressive measures of the law was beginning to
manifest itself in a number of the departments; churches were again
being opened and the practice of religion renewed.


The rigors of the Terror, however, were not yet extinct; the worship of
the Revolution was enforced, the sound of the church bells was
forbidden, and the Revolutionary calendar still held its place in the
ordering of the life of the people. An effort was made in 1796 to bring
back into full force all the proscriptive laws of the Convention, but
through the efforts of Portalis the Council of Five Hundred refused to
vote the bill.

In the meantime the exiled and deported priests began to return in great
numbers. In Paris more than three hundred were exercising their ministry
openly; the diocesan administration was reorganized; and a general
interest in the unhappy lot of imprisoned priests began to manifest
itself among the people. In 1797, June 17th, a motion was placed before
the Council of Five Hundred, demanding liberty of worship, the
suppression of the oath, and the abrogation of the laws of deportation.
These reforms were voted--after a few weeks of discussion--and in place
of the obnoxious oath the Directory substituted the words: "I swear to
be submissive to the government of the French Republic." Everything thus
seemed to hold out promise of peace and security to the Church, and
might have thus continued but for the _coup-d'-Etat_ of the 10
Fructidor, which brought with it the renewal, for two years, of the
horrors of the Terror.

The new government instituted under the three Directors, Rewbel, la
Reveillère and Barras, brought back the Revolutionary forces into the
Councils, and the old laws of proscription were renewed. Priests who
had obtained their liberty were again arrested and imprisoned or
deported; the oath of the Constitution was re-established; the
persecution became more rabid than ever in its last struggle for
supremacy. To gather greater numbers to the Revolutionary ceremonies, it
was decreed that marriages could take place only on the "decadi" or
tenth day, whereon no manual labor might be performed, or merchandise
bought or sold. It became a crime to print or hold in one's possession
copies of the Christian calendar, and on Fridays and Saturdays of the
old order the very sale of fish was forbidden, that the citizens might
be compelled to eat meat. The deported priests suffered intolerable
torments through the cruel treatment dealt out to them. Out of three
hundred transported to Conamana, only thirty-nine were alive after a
month's detention. In other places many died through famine, sickness
and misery.

In the midst of these discouraging afflictions of the Church, the
constitutional bishops, in a council held on August 15th, 1797, had the
hardihood to plan a reconciliation between the schismatic church of
France and the orthodox church, and went so far as to send their decrees
to the Pope for ratification; Pius VI., however, refused to honor the
communication with an answer.


In the incessant struggle of French anti-Christianism against the
Church, its leaders had not neglected early in the period to turn their
attacks against the head and centre of Christianity, in the person of
the Holy Pontiff, Pius VI. Rome, "the mother of nations," was the
sanctuary towards which many French students turned their steps to
acquire a knowledge of art and literature; these young men, imbued with
the false spirit of their unhappy country, made use of the hospitality
of the Eternal City to betray her. In the Academy of France, in the
midst of obscene orgies and ribald speeches, the statues and busts of
kings, cardinals and popes were overthrown, and sentiments of revolution
and irreligion openly pronounced. Basseville and Laflotte, bearing an
insulting message to Pope Pius VI., utilized their time in Rome in an
attempt to arouse the populace to accept Republican ideas; but the Roman
people, infuriated at the insulting bravado of these couriers of the
French Government, attacked them in the Corso, giving a death blow to
Basseville, and causing his companion to fly for his life. This was in
1793. The Constituent Assembly at Paris took up the death of its
messenger as a pretext for hostilities against the government of the
Holy See.

It was at this time also, that there began to appear in Paris certain
_Letters_ to the Pope, which displayed openly the intention of the new
liberty with regard to the Papacy. The _Moniteur_ of October 1st, 1792,
put forth the following grandiloquent address:

     Holy Father, gather your people together, and rising in the
     midst of them, declare fearlessly: Descendants of the
     grandest people of the world, imposture has too long been
     desolating your country. The hour of truth has come; come and
     enjoy the rights that nature gave you; be free, be sovereign;
     be your own lawmakers; bring back once more the Roman
     Republic. But guard well against the abuses and vices which
     were the ruin of the ancient republic; drive out from you all
     patricians, cavaliers, prelates, cardinals, bishops, priests,
     monks and nuns; be citizens all. See, I give you my tiara,
     and I hope that my example will be followed by my clergy.

It was only a month after these words had been printed that General
Kellerman declared from the tribune: "Citizen legislators, to liberate
ancient Rome from the yoke of the priests, command our soldiers to pass
the Alps, and we shall pass them."

[Illustration: LAFAYETTE.]

It was, however, during the administration of the Directory that the
first actual assaults upon the Holy See were made by the forces of
France. Under an appearance of good will, which only served to conceal
its weakness, the Directory stultified itself in the face of Europe; the
army alone by its victories sustained the honor of the nation.

After conquering the Rhine countries the Republic turned its eyes upon
Italy. In the beginning of 1796, General Bonaparte, with an army of
30,000 men, crossed the Alps. Despite the snows of the winter and the
continual blizzards they encountered, the French soldiers continued to
descend into Piedmont, while the Italians still believed them to be on
the borders of the Rhine.

Mantua fell, the Austrians were driven beyond the Adige, and Bonaparte
hastened to besiege and take Bologna. It was the desire of the Directory
that the conqueror should proceed on his way to Rome and annihilate
forever the power of the Papacy. Bonaparte himself proved less greedy
than his masters; he would be satisfied with one or two provinces from
the revenues of which he might draw funds to defray the expenses of his
campaign. His victories, nevertheless, were rapid and decisive, and in a
few days made him master of all Northern Italy. The King of Sardinia and
the dukes of Parma and Modena made their act of submission, while the
Court of Naples manifested a desire to frame a treaty of peace.

Admonished by the fate of the neighboring nations, Pius VI. began to
frame terms of negotiation with the conqueror. Towards the end of 1796,
the Chevalier d'Azara, Ambassador of Spain to the Holy See, was
charged with the duty of arranging a convention with the French
Government. The Directory had looked to Rome as the repository of
immense riches, the plunder of which might help to bolster up the
enfeebled finances of France. The first condition imposed upon the Pope,
in order to gain an armistice, was to turn over to Saliceti and Garrau,
the representatives of France, the sum of 50,000,000 livres. D'Azara
rejected the exorbitant terms, and seeing that he could effect nothing
with the Directory, he opened up negotiations with Bonaparte directly.

[Illustration: CAPTURE OF LOUIS XVI.]

His demands in this part met at first with the usual hauteur of the
General, who required that His Holiness should first drive from Rome all
French émigrés, and that he should expedite a Bull approving of the
revolutionary government. To these first terms the ambassador answered:
"If you imagine that you can compel the Pope to do the least thing
contrary to dogma, and whatever is intimately connected with dogma, you
are much mistaken, for he will never do so! You can take revenge by
sacking, burning and destroying Rome and St. Peter's, but religion shall
remain in spite of you. If, on the other hand, you desire the Pope to
exhort all in a general way to good behavior and obedience to legitimate
authority, he will do that willingly."

The words of d'Azara produced a favorable impression upon the General,
though at first they had but little real effect. On June 19th, d'Azara
was summoned to meet the representatives of the Directory at Bologna,
where a demand for 40,000,000 livres was made together with the cession
of Ancona, the occupation of Bologna and Ferrara, provisions for the
soldiery, one hundred pictures or statues from the Papal museums, five
hundred manuscripts, and the treasures of Loretto, or failing the
latter, a fine of 1,000,000 francs. After many discussions the sum of
payment in money was fixed at 21,000,000 livres. To arrange all matters
in a more satisfactory manner the Holy Father sent Mgr. Pierracchi as
plenipotentiary to Paris. Here the messenger of the Pope was received in
so barbarous and insulting a manner that he was obliged to leave the
French territory with all haste.


So discouraging did affairs now appear to the Holy Father that for a
time he thought seriously of abandoning Rome for the present and taking
refuge in the Island of Malta. However, he determined to effect if
possible a new accommodation; this attempt proved as unsuccessful as
those which preceded it, and the Holy Father in his desolation declared
before a commission of the cardinals: "Let the Directory consider well
the motives which constrain the conscience of His Holiness to such
refusal, a refusal which he will be obliged to sustain at the peril of
his life."

The representatives of the Directory to whom this protest of His
Holiness was brought, at Florence, could not but admire the courage with
which it was inspired. The matter was now taken up personally by
Bonaparte himself, whose influence led finally to the signing of a
treaty at Tollentino, February 19th, 1797. By the terms of this
convention the Pope revoked all treaties of alliance against France, he
recognized the Republic, he ceded his rights over Venaissin, he
abandoned to the Cis-Alpine Republic the Legations of Bologna, and
Ferrara, and all of Romagna; Ancona was to remain in the possession of
the French; the Duchies of Urbino and Macerata were to be restored to
the Pope on the payment of 15,000,000 livres. A like sum was to be paid
conformable to the armistice of Bologna, not yet executed. These
30,000,000 livres were payable, two-thirds in money and the rest in
diamonds and precious stones; 300,000 francs were to be paid to the
heirs of Basseville.

We shall not linger in relating the great difficulties the Holy Father
experienced in raising the immense funds required by this treaty. The
generosity of the Roman people, the cardinals, and the prelates of
Italy, was displayed in a manner to reflect lasting honor upon their
names. The whole transaction dealt a severe blow to the peace and
security of the aged Pontiff from the effects of which he never fully


The Directory, ever on the watch for a pretext that might seem to
justify new attempts against the government of the Pope, found one
during the month of December, 1797. General Duphot, at the head of a
band of rebellious Romans, had attacked the garrison at Ponte Sixto. The
Papal soldiers, angered by the assault and the offensive insults of the
mob, endeavored to repulse it by a harmless show of force. One soldier,
more quick-tempered than his comrades, forgot himself in the moment of
excitement, and fired into the crowd. The bullet struck General Duphot,
who fell mortally wounded. The affair, accidental though it was, and
perfectly natural, considering the circumstances, was taken by the
French Government as an act demanding summary punishment. Accordingly,
General Berthier, in command of the French forces at Ancona, received
from General Bonaparte the following instructions:

     Paris, 22 Nivose An. (January 11, 1798.)

     Quickness will be of supreme importance in your march upon
     Rome; it alone can assure the success of the operation. The
     moment that you have sufficient troops at Ancona you will
     take up the march.

     You will strive secretly for a union of all the surrounding
     districts with that city, such as the Duchy of Urbino and the
     province of Macerata.

     You will not make known your intentions against the Pope
     until your troops are at Macerata. You will say very briefly
     that the reason for your marching on Rome is to punish the
     assassins of General Duphot and all those who have dared to
     be wanting in the respect which is due to the ambassador of

     The King of Naples will send his ministers to you, and you
     will say that the executive Directory is not influenced in
     this affair by any designs of ambition; that, on the
     contrary, if the French Republic was so generous as to
     restrain itself at Tollentino when it had still graver
     reasons for complaint against Rome, it will not be
     impossible, if the Pope gives satisfaction agreeable to our
     Government, to arrange this affair.

     In the meantime, while making such proposals, you will
     continue on your way by forced marches. The art of the whole
     matter will consist in gaining ground, so that when the King
     of Naples becomes convinced that you are actually headed for
     Rome, he will not have the time to prevent it.

     When you are two days' journey from Rome, you will menace the
     Pope and all the members of his government, who have rendered
     themselves culpable of the greatest of crimes, in order to
     inspire them with fear and cause them to take flight.

The plans of Bonaparte were carried out successfully. On February 10th,
1798, the French troops entered Rome by the Porta Angelica, and the
Pontifical garrison was obliged to evacuate Castle San Angelo. On
February 15th, a Calvinist named Haller brought to the Pope the final
orders of the Directory, announcing his overthrow. French soldiers
immediately replaced the Pontifical guards of the Papal palace, while
one of Berthier's generals, Cervoni, had the effrontery to present to
the Pope the tri-color cockade, which the Holy Father refused, saying,
"I know no other uniform than that with which the Church has honored
me." It was the beginning of the end.

[Illustration: NAPOLEON IN COUNCIL OF 500.]

The commissioner Haller was now delegated to announce to the Pope that
he must leave Rome. The Holy Father protested: "I am hardly
convalescent, and I cannot abandon my people or my duty; I wish to die
here."--"You can die anywhere," answered the brutal messenger. "If the
ways of gentleness cannot persuade you to go, we shall employ rigorous
means to compel you."

Pius VI. left alone with his servants, appeared for the first time
overcome with sadness. He entered his oratory, and after imploring the
aid of the Almighty; re-appeared in a few moments. "It is God's will,"
he said calmly, "let us prepare to accept all His Providence has in
store for us."

On February 20th, the commissioner, on entering the apartment, found the
Pope prostrate at the foot of the crucifix. "Make haste!" he cried, and
pushing his august prisoner before him he compelled him to descend the
stairs with undue hurry, nor did he leave him until he had entered the
carriage waiting at the gate. A detachment of dragoons, which
accompanied the carriage, served to hold in check the crowds that had
gathered in the hope of following in the footsteps of their sovereign.

It was the intention of the Directory to deport the Holy Pontiff to the
island of Sardinia; but it abandoned this design in the fear that the
English might attempt his deliverance. At Sienna, the Pope was lodged in
the Augustinian monastery, where he remained three months, when an
extraordinary event compelled his departure thence. On May 25th, an
earthquake destroyed the building, and the Holy Father had only time to
quit his room when the floor collapsed. In June he arrived at Florence,
where he remained for ten months, a prisoner, indeed, but yet enjoying
many comforts from the company of congenial souls who were permitted to
offer their words of sympathy. Among such were the Grand Duke of Tuscany
and the King and Queen of Sardinia, the latter being a sister of Louis
XVI., Maria Clotilda, besides numbers of the poor who craved a blessing
from his hands.

In the meantime the Directory found it a very difficult matter to
dispose of its august prisoner. In its fear and cruelty it strove to
induce the Grand Duke to drive the Pope out of his dominions, to which
demand the noble sovereign answered that as he had not brought the Pope
to Tuscany it was not for him to drive the Holy Father away. This
generous resistance was immediately punished by the invasion of Etruria.

In the beginning of the year 1799 the Russian and Austrian armies were
already menacing Italy; the Directory thereupon found it expedient to
transfer their illustrious captive to France. Hence, on April 1st,
despite the paralysis of one of his limbs, he was hurried away to Parma,
where he could rest only a few days. On the thirteenth the journey was
again taken up, although the physicians protested the great danger of
proceeding while the Pope remained in so feeble a condition. The
commissioner, upon learning the opinions of the physicians, entered the
apartment of the Pontiff, and there dragging the coverings from the bed,
inspected the limbs, examined the ulcers that had collected, and
proclaimed brutally: "The Pope must go on, dead or alive."

The journey now led through Northern Italy, and across the Alps. On the
evening of July 14th, the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille,
the cortege arrived finally at Valence, in France. The Pope was lodged
in the citadel, in the governor's apartments, near the convent of the
Cordeliers, which served as the prison of thirty-two priests. In this
place he died August 29, 1799, in the eighty-first year of his age.


Opening of the Nineteenth Century.

Never did the shadows of night gather with more sorrow and hopelessness
around the afflicted Spouse of Christ, than on that sad August 29, 1799,
when, in the prison house of Valence, the form of the gentle Pius VI.
lay still and cold in death. Gazing out from that Chamber of silence,
upon the races of men, she might well be tempted to apply to the
troubled world that expression whereby the prophet characterized the
abode of eternal misery: _Ubi nullus ordo, sed sempiternus horror
inhabitat_; "where no order, but sempiternal horror dwelleth."
Politically, all Europe was in a frenzy of hope and despair, of triumph
and defeat, of luxury and of poverty. The directing reins had been torn
from the hands of government, and wild, uncouth, savage, insane mobs
held high carnival over the ruins of desecrated homes. In the Sanctuary
itself the forces of disorder had pushed their way, Jansenist, Gallican,
Josephist and every other form of fanatical heresy fighting for
possession of those altars from which they had driven the ministers of
the living God. The Church, indeed, had been so utterly buried beneath
the accumulated ruins of her external institutions, and so utterly
prostrated through the humiliations poured out upon her, that a
triumphant world was almost forgetting that she was, indeed, a power to
be dealt with. And now, when the news that her visible head was laid
low, was spread abroad, the exultation of anti-Christianism knew no
bounds. In Paris, in every dark alley and lane, as well as in the halls
of the mighty the voice of congratulation was heard, for that he, who
had stood forth a barrier against the immoral slavery of whole peoples
to the passions of the demagogue and the anarchist, was now silent
forever. Jacobin, Constitutionalist, Jansenist, Gallican, Caesarist and
Protestant, all united in the conviction that Catholicity was at an end,
and that the superannuated institution of the Papacy had fallen into a
grave from which no power human or divine might ever again resuscitate
it. They had forgotten the promise made by Christ of old: "For, behold,
I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world."

In the meantime divine Providence had so ordered the course of European
affairs as to confound all the schemes of the enemy. Just as Napoleon
Bonaparte was on his way to the distant campaign of Egypt, the great
Powers coalesced in one desperate attempt to overthrow the domination of
France, Russia and Austria, with their combined forces, drove the French
from Northern Italy, and finally Austria alone contrived to wrest from
French control all those rich provinces for the conquest of which
Bonaparte had expended so much blood and treasure. Thus, it so happened,
that when the great General returned from his Egyptian wars, all Italy
was in the hands of the Austrians and Neapolitans. In Europe at the same
time, George III. was reigning in England, Francis II. in Austria, Paul
I. in Russia, while the Directory at Paris dominated directly or
indirectly all the more insignificant States.

In the Church itself the administration of all external ecclesiastical
affairs was rendered almost impossible. The Cardinals were dispersed in
all directions; ten of them with Cardinal Albani, Dean of the Sacred
College found refuge in Naples, whence they sailed at the invitation of
Austria to Venice.


In the hush that followed the death of Pius VI. the great question began
to be asked: How and where shall the Conclave be held? It is true, the
political changes of the past year had left Italy entirely free for such
deliberations; and moreover, the martyred Pope, before reaching his
place of exile, in 1798, had provided with singular wisdom for just such
an event. In his Encyclical, _Quum in superiori anno_, written while at
Florence, he had enjoined upon the Cardinals that, in the event of his
death in exile, the Conclave for the election of his successor should be
held in that city which, while in the dominions of a Catholic sovereign,
should contain the largest gathering of Cardinals, together with any
others who should join them. This provision of the late Pope seemed thus
to point to Venice, especially as the Emperor, Francis II., graciously
offered for that purpose the Benedictine Abbey of San Georgio, on an
island directly opposite to St. Mark's Square. There, accordingly, it
was determined to hold the Conclave.

Out of the forty-six Cardinals of the Sacred College thirty-five
repaired to Venice. Among these were many of international celebrity, as
statesmen or writers upon questions of general importance. Towards the
end of November the Conclave had practically begun its preparatory
business; Mgr. Hercules Consalvi was elected its secretary, and among
his first official acts was that of sending to the European Powers a
notification of the death of Pope Pius VI. Among those thus remembered
was the exile of France, Louis XVIII., known at the time as the Count
of Provence, and living in Poland. As the elder brother of the murdered
Louis XVI., he was regarded among the Courts of Europe as the rightful
sovereign of France.

Before the Conclave was formally opened the usual interest of the Powers
began to be felt, although only Austria made any public avowal of its
determination to interfere in regard to the choice of a new Pope. France
itself was not altogether indifferent as is shown by the correspondence
both of Napoleon and of his Minister, Talleyrand. It was only two years
previously that the General, then at Mombello, in Italy, wrote to his
government: "The Pope is yet unwell. I beg you to send me new powers
with reference to the Conclave, so that when it becomes necessary, I may
communicate them to the French minister at Rome. We have the right to
exclude one cardinal; and that one should be Albani, if he is put
forward." Later still in the same year, 1797, he wrote to his brother,
Joseph, at the time French ambassador in Rome: "Should the Pope die, do
all in your power to prevent the election of another, and bring about a
revolution. If that is impossible, do not permit Cardinal Albani to be
considered. You should not merely use the right of exclusion; you must
threaten the cardinals, declaring that I will march immediately on
Rome." During the progress of the Conclave, Talleyrand wrote, on
February 18, 1800, to Musquiz, the Spanish ambassador in Paris,
protesting against the influence of Austria in the Conclave, declaring
for reasons of no account except to himself, that the election from such
Conclave must be illegal, and signifying that it would be for the
interest of Spain to refuse to acknowledge such an election. As,
however, there was only one French cardinal in Venice at the time,
namely Maury, who was then entirely in the interests of Louis XVIII.,
it is easy to see that any direct influence from France would hardly be

[Illustration: PIUS VII.]

In the case of Austria the matter assumed greater importance. It is true
that Austria had proven itself no generous upholder of Papal
prerogatives for the fifty years past; yet, in the present hour, the
prestige of Papal influence was something desirable especially by
countries which still claimed to be Catholic. Moreover, the Sovereign of
Austria was still adorned with the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman
Empire which he was not to lose until six years later; he was thus
bound, in a way, to the interests of the Papacy. Still more, it was in
his dominions, and under his protection that the Conclave was to be
held. Hence, his determination to make use of every privilege, real or
apparent, which he deemed inherent in his house.

It was with this purpose in view that the Emperor, Francis II.,
presented detailed instructions to Cardinal Herzan, who was to represent
Austrian interests in the Conclave. The instructions are very sweeping
in their scope, and were they followed out, the Conclave would have
proved only a formality for ratifying the choice of Austria. They are as
follows: "We oppose most seriously the election of any cardinal from the
dominions of Spain, Sardinia, Naples, or Genoa; or any cardinal who has
given evidences of devotion to the interests of any one of the three
crowns mentioned. We oppose all cardinals of French origin, and all
those who have shown any disposition to espouse the cause of France.
Especially do we formally and absolutely exclude Cardinals Gerdil,
Caprara, Antonelli, Maury, and those of the Doria family. Our paternal
heart discerns only two cardinals whose qualifications promise a
capability to encounter present difficulties.... In the first place
stands Cardinal Mattei, in whom we place more confidence than in any
other.... Our second choice is solely Cardinal Valenti." Unfortunately
for the hopes of the Emperor, neither of the two cardinals mentioned was


The Conclave was formally opened on December 1, 1799. The cardinals were
divided into three parties, one of which under the leadership of
Cardinals Antonelli and Herzan espoused the candidacy of Cardinal
Mattei; a second party was led by Cardinals Braschi and Albani; and in
the interests of the papal prerogatives, gave their preferences to
Cardinal Bellisomi at first, and later to Cardinal Gerdil; a third party
called the volauti or unattached, voted independently; among these
latter were the French Cardinal Maury, and the Neapolitan, Ruffo. In the
first ballotings the votes stood 22 to 13 in favor of Bellisomi. When it
became evident that the latter cardinal would soon secure the necessary
two thirds of the votes, Cardinal Herzan contrived to turn the tide.
Unfortunately for his interests, however, the favor of the Sacred
College began to look to Cardinal Gerdil, one of those whom the Emperor
had formally and absolutely excluded. Thereupon, Cardinal Herzan applied
his right of veto, thus placing Cardinal Gerdil outside all possibility
of election. Austria, however, could utilize its power of veto only once
in a Conclave; hence the cardinals were now practically free to act in
disregard to the wishes of Austria. In the meantime the favor had again
turned to Bellisomi, and Cardinal Herzan begged as a matter of courtesy
that the Austrian Court be asked in regard to its attitude towards the
popular candidate. Much time was expended in sending a courier to Vienna
and awaiting his return. In the meantime, Mgr. Consalvi, secretary of
the Conclave, contrived to arouse interest in an entirely new candidate,
a man whose saintly life and great learning was added to the fact that
he appeared wholly outside the quarrels of the nations. This was
Cardinal Chiaramonti, Bishop of Imola. Cardinal Maury took up the
suggestion with enthusiasm, and employed all his eloquence to impress
the Sacred College with the idea. As the Conclave had now lasted for one
hundred and four days, the cardinals already weary of procrastination,
were only too eager to manifest their approbation. When the final ballot
was taken, on March 14, 1800, Cardinal Chiaramonti received every vote
except his own. He was accordingly elected Pope, taking the name of Pius


Barnabas Louis Chiaramonti was born at Cesena, in the Legation of Forli,
August 14, 1742. His father was Count Scipio Chiaramonti; his mother
Jane, was a daughter of the Marquis of Ghini. The boyhood of the future
Pope was without any of those marvelous incident which usually give
promise of coming greatness. That he was nurtured in a love of God and
of religion is evident from the character of his gentle mother, who in
1762, entered the Convent of the Carmelites, at Fano, where she died, in
1771, with the reputation of a saint. Indeed, many years later, the
cause of her beatification was suggested to her illustrious son, then
Pius VII., who with his characteristic delicacy, put the proposition
aside lest his filial love might seem to dictate where motives of
disinterested justice ought to preside.

At the age of sixteen, after finishing his course of studies at the
College of Ravenna, Barnabas, feeling the call of God, abandoned the
allurements of the world, and entered as a novice at the Benedictine
Abbey of Santa Maria del Monte, near Cesena, where he received the name
of Gregorio. His career of studies was completed in 1768, when he
defended a series of theological propositions in the presence of
Cardinal Ganganelli, destined the following year to become Pope Clement
XIV. After his ordination to the priesthood he acted as professor in the
Colleges of his Order, especially at Parma and at Rome. He was thus
engaged at the Monastery of St. Calixtus in 1775, when Cardinal Braschi,
his townsman and relative, ascended the throne of St. Peter, as Pope
Pius VI. Through the good offices of the new Pope, the young monk was
made an abbot of St. Paul outside the Walls; but this title thus
conferred without the concurrence of the regular Chapter of the Order,
while assuring some privileges, did not dispense the incumbent from
obedience to the titular abbot. His conduct in the delicate post, thus
thrust upon him, so charmed Pope Pius VI., that on his return from
Vienna in 1782, he took the humble abbot away from his monastery and
raised him to the episcopal See of Tivoli. For three years he governed
that diocese with such rare wisdom and intelligence that the Sovereign
Pontiff decided that he ought to be placed in a position wherein his
abilities and zeal might have a wider field. Accordingly, in 1785, he
was transferred to the See of Imola, and in the same year was created a

He was Bishop of Imola more than ten years, when the Austrians, pursued
by the armies of Bonaparte, took refuge at Bologna. His conduct in the
wars that followed was dictated by the feeling of duty divinely
committed to him. His courage in the face of the opposing armies won
from Bonaparte an expression of admiration and praise; for when that
General, on entering Ancona, found that the Bishop of the place had
fled, he exclaimed in the presence of suite. "When I was at Imola, I
found its Bishop at his post." In the uprising at Lugo against the
French invaders, Cardinal Chiaramonti was at hand counselling patience
on the part of the Italians, and later begging mercy when the French
were preparing for sanguinary revenge. At times, as in his Christmas
sermon of 1798, he encouraged the people to accept, at least under
existing circumstances, the Democratic form of government then forced
upon them, as being in no way "opposed to the Gospel, and requiring in
fact the sublime virtues which are taught in the school of Jesus Christ,
and which if practised religiously by you will redound to your own
happiness, and to the glory and spirit of your Republic." During the
year following the saintly Pope Pius VI. died at Valence and Cardinal
Chiaramonti, a few weeks later repaired to Venice to become Pope Pius

The general satisfaction manifested over the election of Pius VII. was
not shared by Austria. Apart from the fact that her choice had been
disregarded, it began to be rumored about that the new Pope was not
altogether unwelcome to France, and that the new Consul not only
admired but sought him. Nor was Austria slow in displaying marks of her
displeasure. The ceremonies of the coronation and consecration coming so
soon after the election, it was naturally supposed that the great
Cathedral of St. Mark's would be offered for that purpose. This favor,
however, the Emperor refused to grant, so that the new Pontiff was
restricted to the insignificant monastery church of St. George for a
function that called for the splendors of a mighty temple.

Austria went still farther in her vulgar reprisals. Her government had
the hardihood to ask the Holy Father to visit Vienna before returning to
his own States, alleging that "such a journey would prove an
incalculable benefit to the Holy See, that the personal acquaintance of
the Emperor would be very useful to His Holiness, and for the good of
both Church and State, and that, since the Pope happened to be at
Venice, he ought not lose so precious an occasion of undertaking a
journey, the expenses for which should be payed out of the imperial

The Holy Father, though declining the offers of the Austrian Monarch,
wrote to him within a week after his election, in terms full of fatherly
affection, and ignoring altogether the cowardly treatment he had just
received from that source. The answer of Francis II. was one of empty
felicitation, which he proceeded at once to falsify by his subsequent
actions. At that very time he sent to Venice a diplomatic agent, the
Marquis Ghislen who declared that it was his master's formal intention
to retain possession of the three Legations. It will be remembered that
in 1797, the Pope, Pius VI., by the Treaty of Tollentino, ceded to
France the Legations of Bologna, Ferrara and the Romagna. In the signing
of this treaty Cardinal Mattei represented the Holy See. In 1799, the
Austrians gained possession of the Legations by conquest over the
French. It was for this reason that Austria desired to see Mattei
elected to the papal throne, imagining that in such an event he would
honor his signature to the document of Tollentino, by permitting Austria
to keep her spoils of war. As the new Pope appeared too earnest a
defender of papal rights, it was considered necessary to inform him in
this categorical manner of Austria's intentions with regard to the
conquest territory. The Pope opposed most strongly these claims, and
announced his resolution of proceeding immediately to his own States.
The natural route for such a destination would lead overland through the
disputed Legations; but again Austria stood in the way compelling the
Pope to proceed to his own territory by sea. In fact, on June 6, 1800,
Pius VII. embarked on the Bellona, a small vessel which the Austrian
government had placed at his disposal without the courtesy of providing
its crew or provisions. The ship was so utterly unseaworthy, and the
hap-hazard crew so inexperienced that the voyage which ought to have
taken only twenty-four hours, consumed twelve days. Landing at Pesaro,
in his own States, the Pope proceeded to Ancona, where the vessels of
England and Russia harboring there, rendered him military honors. From
Ancona to Rome the journey of the Holy Father proved to be a triumphal
march. He arrived in the Eternal City on July 3, 1800, in the midst of a
people intoxicated with joy. As he knelt before the great altar of St.
Peter's, his heart expanded with gratitude to God, who, after permitting
the exile of His Vicar for two long years, was now graciously providing
for a new era for His afflicted Church.

One of the first acts of Pope Pius VII., after his election was the
appointment of an official to act as his Secretary of State. Even in
this matter the intermeddling policy of Austria made itself felt, for
on being denied in so many other pretensions, the Emperor sought at
least to control the Papacy through its chief functionary. Hence its
request sent to the new Pope that he would favor Austria by appointing
Cardinal Flangini to that post. The Holy Father answered that as he had
not at present any State he could not appoint a Secretary of State; he
would, however, name a pro-secretary, and in fact had already provided
for such an official. The ecclesiastic chosen for this emergency was
that Mgr. Ercole Consalvi, who had already acted as secretary for the


This celebrated man was born at Rome, June 8, 1757, of a noble family.
The eldest of five children, he was left an orphan in his earlier years.
He was educated at Urbino, by the Piarist brothers founded by St. Joseph
Calasanzio in 1617. After four years at this school, he entered the
school at Frascati, lately opened by the Cardinal Duke of York. The
latter was a grandchild of King James II. of England, and a brother of
Charles Edward the Pretender, known in Italy as the Earl of Albany. When
Charles Edward died, the Cardinal-Duke assumed the title of Henry IX.,
King of France and England.

The young Consalvi became a favorite with the princely protector who
recognized in his young protege a gift of character, self-reliance and
enthusiasm. During his term at Frascati, the future Secretary
distinguished himself by his literary productions in prose and verse. In
1776, he entered the great ecclesiastical academy in Rome, where his
abilities brought him to the notice of Pope Pius VI., who in 1783 raised
him to the dignity of a cameriere sègreto, with the duty of providing
for audiences at the Vatican. In 1784 he was made a domestic prelate.
Promotions followed rapidly in the Curia; in a few months he became a
member of the Governmental Congregation, and a secretary of the great
hospital of San Michele. Still later he became a member of the
pontifical _segnatura_. In 1786 he was offered the post of nuncio to
Cologne, which he declined in favor of Mgr. Pacca. He next became a
member of the Roman _Rota_, the tribunal of Justice. Again, he was made
Assessor of the Department of War wherein he effected much good during
the times of the French invasion of Italy.

[Illustration: CARDINAL CONSALVI.]

It was shortly after the celebrated Treaty of Tollentino, that the
unhappy affair of General Duphot occurred. On December 28, 1797, that
officer, while commanding a mob of infuriated soldiery, was fatally shot
by one of the Pontifical troops, and although no blame could be placed
upon the government of the Pope, nevertheless the assassination was
taken up as an excuse for hostility on the part of the French, who
descended upon Rome, took possession of the city, and drove Pius VI.
into that cruel exile which caused his death. Upon Consalvi especially,
because of the position he then occupied in the Department of War, the
full anger of the invaders fell. After an imprisonment in the Castel
Sant Angels, he was subjected to many humiliating hardships. He was
hurried off from Rome to Civita Vecchia with some Cardinals for the
purpose of being transported to Cayenne. At Civita Vecchia, however,
they were liberated with permission to go where they might choose,
except to the Roman States. If found in that territory they were to be
punished with death. Consalvi was again taken prisoner and confined in
the Castel Sant Angelo. At this time it was determined to inflict a most
trying humiliation upon him; he was to be led through the streets of
Rome, mounted upon an ass, and beaten by ruffians hired for that
purpose. Escaping this indignity through the scruples of a French
official, he was sent to Naples. Thence, he was permitted to go to
Venice, in which journey he met the Holy Father, Pius VI., then at
Florence on the sorrowful way to death. It was while at Venice, that he
learned of the death of the Sovereign Pontiff and remaining there took
part in the Conclave that elected a successor.


In the meantime affairs in France were gradually assuming an aspect of
peace and religious freedom. By the _coup d'Etat_ of the 18 Brumaire.
Bonaparte, returning from his Egyptian campaign, overturned the
Directory, and effected a new government, December 15, 1799. The new
power was to be presided over by a First Consul (Bonaparte) with two
colleagues. Subordinate to these were the Senate of eighty members, the
Tribunate of one hundred; and a Legislative Assembly of three hundred.
The new government by proclaiming Bonaparte First Consul for life made
him thereby a dictator, and placed practically the whole powers of the
nation in his hands. It was with the glory of his triumphant elevation
still fresh within his soul that the young conqueror set out early in
the following year for the campaign of Italy. On June 14th, 1800,
occurred the decisive victory of Marengo, whereby the French gained in a
single day in Italy almost all that they had lost during the course of
the last two years. The Austrians driven beyond the Mincio lost the
Legations, and were finally forced to accept the Adige as the boundary
of their possessions in Northern Italy.

In the midst of his glory the religious sentiment which had ever lain
dormant in the heart of Napoleon came to the surface, inspiring him to a
course of action which was to have immense importance in the future
history of France. His intentions are best summed up in a letter which
Cardinal Martiniana, Bishop of Vercelli, sent, at the request of
Napoleon, to Pope Pius VII., just then entering the Eternal City after
the Conclave of Venice. The contents of this letter are found in another
letter sent by Cardinal Maury to Louis XVIII. to inform him of the turn
events were then taking in the affairs of Rome and of France:

     "The Consul Bonaparte paid a visit to Cardinal Martiniana (at
     Vercelli). He desired him to go to Rome and announce to the
     Pope that he wished to make him a present of 30,000,000
     French Catholics; that he desired the return of religion to
     France; that the intruders of the first and second order (the
     constitutional bishops and priests) were nothing but a parcel
     of dishonored rascals of whom he was determined to rid
     himself; that the dioceses were formerly too numerous in
     France, and that their number ought to be restricted; that he
     desired to establish an entirely new clergy; that some of the
     old bishops were almost forgotten in their dioceses where
     they had hardly ever resided; that many of them had emigrated
     for no other purpose than to cabal, and that he did not care
     to have them return; that he would consider in their regard
     only their dismissal, although he was willing to grant them a
     proper salary; that, while waiting until he could donate
     funded property to the clergy, he would assure them of a very
     honest living, and that the poorest of the bishops should
     receive 15,000 livres a year; that the exercise of the Pope's
     spiritual jurisdiction should be carried on freely in France;
     that the Pope alone should institute the bishops, who should
     be nominated by whoever should administer the sovereign
     authority; finally, that he desired to re-establish the Pope
     in the possession of all his States."

This letter of Cardinal Martiniana was brought to Rome by Count Alciati,
nephew of the Bishop of Vercelli, and was presented to the Holy Father
shortly after his entrance into the Eternal City.

Very naturally the proposition of the First Consul met with hostility
and protest from many quarters, notably from Louis XVIII., and from the
old Catholic party under the leadership of the emigrated bishops. Every
conceivable objection to such a treaty was placed before the Holy Father
in the hope of influencing him to reject the overtures of the French
ruler. He was reminded that the First Consul was the same Bonaparte who
had imposed upon the Holy See the Treaty of Tollentino with its
spoliation of Papal territory, its seizure of 30,000,000 francs, and
other like exactions; it was the same Bonaparte who but a short time
before had become a Mussulman in order to gain the good graces of the
Eastern peoples. Moreover, what real favor might the Pope expect from
that French government which he had ignored at the time of his election
by neglecting to send to France the notification of that fact,
especially when he had taken pains to recognize the rightful authority
of Louis XVIII., by including him among the sovereigns to whom letters
of greeting were sent upon his accession to the Papal throne? To the
great mass of the French Catholic people the Church and the throne were
inseparably bound together; they had existed together for fourteen
centuries; they had fallen together amidst the horrors of the
Revolution, and hence if one was again to rise to its ancient place of
power and usefulness it should only be in conjunction with the
restoration of the other. Added to this was the personal claim of Louis
XVIII., expressed in very decided terms, whereby he declared himself as
the only ruler of the French people whom the Holy See should recognize,
as he was the only one the Pope had hitherto recognized; hence if the
Concordat of 1516, contracted by Leo X. and Francis I., was to be
abrogated and supplied by another, this work belonged by right to the
successor of that king and not to a usurper. In presenting these and
similar objections to the Pope the exiled king had a worthy
representative in the person of Cardinal Maury, a man of singular
eloquence and of great personal influence, all of which was brought to
bear upon the mind of the Holy Father and the members of the Sacred

Pope Pius VII., however, regarded the project from a different
standpoint. Much as he desired the restoration of the Bourbons and of
Louis XVIII. in particular, of whom he had said to Cardinal Maury, "I
would give my life to restore His Majesty to the throne," nevertheless
the interests of religion appealed more strongly to his heart than the
claims of any human affection. The letter of Cardinal Martiniana thus
appeared providential in the midst of the difficulties that beset him,
and from which neither Austria, Naples, Spain, or any other human power
could liberate him. With every reason to expect hostile measures from
Bonaparte, he could not but feel relieved by these expressions of
cordial good feeling; nor could he help reflecting that this was the
first time for many years since a French general had sent to Rome any
other message than those of threats and exaction. The proposition of the
First Consul opened up before him visions of future peace and prosperity
for the universal Church, and seemed like a very answer from heaven to
the prayers he had offered up ever since the day of his election. His
gratification, therefore was expressed in the letter which he sent in
return to Cardinal Martiniana.

     "We can certainly receive no more agreeable news than that
     which is contained in your letter. The overtures it speaks of
     on the part of the First Consul cause us the greatest
     consolation, since they promise to bring back so many
     millions of souls to the fold of Christ, of whom we are the
     unworthy vicar. We shall regard it as our glory and an honor,
     and at the same time as something of benefit to the whole
     world, to behold the re-establishment in France of that most
     holy religion which has been the source of her happiness for
     so many centuries. You may say to the First Consul that we
     lend ourselves willingly to a negotiation whose object is so
     important.... Your presentation of his ideas gives us a
     well-founded hope that we shall be able to arrange affairs
     satisfactorily. However, your penetration must certainly
     perceive all the difficulties they present in themselves and
     in their application. But we confide in God's mercy and in
     His assistance in favor of the Church.... Observing that the
     First Consul has taken you into his confidence, we gladly
     accept you as a negotiator counting upon your zeal for the
     re-establishment of religion. With the object of hastening
     that result, and reflecting upon the extreme difficulty of
     explaining by letter affairs so intricate and so delicate, we
     have resolved to send you as soon as possible a person who
     has our confidence and who will be able to explain our
     intentions more easily, and to aid you in the

The person spoken of in this letter of Pope Pius VII., was Mgr. Spina,
titular Archbishop of Corinth, a prelate well versed in the study of
canon law, of a mild and pious disposition, one who had accompanied the
late Pope during his exile and was with him in his last hours, and who
had formed some little personal acquaintance with Bonaparte, as the
latter was returning to Paris after his campaign in Egypt.


[Illustration: ARCHBISHOP SPINA.]

Mgr. Spina set forth on the way to Vercelli on September 20th, 1800, and
after many reverses, being at one time arrested at Modena, he arrived at
his destination. It was the understanding of Pius VII. that the
negotiations should be opened at Vercelli, or near at hand. The
consternation of Mgr. Spina was therefore very great when, on reaching
that city, he was confronted with the information that the First Consul
had determined to transfer the place of meeting to Paris, a movement
inspired no doubt by the twofold reason of making the whole proceeding
seem to proceed from the petition of the Pope rather than from his own
initiative, as also to prevent the appearance on the part of the French
government of "going to Canossa." The Holy Father upon being informed of
this new move of the First Consul yielded in the interests of peace, and
directed Mgr. Spina to proceed as soon as convenient, in the company of
Padre Caselli, General of the Servites, to Paris. The two negotiators
arrived in that city on November 5th following.

[Illustration: CARDINAL CASELLI.]

Of the two Papal representatives Spina alone was regarded as a
negotiator, Father Caselli acting merely in the capacity of a companion,
but having no voice in the deliberations. Even Spina himself was limited
in his faculties, having no actual power of treating or of affixing his
signature to the definitive documents. He was simply a delegate charged
with exploring the ground, listening to the propositions, and of
suggesting freely, but obliged to send his report to Rome _ad audiendum
et referendum_.

The Papal commissioner was not long left in uncertainty as to the
character and intentions of the French officials with whom he had to
deal. Of these the most conspicuous were the First Consul himself,
Talleyrand, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gregoire, the constitutional
Bishop of Nancy, and the Abbe Bernier, the official negotiator in the

The First Consul, then in his thirty-second year, was just beginning
that role of supreme dictator which was to last to the end of his
successful career. In the matter of religious convictions much has been
said both in his favor as well as against, though the most probable
opinions concede in him a certain undercurrent of religious belief,
vague indeed, and clouded by the passion for glory and supremacy which
possessed his soul. There was enough of Christian sentiment within him
to make him esteem the faith of his youth as the most sacred thing on
earth and worthy of his best efforts. These convictions, however, were
weakened and at times entirely overcome by the overpowering allurements
of a life wherein glory was offered at the price of honor, and power was
purchased in the surrender of moral restraints. Hence, although it may
be said that the ruling motive of Bonaparte in proposing the Concordat
was political in its nature, it would be wrong to deny that a sense of
religious propriety and affection for his old faith entered also into
the influences which moved him. Young, popular, penetrating in his
genius, and subtle in his political doctrines, he comprehended the
necessity of procuring peace of conscience for the people, and saw
clearly the immense benefit the State would derive from an
understanding with the Church, as well as the personal advantage that
must accrue to himself therefrom.

A few days after his arrival in Paris the Archbishop of Corinth was
received by the Minister of Foreign Relations, who obtained an audience
with Bonaparte almost immediately. "The welcome of the First Consul was,
I must confess, a welcome full of enthusiasm. He spoke very respectfully
of His Holiness and manifested towards him very favorable dispositions.
He did not, however, conceal his displeasure that His Holiness had not
officially notified him in his capacity of First Consul of the fact of
his elevation to the Papacy, as he had the kings of England and Prussia
and the emperor of Russia."

The audience was terminated by the order of conferring with the Minister
of Foreign Affairs--and the party designated by him--upon all matters
regarding the Concordat. It lasted fully half an hour, and was very
satisfactory to the Papal Delegate.

Another figure destined to play an important part in the framing of the
Concordat was the celebrated character of the Revolution, Charles
Maurice Talleyrand, the former Bishop of Autun, an apostate who had
added to his iniquities the crime of marrying a divorced Protestant. The
whole work of this strange personage consisted in placing obstacles to
the completion of an understanding between the French government and the
Holy See. In fact, it was only during his absence from Paris, while he
was taking the waters of a bath, that the negotiators could finally
place their signatures to the definitive document. Gregoire, the
constitutional Bishop of Nancy, performed with Talleyrand, the office of
instructor in ecclesiastical matters to the First Consul. A Gallican of
Gallicans, an intense hater of the old regime, jansenistic and
puritanical in his perverted piety, and obstinate in his adhesion to the
principles of the Revolution, neither he nor the Minister of Foreign
Affairs was a worthy interpreter of the mind and doctrines of the
Church, especially in an affair of such great importance. It is, no
doubt, due to the influence of these two ambitious men that the First
Consul showed himself at times, during the discussions, somewhat hostile
to the interests of the Church, and disposed to throw over the whole
tenor of the Concordat the restrictions of pure Gallicanism.

[Illustration: THE ABBE BERNIER.]

The Abbe Bernier, doctor in theology, and former curé of St. Laud of
Angers, was the most intimate of all the officials concerned in the work
of the Concordat. A man of retired and mysterious ways, living alone in
the third story of a house in a side street of the city, he carried into
the discussions a mind fully attuned to the demands of Bonaparte, and
directed by the instructions Of Talleyrand. He was far from being a
Revolutionist, having played an important part in the Royalist army
during the war of the Vendee, an episode in his life which was never
fully forgiven by Bonaparte; yet he could be relied upon by his master
as one who would grant to the Pope the least possible concessions, while
exacting from the Holy See as much as one could under the circumstances.

Against these minds, all astute and all varying in their religious and
political doctrines, Mgr. Spina found himself practically alone. After
many discussions, beginning at the first week of November, 1800, and
lasting for six months,--during which time many drafts of the Concordat
had been drawn up only to meet with rejection,--the deliberations seemed
nearing their close by the completion of the fourth draft. When this
document was at length finished the Papal negotiator received peremptory
orders from Talleyrand to at once affix his signature, in spite of the
fact that it contained articles which could not meet with the Papal
approval. Mgr. Spina protested in vain that he had no faculties for
signing, and begged a delay sufficient for sending the document to Rome
for examination. The Minister of Foreign Affairs continued obdurate
until the Papal Delegate appealed to the First Consul. The latter
granted the delay, but required that the messenger chosen for the
journey should bear personal instructions from him. When these
instructions were opened at Rome, March 10, 1801, they were found to
contain an entirely new draft of the Concordat drawn up by the First
Consul himself, thus setting aside definitely that fourth form for the
signing of which Talleyrand had betrayed so much animosity.

While preparing the text of this document the First Consul had been
casting his eyes around to discover some one capable of representing him
at Rome in the discussions which must inevitably follow the reception of
the new Concordat. An aged Breton, loyal to his country, moderate and
full of tact, who had already performed some important missions in
Italy--such was M. Cacault, the person chosen by Bonaparte for this
purpose. He was already in his sixtieth year, and notable as a member of
the _Corps Legislatif_, a man in whom the First Consul could place the
utmost confidence. When departing for Rome, during the last week of
March, upon asking of Bonaparte how he should treat the Pope, the
General answered: "Treat him as if he had two hundred thousand men."
Cacault arrived in Rome on April 8th, and entered at once upon his
duties as Minister Plenipotentiary of the French government at the Court
of the Holy See.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Holy Father conceived fully the importance of these new moves of the
First Consul, and began at once to give to them the attention they
merited. The draft of the Concordat was first submitted to the scrutiny
of three cardinals--Antonelli, Carandini and Gerdil--who were charged
with the duty of studying the text and proposing such additions or
changes as they might deem necessary. Their work was then submitted to
a commission of twelve cardinals under the presidency of the Pope, and
entitled the Particular Congregation. These twelve ecclesiastical
princes had all been victims of the Revolution, suffering especially in
1798 all the evils of ruin, exile and imprisonment. It can thus be
easily conceived that their sentiments towards Bonaparte and the
Republic were tinged with something of acerbity, which, however,
vanished under the claims of justice and that expediency which the
unhappy conditions of the Church demanded. To ensure perfect immunity
from all external influences, the members of the Commission were at once
subjected to the oath of secrecy of the Holy Office. "The slightest
revelation would produce most disastrous consequences. Each cardinal
must study the questions by himself without consulting either theologian
or secretary. Each should cast a vote written by his own hand and should
exercise the greatest care that no familiar or acquaintance should
either by day or by night, obtain the least information upon this
affair, which is certainly one of the gravest with which Holy See has
ever had to treat." (_Consalvi to the Cardinals of the Commission._)

In spite of the fact that the First Consul desired the prompt signing of
his document, and was already planning to celebrate its completion
during the same ceremonies which would accompany the formal ratification
of the peace of Austria, nevertheless the work of the cardinals dragged
out for nearly two months. In Paris the delay was the cause of
excitement and anger. Mgr. Spina was harassed with questions and
reproaches; Bernier was loud in his complaints; while Talleyrand in a
fit of jealousy declared that the fault was Cacault's who thus hoped to
draw to himself the glory of concluding the Concordat. The impatience of
Bonaparte was expressed in the commands which he gave to Spina on the
twelfth of May, while waiting for the advent of the Papal messenger
bearing the results of the cardinals' deliberations:

     "Rome wishes to draw out this affair as long as possible in
     the hope of some political change which might favor her
     pretensions. I love and esteem the Pope very much, but I have
     little confidence in the cardinals, and in particular
     Cardinal Consalvi, who has broken his word with me, and is an
     enemy of France. He promised that the courier would arrive by
     the end of April; here it is the twelfth of May and he has
     not appeared; perhaps he has not even left Rome. More than
     that, my project of the Concordat has been changed and I
     shall not consent to that. Cacault writes that the Pope is
     unwilling to admit the article concerning the bishops and
     wishes me to send him the list of those whom I rejected,
     together with the reasons for their exclusion. Now, I declare
     that I do not want any of the former bishops, and I shall not
     yield upon that point. Why does the Court of Rome allow
     itself to be influenced by these non-Catholic powers? It
     confers with Russia, with Prussia, with England. Do the
     affairs of the Catholic world concern heretics and
     schismatics? It is I alone and the King of Spain who have the
     right to enter into such matters. You have just wounded
     Spain, and committed an awkward mistake in re-establishing
     the Jesuits at the request of the Tzar Paul I. Take care; it
     may cost you dearly to put yourself thus under the protection
     of Russia. For doing that the King of Sardinia has just lost

     "It is with me that you should arrange matters; it is in me
     that you should place your confidence; it is I alone who can
     save you. You demand the restoration of the Legations? You
     wish to be rid of the troops? Everything will depend upon the
     answer you make to my demands, especially with regard to the
     bishops. I was born a Catholic, I wish to live and die a
     Catholic, and I have nothing more at heart than the
     re-establishment of the Catholic worship, but the Pope is
     acting in a way that serves me as a temptation to become a
     Lutheran or Calvinist, and to draw all France along with me.
     Let him change his behavior and listen to me. If not, I shall
     establish a religion, I shall give the people a worship with
     bells and processions, I shall ignore the Holy Father, he
     shall no longer exist for me. Send a messenger this very day
     to Rome to tell him that."

On the following day Spina, Talleyrand, and Bernier, each sent a letter
to Rome, with accounts of the First Consul's anger. The fears of the
Holy Father at the news thus received were still further intensified by
the orders contained in a letter written by Talleyrand to Cacault and
dated the nineteenth of May:

     ... "I have formal orders from the First Consul to inform you
     that your first move in regard to the Holy See must be to
     demand of the Pope, within the term of five days, a
     definitive determination in regard to the project of the
     convention and the Bull in which the convention is to be
     inserted, which have been proposed to him for adoption. If in
     the respite which you are charged to offer, the two projects
     are adopted without any modification the two States bound
     together by the ties of peaceful relations whose importance
     and necessity the Holy See ought to perceive now more than
     ever.... If changes are proposed to you, and the granted time
     expires, you will announce to the Holy See that your presence
     in Rome having become useless for the object of your mission
     you see yourself obliged with regret to betake yourself to
     your general-in-chief, and you will leave at once for

[Illustration: CACAULT.]

M. Cacault made haste to transmit this ultimatum to the Holy Father, who
received it with mingled feelings of astonishment and anxiety. Though
fully determined never to yield upon points that concerned the dogmatic
teachings of the Church, nevertheless he was careful not to act without
first consulting his advisors in the Sacred College--the twelve
cardinals of the Particular Congregation. Their sentiments agreed fully
with his own. They thought it necessary for M. Cacault to withdraw from
his diplomatic post, but the principle involved was altogether too
important to permit of mere temporal considerations. The turn taken by
events brought back to the mind of the Pope the unhappy episodes of
1798, the exile and death of Pius VI., the certainty of eventual schism
in the Church not only in France but throughout Europe. There was
apparently much to be gained by a passive yielding to the demands of the
First Consul; but the loss on the other hand would prove incalculable,
besides meaning eventual ruin to the whole Church. It was not surprising
therefore that after considering the matter from every standpoint the
Pope finally intimated to the French minister his unalterable resolution
of maintaining the position he had taken at any cost.

It was in this junction that the genius of M. Cacault was called into
play. Fully acquainted with the temperament and disposition of Bonaparte
he determined upon a measure that at first seemed foolhardy, but which
upon mature reflection commended itself to the Roman Court. He would
carry out the instructions of the First Consul to the letter, but at the
same time he would so arrange matters that the affair in question should
be settled to the satisfaction of every one concerned. His plan, in
short, was to induce Cardinal Consalvi, the Papal Secretary of State, to
proceed at once to Paris, and there personally conduct the discussions,
feeling certain that the diplomatic skill of the young statesman could
effect the result when all other means would be destined to failure.


Full of this idea the French minister approached the Cardinal, and urged
upon him the duty of hastening at once to Paris, to superintend
personally the disentangling of the situation.

     "The First Consul does not know you," he said, "he knows
     still less your talents, and your tact, your persuasiveness,
     your coquetry, your desire to bring this affair to
     completion; go to Paris.... Go tomorrow, you will please
     him, you will both understand one another; let him see that a
     cardinal can be a man of spirit, you are the one to conclude
     the Concordat with him. If you do not go to Paris I shall be
     obliged to break with you--remember there are ministers there
     who persuaded the Directory to transport Pius VI. to Cayenne.
     There are counsellors of state who are pleading against you,
     and generals who sneer and shrug their shoulders. If I break
     with you, Murat, a second Berthier, will march on Rome."

The words of M. Cacault made a deep impression upon the Cardinal, and
together the French minister and the Secretary of State went to lay the
plan before the Holy Father. The latter, desolated by the thought of
losing if only for a time his beloved Secretary, yielded only after the
necessity of the move had been demonstrated and had received the
approval of the Sacred College.

On June 6th, the day following the expiration of the time allotted by
Bonaparte, Cardinal Consalvi departed from Rome, seated in the same
carriage with Cacault, who, in accordance with his instructions, was
taking the way to Florence. In the latter city the two diplomats
separated, the former continuing his journey to Paris, where he arrived
on June 20th, and took up his lodgings at the Hotel de Rome, in company
with Mgr. Spina. The Cardinal writes in his _Memoires_:

     "My first thought on the following morning was to inform
     General Bonaparte of my arrival and to learn at what hour I
     might have the honor of seeing him. I asked at the same time
     in what costume he wished me to present myself. This question
     was necessary, since at that time the ecclesiastical dress
     was no longer in use in Paris, or in the whole of France. The
     priests were clothed as laymen; the churches consecrated to
     God were now dedicated to Friendship, to Abundance, to Hymen,
     to Commerce, to Liberty, to Equality, Fraternity, and to
     other divinities of the democratic reason. Every one was
     entitled citizen; I was so addressed myself during my
     journey, even though covered with the insignia of the
     cardinalate. I would not discard that garb for a single day,
     though I thereby gave proof rather of courage than of

     "The Abbe Bernier returned immediately with the information
     that the First Consul would receive me at two o'clock that
     afternoon, and that, as to the costume I was to appear as a
     cardinal as far as was possible."

At the stated hour Consalvi appeared at the palace.

"I entered," he said, "a salon in which I perceived only one solitary
individual who advanced toward me, saluted me in silence, and then
striding on before introduced me into a neighboring hall. I did not then
know who this personage might be, but I learned later that it was the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. de Talleyrand, a name too well-known in
the annals of the Revolution to need any additional description from me.
I imagined he was about to lead me to the private cabinet of the First
Consul and I was congratulating myself in the hope of being alone with
him. But what was my surprise when, on opening that last door, I saw
before me in a vast hall a multitude of persons disposed as if for a
scene in a drama. In the centre of the hall were symmetrically arranged
the various corps of the state government (which were, as I afterwards
learned, the Senate, the Tribunate, the Corps Legislatif, and the High
Courts of the Magistrature) and, at the sides, generals, officers of all
degrees, ministers, grand state functionaries, and before all others,
detached and isolated, three persons whom I learned later were the three
consuls of the Republic.

"The central figure came forward a few steps toward me, and it was only
by conjecture that I divined that it was Bonaparte, a conjecture that
was confirmed by the attitude of Talleyrand, who still kept company
with me and presented me to him. I was about to utter some words of
compliment, and to speak of my journey; I had scarcely approached him
than he at once opened up the conversation, and said curtly: 'I know the
object of your journey to France. I want the conferences to be opened
immediately. I give you five days, and I warn you that if, at the
expiration of the fifth day, the negotiations are not terminated, you
will return to Rome, while as to myself, I have already determined on
what I shall do in such a hypothesis.'"

The calm dignity of the Cardinal triumphed over the haughty bearing of
the Consul who permitted himself to yield somewhat. The audience lasted
an hour and a half, and left the Roman prelate quite satisfied that he
might employ as much time as the proper discussion of the affair should

It was the 13th of July before the negotiators at last came to a
definite agreement. The Concordat had reached that stage in the
discussions when it could at length receive the signatures of the
various officials interested. The night of the 13th was fixed as the
date when that happy consummation was to be effected, and it was settled
that all the negotiators were to meet for that purpose at 8 P. M., at
the house of Joseph Bonaparte, brother of the first Consul.

So certain were the officials of the Government that the affair was now
concluded, that the announcement of the fact appeared in the _Moniteur_
of the day, in an article concluding with the words: "Cardinal Consalvi
has succeeded in the object which brought him to Paris." Moreover, the
First Consul had confided to his intimates that on the following day,
July 14th, the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille, the formal
announcement of the signing of the Concordat would be made at a grand
banquet to be held at the Tuileries, at which three hundred or more
guests would be present, including the six signers.

In the meantime the party of opposition to the Concordat had not been
idle. Under the inspiration of Talleyrand a spurious imitation of the
document agreed upon was gotten up, and after a note brought by
d'Hauterive--one of the creatures of the Minister of Foreign Affairs--to
the First Consul, was substituted for the real paper, under the
impression that Consalvi would be led to sign it in the haste required
for the accomplishment of the other consequent events. The Cardinal goes
on to relate his discovery of this deception:

     "Seated around the table," (in the house of Joseph Bonaparte)
     "a few moments were devoted to the question as to who should
     subscribe first, as it seemed that the honor belonged to him
     (Joseph) as the brother of the Chief of the Government. In
     the mildest manner, yet with all the firmness required by the
     occasion, I remarked that my quality of Cardinal and
     representative of the Pope would not permit me to take second
     place among the signers; I observed, moreover, that under the
     old Government of France, as in all such cases, the cardinals
     had undisputed precedence, and that I could not yield in a
     point which did not concern me personally but the dignity
     with which I was vested. I must in justice admit that, after
     some difficulty, he yielded with good grace, and agreed that
     I should sign first, while he should follow in the second
     place, then the Prelate Spina, followed in order by the
     Counsellor Cretet, Padre Caselli, and finally the Abbe

     "Thereupon we immediately prepared for the work in hand, and
     I took up the pen to affix my signature. But what was my
     surprise when I saw the Abbe Bernier presenting me the copy
     which he had unrolled, in order that I should begin with that
     rather than with my own, and after glancing over it to assure
     myself that it was correct, I perceived that the Concordat
     which I was about to sign was not the one upon which not only
     the negotiators, but the First Consul also, had agreed, but
     one entirely different. The change in the first line caused
     me to examine with greater diligence the remainder of the
     document, and I discovered that the present copy not only
     contained the very same draft which the Pope had refused to
     admit without proper corrections, and which had given cause
     for the recall of the French envoy through the refusal of the
     Pope, but it changed the same in many points, having inserted
     many things which had already been rejected before that draft
     was sent to Rome.

     "A proceeding of such a nature, incredible though a fact, and
     which I will not permit myself to characterize--the thing
     speaks for itself--paralyzed, so to speak, my hand before it
     could sign. I expressed my surprise, and declared decisively
     that I could not sign that document at any price. The brother
     of the First Consul seemed no less astonished at what he
     heard, and declared that he could not be persuaded of what I
     said, since the First Consul had told him that everything was
     agreed and that nothing remained to be done except to sign."

The firm stand taken by Cardinal Consalvi compelled the six
commissioners to undertake again a revision of the document in order to
be able to please if possible the First Consul, and thus end the affair
before the banquet of the following day. It was noon of the fourteenth
before they had come to a satisfactory agreement. The new copy was then
taken by Joseph Bonaparte who brought it to his brother, the First

     "He returned in less than an hour revealing in his
     countenance the anguish of his mind. He informed us that the
     French Consul was seized with a fit of great fury at the news
     of what had happened; that in the impetuosity of his anger,
     he had torn into a hundred pieces the draft of the Concordat
     arranged by us; and that finally yielding to his prayers, his
     solicitation, his reflections and his reason, he had
     promised, although with unspeakable repugnance, to accept all
     the articles agreed upon but as to one, which we had left in
     suspense, he was as inflexible as irritated, charging me in
     conclusion, that he looked for that article just as it was
     written in the copy brought by Abbe Bernier, and that I had
     only one of two things to do, either to admit that article as
     it was and sign the Concordat, or to break definitely the
     whole negotiation; that he was absolutely determined to
     announce at the banquet of that day either the signing or the
     rupture of the affair."

It was two o'clock in the afternoon when Joseph Bonaparte brought this
strange message. For two hours more this same messenger, aided by Cretet
and Bernier, endeavored to bend the unflinching will of Consalvi, but to
no purpose. He comprehended fully the great temporal evils that must
follow a rupture with France, the dangers to the peace and liberty of
the Pope and the welfare of the Church; but he knew at the same time
that his action would be precisely in accordance with the wishes of the
Holy Father, and therefore a matter of sacred duty. The discussion
remained in the same condition when at four o'clock the six
commissioners parted to prepare themselves for the banquet which was to
begin at five. That this occasion promised to be one of violent anger on
the part of Bonaparte was the thought of Consalvi as he entered the
banquet hall of the Tuileries. The scene is described dramatically in
his own words:

     "Scarcely had we entered the hall in which the First Consul
     was waiting, and which was thronged with magistrates,
     officers, grandees of State, ambassadors, and most
     illustrious foreigners,--guests at the banquet,--than he gave
     us a welcome easy to imagine, he being already cognizant of
     the rupture. He had hardly seen me than, with inflamed
     countenance, and in a loud voice, he said: 'So, Monsieur
     Cardinal, you wish to break the negotiations? Very well. I
     have no need of Rome. I will act for myself. I have no need
     of the Pope. If Henry VIII. who had not the twentieth part of
     my power knew how to change the religion of his country
     successfully, much more do I know how, and am able to do so.
     And when I change religion in France, I shall change it in
     nearly all of Europe wheresoever the influence of my power
     extends. Rome will recognize the losses she must suffer, and
     she will bewail them when it is too late. You are going,
     well, that is the best you can do. You want a rupture, and
     let it be so, since you wish it.'

     "To these words uttered in public in a quick, loud tone of
     voice, I answered that I could not overstep my powers, nor
     agree on points contrary to the principles professed by the
     Holy See. 'In things ecclesiastical,' I added, 'one cannot do
     all that one can in temporal affairs in certain extreme
     cases. Notwithstanding that, it did not seem to me possible
     to say that the rupture was sought for on the part of the
     Pope, since we were agreed upon all the articles, holding
     only one in reserve, in regard to which I have proposed to
     consult the Pope himself, even though his own (the French)
     commissioners had dissented.' He (the Consul) interrupted me
     to say that he wished to leave nothing imperfect, and that he
     desired to conclude all or nothing. T answered that I had not
     the right to accept the article in question, as long as it
     remained precisely as he had proposed it, and without any
     modification. He replied angrily that he wanted it just as it
     was, without one syllable more or less. I answered that in
     that case I should never sign it, because I could not at any
     cost. He repeated: 'It is precisely for that reason that I
     say that you want a rupture, and that I consider the affair
     at an end, and that Rome will feel and weep over this rupture
     with tears of blood.'"

After more words uttered in a like strain, the guests proceeded to the
banquet which was of short duration and clouded by the irritable temper
of the First Consul. After it was ended, however, a better spirit
entered into Bonaparte, and yielding to the solicitations of the Count
de Cobentzel, the peacemaker of the day, he agreed that the
commissioners might come together again for the last time on the
following day.

     "Let them see if they cannot possibly arrange matters, but if
     they separate without coming to a conclusion, the rupture
     will be regarded as definitive, and the Cardinal may leave. I
     declare also that I want this article to remain absolutely as
     it is, and that I shall admit of no change."

And so saying he turned upon his heel.

The commissioners met accordingly on the following day at the house of
Joseph Bonaparte, and after twelve hours of discussion finally came to
an agreement of such a nature that the honor of the Holy See would be
guaranteed thereby, while at the same time the obstinacy of the First
Consul would suffer no perceptible wounding. It was at midnight when the
affair was at last pronounced completed, and the commissioners at once
affixed their signatures to the document.

     "The Concordat was signed at two o'clock in the morning in
     the house which I occupied in the Rue du
     Faubourg-Saint-Honore. At the same hour I became the father
     of a third child whose birth was saluted by the
     plenipotentiaries of the two great powers, and his prosperity
     predicted by the envoys of the Vicar of Christ."[1]

It was midnight instead of two o'clock A. M.


The Concordat, thus signed on July 15th, 1801, was conceived in the
following terms:

     Convention between His Holiness Pius VII., and the French

     The Government of the Republic recognizes that the Catholic
     Apostolic Roman religion is the religion of the great
     majority of the French citizens.

     His Holiness also recognizes that this same religion has
     derived, and at this moment expects anew, the greatest good
     and glory from the establishment of Catholic worship in
     France, and the especial profession thereof made by the
     Consuls of the republic.

     Consequently, after the mutual recognition, both for the good
     of religion and the maintenance of internal tranquility, they
     have agreed upon the following:

     Article I.

     The Catholic Apostolic Roman religion shall be freely
     exercised in France. Its worship shall be public, conforming
     to the regulations of internal administration which the
     Government shall deem necessary for the public tranquility.

     Article II.

     A new circumscription of the French diocese shall be made by
     the Holy See in concert with the Government.

     Article III.

     His Holiness will declare to the incumbents of the French
     Sees, that it expects from them, with a firm confidence, for
     the sake of peace and unity, sacrifices of every kind, even
     to the resignation of their Sees.

     If, after this exhortation they refuse this sacrifice,
     commanded by the well-being of the Church (a refusal
     nevertheless which His Holiness does not expect), the
     dioceses of the new circumscription shall be provided with
     new bishops in the following manner:

     Article IV.

     The First Consul of the Republic will, within three months
     after the publication of His Holiness' bull, nominate to the
     archbishoprics and bishoprics of the new circumscription. His
     Holiness will confer canonical institution according to the
     forms established in regard to France, before the change of

     Article V.

     The nominations to Sees, hereafter to fall vacant, shall also
     be made by the First Consul, and canonical institution will
     be given by the Holy See, in conformity with the preceding

     Article VI.

     The bishops, before entering on their functions, shall take
     directly in the hands of the First Consul, the oath of
     fidelity, which was in use before the change of Government,
     expressed in the following terms:

     "I swear and promise to God, on His holy Gospels, to observe
     obedience and fidelity to the Government established by the
     constitution of the French Republic. I also promise to have
     no understanding with, assist in no council, entertain no
     league, either within or without, which shall be contrary to
     the public tranquility; and if in my diocese or elsewhere I
     learn that anything is plotted to the prejudice of the State,
     I will impart it to the Government."

     Article VII.

     Ecclesiastics of the second order shall take the same oath,
     in the hands of the civil authorities named by the

     Article VIII.

     The following form of prayer shall be recited at the end of
     the Divine Office, in all the Catholic Churches of France:
     Domine, salvam fac Rempublicam. Domine, salvos fac Consules.

     Article IX.

     The bishops shall make a new circumscription of the parishes
     in their dioceses, which shall be of no effect until approved
     by the Government.

     Article X.

     The bishops shall appoint to the parishes. Their choice shall
     fall only on persons acceptable to the Government.

     Article XI.

     Bishops may have a chapter in their Cathedral, and a seminary
     for their diocese, without any obligation on the part of the
     Government to endow them.

     Article XII.

     All the metropolitan churches, cathedrals, parishes, and
     others not alienated, necessary for worship, shall be put at
     the disposal of the bishops.

     Article XIII.

     His Holiness, for the sake of peace and the happy restoration
     of the Catholic religion, declares that neither he nor his
     successors will disquiet in any manner the holders of
     alienated ecclesiastical property, and that, consequently,
     the right to said property, with the rights and revenues
     attached thereto, shall remain incommutable in their hands or
     those of their representatives.

     Article XIV.

     The Government will secure a suitable salary to the bishops,
     and to parish priests whose dioceses and parishes are
     comprised in the new circumscription.

     Article XV.

     The Government will also take measures to enable French
     Catholics, when so disposed, to create foundations in favor
     of churches.

     Article XVI.

     His Holiness recognizes, in the First Consul of the French
     Republic, the same rights and prerogatives enjoyed at Rome by
     the former Government.

     Article XVII.

     It is agreed between the contracting parties that in case any
     successor of the present First Consul should not be a
     Catholic, the rights and prerogatives mentioned in the
     preceding article, and the nominations to Sees, shall be
     regulated, so far as he is concerned, by a new convention.

     The ratifications to be exchanged at Paris within forty days.

     Done at Paris, 26th Messidor, year IX. of the French
     Republic, July 15th, 1801.

                        H. CARDINAL CONSALVI,
                        J. BONAPARTE,
                        J. ARCHEVEQUE de CORINTHE,
                        FR. CHARLES CASELLI,

Upon its appearance, the new treaty was naturally subjected to
criticism, adverse and favorable. That it meant a decided victory for
the Church over her old enemies was admitted on all sides, and all
hostility to its prescriptions could be reduced to the murmurings of the
Royalists, the émigrés, the Gallicans, the constitutionals and the
various revolutionary parties. By the great mass of the Catholic people
it was hailed as a rainbow of promise after the desolating storms of the
past ten years.

     "According to its first article the Catholic Apostolic and
     Roman religion was to be exercised freely in France; the
     Catholic Church was therefore to be free in her
     organization, free in her preaching and teaching, free in her
     discipline, in her ministers, in her right of acquiring such
     property as would be necessary for the accomplishing of her
     mission. She is no longer as under the old regime, intimately
     allied with the State; she is no longer the Church of the
     State; the separation of the temporal and the spiritual has
     been effected.... But if in return one considers the words of
     the text according to their real value, she is entirely free;
     she need no longer fear trespassing from outside nor a
     supervision that tends only to hinder her action; nor those
     thousand and one interferences which were formerly
     perpetrated by Gallicanism."

The article continues: "Its worship shall be public"--words which
naturally signify the exercise of religious ceremonies not merely within
the walls of the church, but exteriorly also, as in public processions,
carrying the Blessed Viaticum to the sick, and such like. Nor is it
strange that these practices should be permitted in a land where the
Catholic faith is the religion of the great majority of the people, when
in Protestant countries they are carried out solemnly and amid the
veneration of all.

The addition of the words--"in conforming to the regulations of internal
administration (reglements de police) which the Government shall deem
necessary for the public tranquility"--was one of the causes of the
delay in framing the Concordat; it was the clause against which the
First Consul declaimed so violently on the famous afternoon of July
14th, and it has served ever since as the foundation of an anti-liberal

     "In practice it is the mayor who in each commune is charged
     with maintaining public order and tranquility, and, by the
     same title, whenever a mayor considers that a procession or
     any other religious manifestation can occasion trouble and
     disorder upon the public streets, he has the right to
     interdict it. One must confess that in a country like ours
     where the idea of liberty is so limited, it is sometimes a
     means for the protection of the clergy and faithful against
     injuries and outrages. But very often mayors have
     interdicted, and permanently, only Catholic processions,
     while they permit freethinkers to pass through the streets in
     parades that are dangerous to the public. If a mayor acts
     with such partiality, if he cannot support his interdiction
     with some serious reason--like that municipal official who
     would interdict a procession because the white veils of the
     young girls might frighten horses--if a mayor, in a word,
     acts by party spirit, and not in view of the public
     tranquility, he violates the Concordat. True liberty of
     conscience does not take account of the sentimental
     susceptibilities of occasional nervous individuals, nor would
     it impose upon anyone the obligation of dissimulating their
     religious professions or philosophical opinions; on the
     contrary it imposes on men the obligation of tolerating each
     other reciprocally in the peaceful manifestation of their
     beliefs. Hence, independently of the Concordat, is not such
     liberty of conscience demanded for all citizens by the
     Declaration of the Rights of Man?" (Croizil.)

The articles relating to the bishops excited the greatest amount of
dissatisfaction in many quarters. It meant the realization of that idea
which Bonaparte had expressed to Cardinal Martiniana in the year
preceding--the utter abolition of the old hierarchy--and the
substitution of one entirely new and conformable to the order of things
about to be established. Before the Revolution there were in France 136
Episcopal Sees. In the scheme of Bonaparte these were to be reduced to
fifty only, of which ten were to be metropolitan, although later, in
1801, he was pleased to add ten other sees to the number. Commenting
upon this reduction, Cardinal Mathieu observes:

     "Sixty-six cities were thus subjected to a moral and material
     decline from which they have never since rallied. Indeed,
     each of these suppressed Sees was illustrated with memorials
     of apostleship and holiness, with monuments, with religious
     establishments of every kind which gave to the episcopal
     cities an importance superior to that of their population and
     made them so many interesting little capitals, wherein were
     often hidden men of great merit. The dignitaries of the
     secular and regular clergy, some families of impoverished
     gentlemen or well-to-do bourgeois and professional people,
     maintained therein an amiable society which kept up in the
     most secluded provinces the best traditions of the old
     regime--courtesy, a taste for literature and charity for the
     poor. All these little centres of intellectual and moral life
     were blotted out and the Concordat thus only sanctioned the
     destruction effected by the Revolution."

It was mainly because of reflections like these that the old émigré
bishops received the news of these articles with so sad a grace.

The articles which treat of ecclesiastical property and the salaries of
the clergy will prove of interest especially at the present time, when
in the Law of Separation they have been so badly misinterpreted. Article
XII. reveals the fact that the Church was placed in _absolute_
possession of her property. The term "shall be placed at the disposition
of the bishops" signifies the same thing that it did when in 1789 the
property of the Church was confiscated by the then Government and, to
use the terms of that law, _mise a la disposition de la nation_, placed
at the disposition of the nation. There can be little doubt as to how
those words were understood in 1789, for the nation, acting upon the
law, immediately proceeded to the sale of all ecclesiastical property.
The words, therefore, signified that the nation was placed in full and
absolute possession of such property, and the precedent must in all
honor apply equally when the terms are used in favor of the Church. To
say, therefore, that the article gave to the bishops the mere use _ad
revocationem_ of such property is only to betray a desire to excuse a
robbery under the pretext of a misunderstanding. The Concordat thus
acknowledged the Church's absolute possession of her churches and other
religious establishments, a possession which will always remain hers
rightfully, and which she shall defend in her own way against any
attempt at alienation.

In the articles XIII. and XIV. the French Government acknowledges that
even the alienated property, _i. e._, the churches, etc.--which after
the confiscation of 1789 were sold, were even in 1801 the rightful
property of the Church; though, nevertheless, the Church, for the sake
of peace, therein agrees to waive her right. In so doing, however, she
requires as a condition that the State shall compensate her for the
same. This compensation is expressed in article XIV., wherein it is
declared that the State shall assure a suitable salary to the clergy. In
accordance with this disposition it follows that whenever--as at
present--the Concordat should be abolished the Church should revert to
her natural rights the compensation for alienated property being
discontinued, such property or its value should be restored to the
Church. In this matter the present Government of France has shown itself
not merely unfair but actuated also by a spirit of robbery.

The Concordat finished, Cardinal Consalvi began his preparations for
returning to Rome. He arrived in the Eternal City on August 6th. He had,
however, been preceded by a messenger bearing the precious document, who
arrived at the Vatican on July 25th. The instrument was immediately
subjected to the examination of a commission of cardinals, and only
after long and heated discussions was it finally accepted by the Holy
See. It was signed by the Pope on August 15th, 1801.

In accordance with the prescriptions of the Concordat the Holy Father
began at once the execution of that article which required the
resignation of the various sees by their actual or rightful incumbents.
The brief dispatched by the Pope to all the bishops of France, whether
resident in that country or living in foreign lands, necessitated that
an answer be received within ten days. Fourteen prelates residing in
London declared, on September 27th, that they could not consent for the
present to his demands, at least without having been heard. Twenty-six
bishops residing in Germany answered in the same terms on October 28th.
On January 21st the bishops who had taken refuge in England addressed to
the Holy Father a new refusal protesting "against the attempts which had
been made or which might be made against the rights of the Most
Christian King, their Sovereign Lord, rights which the laws of the
Church commanded the first among the Pontiffs to respect religiously,
and the defence of which was for the French bishops a duty rendered
sacred by their oaths of fidelity from which no power could release
them, and whose violation would be a criminal act." Some hesitation was
likewise manifested by the constitutional bishops resident in France, a
hesitation, however, which under the tactful management of Cardinal
Caprara, the new Legate a Latere at Paris, was finally overcome.

The Holy Father, after waiting patiently for several months for a
favorable answer to his demands, resolved at length to act
notwithstanding all protestations. In the Bull, _Qui Christi Domini_, he
declared that he derogated to the consent of the bishops who had refused
to sign their resignation, he interdicted in them every act of
jurisdiction, he abolished the old dioceses existing in France, and
erected sixty new sees in their place.

In the meanwhile the Concordat had been signed by Bonaparte, on
September 10th, 1801. It yet, however, required the ratification of the
governmental bodies before becoming law. Though signed on July 15th,
1801, it was not until April of the following year that this desired
consummation was effected. It was finally ratified on April 8th, by the
Corps Legislatif. The reason for the delay became apparent upon this
occasion, for then there appeared in conjunction with the Concordat, and
as if forming a part of it, a series of laws entitled _Organic
Articles_, which had been elaborated during those nine months without
the knowledge of the Pope, just as their publication was now effected
without his cognizance. The purport of these latter articles was to
destroy or contradict in great part the concessions granted by the
Concordat. Rome has never ceased to protest against them, and to demand
their abrogation or modification. In 1804 she seemed to have succeeded,
deceived by the promises of Napoleon at a moment when he desired the aid
of the Holy Father at the ceremonial of his coronation; in 1817, when a
new Concordat was attempted, the partial abrogation of these Articles
was one of the stipulations; their suppression was again proposed in
1848; and again in 1853. They remained, however, in spite of every
effort, a constant obstacle to the fulfilment of the concessions of the
Concordat and a source of perpetual trouble to the Church in France.


     Organic Articles of the Convention of the 26 Messidor, Year

     Article 1. No bull, brief, rescript, decree, mandate,
     provision, signature serving for provision, nor other
     documents expedited by the Court of Rome, even though they
     concern private individuals can be received, printed, or
     otherwise put in force without the authorization of the

     Article 2. No individual styling himself a nuncio, legate,
     vicar, or commissary Apostolic, or who makes use of any other
     determining title can, without the same authorization,
     exercise upon French soil, or elsewhere, any function
     relative to the affairs of the Gallican church.

     Article 3. The decrees of the foreign synods, even those of
     the general councils, cannot be published in France before
     the Government has examined their form, their conformity with
     the laws, rights and privileges of the French Republic, and
     all that which in their publication could alter or interfere
     with the public tranquility.

     Article 4. No council, national or metropolitan, no diocesan
     synod, no deliberative assembly, shall be held without the
     express permission of the Government.

     Article 5. All ecclesiastical functions shall be gratuitous,
     except the offerings which will be authorized and fixed by
     the regulations.

     Article 6. Recourse to the Council of State shall be had in
     every case of abuse on the part of superiors and other
     ecclesiastical persons.

     The cases of abuse are as follows: Usurpation or excess of
     power, contravention of the laws and regulations of the
     Republic; violation of the rules which are consecrated by the
     Canons received in France; any attack on the liberties,
     privileges, and customs of the French church; and every
     undertaking or proceeding which, in the exercise of worship,
     might compromise the honor of citizens, trouble their
     consciences unnecessarily, or which might degenerate into a
     source of oppression or injury to them, or become a public

     Article 7. Recourse to the Council of States shall also be
     permitted whenever an attack is made upon the public
     exercise of worship, and the liberty which the laws and
     regulations guarantee to its ministers.

     Article 8. This recourse is the privilege of all persons
     interested. In default of a particular complaint, this duty
     will devolve upon the prefects. Public functionaries,
     ecclesiastics or other persons who wish to make use of this
     appeal, will address a memorial, detailed and signed, to the
     counsellor of State charged with all matters concerning
     religion, whose duty it will be to obtain, in the shortest
     time possible, all proper information, and upon his report
     the affair will be taken up and finished in the
     administrative form, or sent, as the case may demand, to the
     competent authorities.

     Article 11. The archbishops and bishops may, with the
     authorization of the Government, establish in their dioceses
     cathedral chapters and seminaries. All other ecclesiastical
     establishments are suppressed.

     Article 12. Bishops shall be permitted to add to their names
     the title of Citizen or that of Monsieur. All other
     qualifications are interdicted.

     Article 16. No one may be nominated to bishopric who has not
     attained the age of thirty years, or who is not of French

     Article 18. The priest nominated by the First Consul shall
     make haste to obtain institution from the Pope.

     He cannot exercise any function before the bull containing
     such institution has received the seal of the Government, and
     before he has taken personally the oath prescribed by the
     convention made between the French Government and the Holy
     See. This oath shall be taken before the First Consul: a
     formal attestation of the same shall be drawn up by the
     Secretary of State.

     Article 19. The bishops shall name and install the pastors;
     nevertheless they shall not publish their nomination nor give
     canonical institution until that nomination has been approved
     by the First Consul.

     Article 23. The bishops shall be charged with the
     organization of their seminaries, and the regulation of that
     organization shall be submitted to the approbation of the
     First Consul.

     Article 24. Those who shall be chosen to teach in the
     seminaries shall subscribe to the declaration made by the
     clergy of France in 1682 and published by an edict of the
     same year; they will be obliged to teach the doctrine therein
     contained; and the bishops shall address a formal attestation
     of such submission to the counsellor of State charged with
     all matters concerning religious worship.

     The bishops will ordain no persons whose names have not been
     submitted to the Government and approved by it.

     Article 27. Pastors may not enter upon their functions before
     they have taken in the hands of the prefect the oath
     prescribed by the convention made between the Government and
     the Holy See. A formal attestation of this act shall be drawn
     up by the secretary general of the prefecture, and they shall
     receive a copy of the same.

     Article 32. No foreigner can be employed in the functions of
     the ecclesiastical ministry without the permission of the

     Article 39. There shall be but one liturgy and one catechism
     for all the Catholic churches of France.

     Article 40. No pastor may order extraordinary public prayers
     in his parish without the special permission of the bishop.

     Article 41. No feast, with the exception of Sunday, may be
     established without the permission of the Government.

     Article 45. No religious ceremony shall be held outside the
     edifices consecrated to Catholic worship in such cities as
     contain temples destined for a different worship.

     Article 53. They shall not in their powers make any
     publication foreign to religious worship, unless they be
     authorized to do so by the Government.

     Article 54. They shall not bestow the nuptial blessing except
     on such as can prove in good and due form that they have
     already contracted their marriage before a civil official.

     Article 56. In all ecclesiastical and religious documents it
     will be required to observe the equinoctial calendar
     established by the laws of the Republic; the days shall be
     designated by the names they hold in that calendar.

     Article 64. The salary of an archbishop shall be 15,000

     Article 65. The salary of bishops shall be 10,000 francs.

     Article 66. Pastors shall be distributed into two classes.
     The salary of pastors of the first class shall be 1,500
     francs; that of pastors of the second class shall be 1,000

     Article 67. The pensions which they receive, in execution of
     the laws of the Constituent Assembly, shall be counted as a
     part of their salary. The councils general of the large
     communes can, out of their landed property or from the taxes,
     accord an augmentation of salary if the circumstances require

     Article 68. Curates and assistants shall be chosen from
     ecclesiastics pensioned in execution of the laws of the
     Constituent Assembly. The sum of these pensions and the
     product of offerings made to them shall constitute their

     Article 69. The bishops shall draw up a list of rules
     relative to the offerings which ministers of worship are
     authorized to receive for the administration of the
     sacraments. These rules drawn up by the bishops may not be
     put in force without having been approved by the Government.

     Article 70. Every ecclesiastic who receives a pension from
     the State shall be deprived of such pension if he refuses to
     perform the functions which shall be confided to him.

     Article 71. The councils general of the department are
     authorized to provide a suitable residence for the
     archbishops and bishops.

     Article 72. The presbyteries and the gardens thereto
     pertaining shall, if they are not alienated, be turned over
     to the pastors or to the assistants in charge of the same
     missions. In default of such presbyteries the councils
     general are authorized to provide them with a suitable
     residence and garden.

     Article 73. The foundations which have for their object the
     maintenance of ministers and the exercise of worship can only
     consist of rentals constituted in the State; they shall be
     accepted by the diocesan bishop, and cannot be executed
     except with the authorization of the Government.

     Article 74. The immovable property, other than edifices
     destined for residence and the gardens pertaining, cannot be
     affected to ecclesiastical titles, nor possessed by ministers
     of worship by reason of their functions.

     Article 75. The edifices formerly destined for Catholic
     worship, actually in the hands of the nation, shall be placed
     at the disposition of the bishops by a written order of the
     prefect of the department. A copy of this order shall be
     addressed to the counsellor of State charged with all matters
     concerning religious worship.


The Concordat signed and ratified Catholic France settled down to the
enjoyment of comparative peace and security. It was, however, only the
security which follows the ravages of disease, the peace of
convalescence, full of weariness, languor and exhaustion. The fifty
bishops installed by the new decrees could not help a feeling of
discouragement as they viewed the situation. The Church, it is true, was
brought back to a position of honor and importance in the nation; but it
was, at the same time, weighed down by the heavy burdens of Gallicanism
and Caesarism; the former severing the ties that bound it to the head
and centre of Christianity, the Holy Father; the latter making it
subservient to the whims and fancies of a ruler, human at most and
liable through the schemes of politics to be hostile and intolerant. The
former was suited to the imperialistic ambitions of Bonaparte, who had
already begun to dream of the glories of the old regime; the latter was
couched in the fraudulent laws of the Organic Articles; the former was
to lose its force before the lapse of half a century; the latter was to
last as long as the Concordat itself.

Thus it was that the outlook at the beginning of the century was little
favorable to the just execution of the Concordat. With all
correspondence with Rome interdicted save under civil surveillance,
deprived of the right of assemblage, and bound by slavish ties to a
State official who alone could administer, reward, punish, teach, or
cause to teach, according to his own pleasure, all true liberty seemed
to have vanished as completely as during the dark times of the
Revolution. With churches, schools and colleges under the direction of
politicians, the right of ecclesiastical censure denied, and the number
of aspirants to the priesthood limited, the religious society of France
had become little more than an annex to the State, inferior in
importance and subordinate to it in all things. The religious
congregations were dispersed, the missionaries were forbidden to
exercise their zeal, and for the thirty millions of Catholics in the
country there were only eight thousand priests of whom fully two
thousand bore the taint of the constitutional oath.

The bishops themselves were for the most part victims of the
revolutionary tempest. Some of them had come forth from prison or from
the foot of the scaffold whereon they had seen their fathers, brothers
and friends brutally butchered by frenzied mobs. Others had come back
from an exile wherein they had guarded religiously the dear image of the
French Church and the hope of her speedy restoration. "But it was the
Church they had seen flourishing under the shadow of a kingly sceptre,
the Gallican Church with its gaudy livery and its royal servitude
decorated with the names of privilege and liberty. Accustomed to receive
favors from the hand of power, it was easy for them to transfer their
adulatory homage from the thrones of Louis XIV. and Louis XVI. to the
boots and spurs of him who, after all, had just opened to them the gates
of their country and filled his native land with glory."


It is not wonderful, therefore, that the will of the Conqueror should
remain uppermost in all church affairs during the course of the
Consulate, when only a few courageous and noble souls dared to stand
forth in the defence of ecclesiastical rights and liberties. The
Consulate was termed the _Lune-de-miel_, the honeymoon, in this new
union of Church and State; but its joys, such as they were, were to feel
ere long the bitterness entailed by the unreasoning and imperious
exactions of an overbearing consort.

The soldier who had risen to the command of armies had been honored with
the title of First Consul; his head, yet uncrowned, was restless till it
should feel upon it the emblem of royalty. It was his ambition to be
called, and to be like Charlemagne, an emperor; he desired that the
consecrating oils in the great ceremony should be conferred by no less a
personage than the Holy Father himself, and he wished that the Pope
should perform this ceremony at Paris. The venerable Pontiff, when
apprised of this new demand of Bonaparte, was at a loss how to respond.
He looked for counsel to his most prudent friends, and above all to the
great Giver of light, and then weighing in the balance the great harm he
knew must come from a formal refusal, and the immense benefits he felt
must accrue to the Church from so slight a sacrifice, he determined,
leaving the issue to Divine Providence, to gratify this wish of the
General. He did not do so, however, before renewing his protest against
the obnoxious Organic Articles, and obtaining from Bonaparte a promise
of their speedy revokal.

In compliance with these resolves, the Holy Father set out from Rome on
November 2, 1804, and after a journey of nearly a month's duration,
through provinces once hostile, but now enthusiastic in their greetings,
he reached Fontainebleau on Sunday, November 25th. Here he was met by
Bonaparte who displayed at first an apparent desire to shower every
honor upon his illustrious guest. Yet even this short stay near Paris
was marked by the same evidences of fickleness and selfishness on the
part of the First Consul, as were shown in his every relation with the
Holy See. At one time it would seem as if nothing were too good for the
aged Pontiff, and the Consul, to demonstrate this conviction, would
display the most utter obsequiousness to his spiritual superior; an hour
afterwards the Holy Father was made to feel most keenly the sense of
humiliating dependence upon his tormentor. Yet the spirit of the martyr
bore up bravely through storm and sunshine. He met the delegation sent
to him from the French Senate with a calm undisturbed serenity that drew
expressions of admiration from men hostile to the very name of religion;
he forebore any words of reproach against the unwarranted demands of
Bonaparte. There were, however, some things upon which he insisted
strongly, and without which he would refuse, even on the eve of the
great day, to be present at the coronation. There were among the French
bishops men who had signed the Civil Constitution during the Revolution
in defiance of ecclesiastical warnings to the contrary. Still
unrepentant, they hoped under the protection of Bonaparte to continue in
the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction without yielding proper
submission to the Holy See. To compel them to this latter course was the
determined policy of Pius VII. though the constitutional bishops found a
ready ally in the First Consul himself. The latter at first endeavored
to gloss over the objections of the Pope, hoping that in the excitement
of the day the coronation ceremony might take place before any action
would be taken in regard to the obnoxious bishops. But Pius VII. was far
too vigilant to become a victim to this deception. The aged Pontiff
demanded the act of submission as a necessary condition before the great
ceremony should proceed, and Bonaparte, tacitly acknowledging his
defeat, yielded. The constitutional bishops at his command repaired to
the presence of the Holy Father and complied fully with his wishes.

On the evening of December 1st, the Holy Father learned for the first
time that the new Emperor had never contracted an ecclesiastically legal
marriage with Josephine, his reputed wife. Despite the fact that all
preparations for the great ceremony had been completed, the Pope sent
word to Napoleon that he should refuse to take part in the coronation on
the morrow unless the Emperor and Josephine should contract their
marriage vows that very night in the presence of a duly authorized
priest of the Church. Again the Emperor, fretful and impatient as he
was, yielded to the demands of the Pope, and the marriage ceremony was
performed at midnight in the chapel of the Tuileries in the presence of
Cardinal Fesch, uncle to Napoleon. The following day, December 2nd, the
Conqueror of Europe, the great Dictator of France, realized the dream of
his lifetime. The solemn ceremony of his consecration and coronation as
Emperor of the French took place in the great cathedral of Notre Dame in
the midst of all the splendor which the united resources of Church and
State could afford. The ceremony began shortly after ten o'clock, when
Napoleon, proceeding with Josephine to the foot of the altar, in the
presence of the Holy Father made the solemn promise that he would
maintain peace in the Church of God. The two candidates for royalty
knelt upon cushions and received from His Holiness the oils and imperial
consecration. Napoleon then ascended the altar, and taking the crown
into his own hands placed it upon his head, after which he took up the
smaller crown of the Empress and bearing it to Josephine crowned her.
She received the diadem kneeling. The ceremony was concluded with the
_Te Deum_.

Pius VII. returned to Rome after what was to him a humiliating and
exacting journey. Indeed he could congratulate himself that he had at
all escaped perpetual exile at Paris. Before he had left that city, the
new Emperor, flushed with his recent glories, conceived the plan of
retaining the Pope at Paris. The latter, however, had prepared himself
for the demand and could answer courageously, that if they were to use
force they would have at Paris only a poor monk called Barnabas
Chiaramonti. Before he had left Rome he had arranged that in such an
emergency a new Pope would be immediately elected.


Even at the entrance of the Eternal City, new complications met to annoy
and confuse him, which, however, he settled with his usual diplomatic
firmness and condescension. The affair of Prince Jerome was just then
attracting attention. The latter, a lad of nineteen, and brother of the
Emperor, had married while in America, December 24, 1803, a certain Miss
Patterson, a descendant of one of Maryland's best families. The ceremony
was performed by Archbishop Carroll, and was valid in the eyes of the
Church. Upon his returning to France with his young bride he was met by
the anger of his imperial brother, who as soon as possible wrote to Pope
Pius VII.: "I have several times spoken to Your Holiness about a
brother, nineteen years old, whom I sent on a frigate to America, and
who after a month's stay, married in Baltimore--although a minor--a
Protestant daughter of an American merchant. He has just returned; he
feels the extent of his fault. I have sent back Miss Patterson, his
alleged wife, to America. According to our laws the marriage is null. A
Spanish priest so far forgot his duty as to give the nuptial blessing."
Napoleon then proceeds to request the Pope to declare the marriage
invalid, giving as his principal reasons: That the lady was a
Protestant; that Jerome was yet a minor according to French law; that
the Gallican Church of France held it invalid, and that the marriage was
clandestine and null according to the Council of Trent. To all these
objections the Holy Father answered that the marriage was entirely
valid, that it was not subject to the Council of Trent, the decrees of
which had not been published in America, and that it was not in his
power to annul the same unless stronger reasons were brought forward to
warrant such action. To this determination the Pope adhered
unflinchingly, despite the threats and revengeful actions of Napoleon.
Even later, in 1807, when Jerome was married to a princess of
Wurtemburg, the Holy Father, far from consenting, renewed his
declaration as to the validity of the first marriage.

Napoleon, now at the summit of his political and military career, looked
forward to still other conquests. He had crowned himself Emperor of the
French at Paris; he received another crown at Milan, making him king of
Italy. Then came Austerlitz and Jena and Eylau to humiliate Austria and
Prussia and Russia. He became a king-maker by placing his brothers upon
the thrones of Naples, Holland and Westphalia. The battle of Wagram,
1809, brought Austria to the feet of the Emperor, who demanded in
marriage the hand of the Austrian Emperor's daughter, the Princess Maria
Louisa. Josephine, her claims long vanished, was divorced from Napoleon
upon the plea of State necessity. An emperor to be an emperor indeed,
must be able to look upon the children who shall carry his great name to
posterity. The marriage of Josephine and Napoleon had been fruitless in
this regard; reasons of State, therefore, demanded, according to
Napoleon, that a dissolution should take place, and that a new empress
be called to the throne. This reasoning of Napoleon was accepted by
Europe; only the Holy Father withheld his approbation and assent.
Josephine was divorced and the Emperor remarried to Maria Louisa. It was
on this occasion that the terms were coined in the ecclesiastical world
"the red and the black cardinals," at the great ceremony which was
performed by Cardinal Fesch in the Tuileries, April 2, 1810. Of the
twenty-nine cardinals then in Paris, thirteen, including Consalvi,
refused to honor the occasion with their presence. This mark of
disapprobation was punished by the Emperor who besides depriving them of
their salaries forbade them to wear the colors or insignia of their
cardinalatial rank. Hence their designation as the black cardinals.
These two divorces betray sufficiently the shallow honor of Napoleon in
dealing with the Church, a quality which other events of this period
brought more into evidence.

The vainglorious assumptions of the Emperor knew no bounds. Petted and
flattered where he was not feared, he often smiled as he heard himself
compared with Alexander, Caesar, or Charlemagne. He designed as a means
of greater glory the complete solidification of his empire under his own
supreme control. Only one obstacle lay in the way of his colossal
ambition. He chafed at the thought that there was yet in Italy one
little state which would hold out against his pretensions; and then,
hurried on by the lust of power, and blinded by prosperity, this
pretended successor of Charlemagne proceeded against the Pope. Again the
aged Pontiff remonstrated. He reminded Napoleon of his former injustice
in the matter of the Organic Articles; he reproached him for the
injurious dispositions of the Civil Code which he had introduced into
France, especially the law granting divorce, the tendency of which laws
was to render the discipline of the Church almost null; and now in the
face of this new danger, the projected subjugation of the States of the
Church, he reminded the Emperor of the judgments that the Almighty must
send upon those who disregard His Divine ordinances. The words of the
Pope, instead of moderating the intentions of Napoleon, served only to
fill him with violent anger. He determined thenceforth to cast aside all
promptings of conscience and to take immediate steps for the complete
subjugation of Rome. Benevento and Ponte Corvo at once fell into his
hands; his troops took possession of Ancona and all cities on the
Adriatic coast; Rome itself was invaded; the Papal militia was
incorporated with the French; the Pope was deprived of every official
necessary for the direction of ecclesiastical affairs, and surrounded by
a guard in his own palace of the Quirinal.


For these outrages the Holy Father addressed Napoleon: "By the bowels of
the mercy of our God we exhort, we pray, we conjure you, Emperor and
King Napoleon, to change your designs, to clothe yourself again with
those sentiments which you manifested at the beginning of your reign.
Remember that there is a God and King above you; remember, and always
keep before your mind, that you will see very soon and in a terrible
manner how those who command others shall by Him be judged with the
utmost rigor." The holy Pontiff then published in the face of Europe a
solemn protest against the unjust pretensions of Napoleon.

In a frenzy of rage the Emperor made answer to this complaint from the
French camp at Schoenbrunn by declaring Rome an imperial and free city.
On June 10, 1809, the pontifical standard was taken down from Castle San
Angelo and the tri-color hoisted in its place. The same day Pius VII.
and Cardinal Pacca, hearing of the event, exclaimed sorrowfully, in the
words of the dying Savior: "Consummatum est." The Pope had long felt the
necessity of excommunicating his enemies, but had forborne up to this
time in the hope that the Emperor might display some spirit of
repentance. As soon as he perceived that such hope was groundless, he
only needed this crowning act of sacrilege to close the doors of his
heart, and to proceed to make use of the spiritual arms of the Church.
That same night the venerable Pontiff signed the Bull of Excommunication
against Napoleon and all concerned in this spoliation. A courageous man
was found who, before the morning, affixed this Bull to the doors of the
principal churches of Rome. It was of course torn down as soon as
discovered and carried to Napoleon, who was then in camp at Vienna.

Two years before, in July, 1807, the Emperor had asked scornfully: "What
does the Pope mean by the threat of excommunicating me? Does he suppose
that the arms will fall from the hands of my soldiers?" It was but a
few years later when the arms did actually fall from the hands of his
soldiers in the great retreat from Moscow when famine and cold tore them
from their grasp.


The Emperor now determined to proceed against the person of the Pope.
General Radet was commissioned to arrest the Holy Father and Cardinal
Pacca and to conduct them immediately away from Rome. The story of that
arrest and the indignities heaped upon the aged Pontiff during his
journey could not well be told in a few pages. We will then make it
suffice to narrate only the salient facts.

At six o'clock on the morning of July 6, 1809, the French troops burst
into the palace of the Quirinal. Radet, after a very few words of
explanation, seized the Holy Father, and hurried him, with his faithful
Cardinal Pacca, into a dingy carriage which was waiting in readiness.
The Pope was absolutely without proper provision of clothing or money.
There was no leave-taking, no words of consolation from his faithful
subjects, but as a criminal is dragged away to punishment, so was Pius
VII. carried out of Rome, across the Campagna to the north, until he
reached the place of his captivity at Savona. Here he remained for three
years, always under restraint and closely guarded.


In the meantime the imperial jailer made use of every expedient to break
down the firm will of his august prisoner. It was shortly after the
marriage of Napoleon and Maria Louisa that the Emperor, acting upon the
advice of the Austrian Prince Metternich, sent the Ritter von
Lebzeltern, envoy of Austria to the Holy See, to attempt a mediation. In
this meeting the Emperor proposed that the Pope should take up his
residence at Avignon, while retaining his title to the temporal
sovereignty; if he wished to reside in Rome, he must resign the temporal
sovereignty, though permitted in such case to keep up the outward forms
of Papal independence such as receiving and sending ambassadors and
envoys. He declared at the same time through Lebzeltern, that he had no
need of reconciliation with the Pope; that his bishops had the necessary
powers for the granting of matrimonial dispensations, that the _Code
Napoleon_ authorized civil marriage, and that in the prime difficulty of
all, the institution of bishops, he could set aside the action of the
Pope and make use of a national council. The answer of Pius VII. was
firm and uncompromising. He rejected the proposal of resigning his
temporal power, he demanded free communication with his bishops and the
faithful. He dismissed Lebzeltern without any concessions whatever,
leaving the case exactly as it stood before that envoy's visit.

The anger of the Emperor upon learning the mind of the Pope did not
prevent him from making another attempt at reconciliation. This time he
sent two of the red cardinals, Spina and Caselli, formerly the Papal
negotiators for the Concordat, who met with no greater success. Napoleon
now determined to take the reins of ecclesiastical government into his
own hands. He began this course by appointing Cardinal Maury, the Bishop
of Montefiascone, to the post of Archbishop of Paris. The measure met
with instant condemnation, especially from Pope Pius VII. who, writing
to the Cardinal, reproached him for betraying the Church: "You are not
ashamed," he said, "of taking part against Us in a contest which we only
carry on to defend the dignity of the Church." To these remonstrances of
the Holy Father the unhappy Cardinal paid no heed. For daring to thus
utter his condemnation of the Emperor's conduct and Maury's treachery,
Napoleon determined to punish the Pope. The apartments of the Holy
Father were broken into by imperial orders, all writing materials were
taken away, his books, even his breviary, were forbidden him, his
servants were sent away to Fenestrelle, his household expenses were cut
down (five _pauli_, about fifty cents a day for each person being
allowed for the maintenance of his household), the carriages he had used
were sent to Turin, and even the fisherman's ring was demanded and sent
to Paris. Before this was done, however, the Pope broke the ring in two.

Napoleon now began to seek precedents in history for the deposing of the
Pope. Not succeeding in this he began a systematic persecution of
priests and laymen suspected of too ardent piety, hoping thus to render
devotion to the exiled Pope odious. Chafing at the ill success of all
these subversive measures Napoleon determined upon a final scheme. He
recalled the independence of the Russian czar in matters of Greek Church
discipline; he reflected that George III. was undisturbed by any show of
independence on the part of the English hierarchy. Why, therefore,
should not Napoleon, the conqueror of Europe, make to himself a new
schism, a new hierarchy, institute his own bishops, and be free from the
troublesome superintendence of the Pope? The idea was inviting, and the
Emperor immediately took steps towards its accomplishment. A great
council was called at Paris. Its permanent presiding officer was
Cardinal Fesch, the uncle of the Emperor, and it numbered among its
deliberators one hundred and four French and Italian bishops. Like other
councils it discussed matters of universal importance, but its chief
debates concerned the canonical institution of the French hierarchy. In
this matter the council decided that no bishop might be considered
legitimate who had not obtained his canonical institution from the
great Father of the faithful. Yet that the council might not displease
the Emperor it was decided that a deputation of bishops be sent to
Savona to again beg the Holy Father to institute the candidates
proposed. Again the Pope renewed his refusal, though, for the sake of
peace, he agreed that if the sovereign Pontiff should delay such
institution for six months, it might then be granted by the metropolitan
or senior bishop. This was merely a delegation of power, not a cession,
and was granted only for the emergency of the time being.

The Council of Paris was, taken collectively, null, inasmuch as it was
convoked and carried on without the requisite conditions. Its decrees
were, therefore, without any binding force. In fact, even the Emperor
himself recognized this and was only too happy to find a pretext for its


Napoleon now perceived that if he was to gain anything over the will of
the Pope he must contrive to have his illustrious prisoner nearer to his
own person. Under the pretext, therefore, that the English ships were
hovering about Savona to liberate the Pope, the Emperor shortly after
the termination of the Council of Paris, caused the Holy Father to be
removed secretly to the palace of Fontainebleau. (June 16, 1812).

The conduct of the Emperor during the stay at Fontainebleau was in
keeping with his past behavior. Under a specious display of ceremonial
reverence towards Pius VII. he concealed a course of cruel treatment
unworthy of a man, much less of a sovereign. It is true, the palace of
Fontainebleau was not wanting in regal magnificence, that the table of
the Pope was all that might be desired, and that the servants who
surrounded him showed due respect for their spiritual ruler. At the
same time the Emperor himself acted the part of a bully and braggart
towards a weak and feeble old man. An insulting tone of voice ever
accompanied the most insulting demands, until the Pontiff worn out and
half delirious with agony was made to yield to the most unwarrantable
demands. Thus it was that upon the bed of sickness the Holy Father was
finally led to apply his signature to a Concordat which, in a state of
health, he would have repudiated in the most decided terms. It must be
remembered, however, that this yielding was not in an affair of faith
and morals, nor did it concern the Universal Church; it was a cession
for the time being of temporal rights, not even a final session, but one
made temporarily in the interests of peace, and as such did not affect
the Papal position as the teacher and ruler of all the faithful. The
Emperor, in his joy at this apparent victory, began at once to show
unwonted kindness towards the Pope, and as a sign of his good will,
permitted the old cardinals, the faithful black cardinals, to return
from prison and exile to comfort him in his captivity. This concession
proved unfortunate for Napoleon, for scarcely had they gained access to
the Sovereign Pontiff than they began to represent to him the immense
importance of the Concordat which he had signed. It was represented as a
renunciation of all those inalienable rights which belonged to him, not
personally, but as the Sovereign Ruler of the Roman States, a most
humiliating concession after all he had hitherto borne in their defence.
The Holy Father in deep sorrow protested that the document was not
definitive, but merely a preliminary statement, which should be
reconsidered before publication, so that the Concordat of that year was
really without Pontifical authority. Thereupon, he made known to
Napoleon his objections, retracted everything contained in the
Concordat, rendering it thereby null. This decision of the Sovereign
Pontiff only rendered the Emperor all the more furious, and incited him
to renew the discomforts of his prisoner. His cardinal advisers were
again sent into exile or to prison, while he commanded that the
Concordat of 1813 should be everywhere executed without further delay.


But the hour had already sounded for the total ruin of the tyrant. He
who had trodden Europe under foot, now discovered Europe armed to meet
him. With Germany consumed by a superhuman resolve to be free; with his
old generals weary of fighting and struggling for the glory of a single
man; with even his own relative, Murat, a partial traitor; with
murmurings and threats resounding on all sides, Napoleon was not slow to
perceive that his fortunes were in a precarious state. The year went by
and battles were fought; some gained, some lost. The great campaign
against Russia, with its consequent humiliating retreat had given the
signal. The great Conqueror, who had once claimed a kind of sovereignty
over a large part of Europe, now found France hardly able to uphold his
imperial authority. In his desire to repair some of the wrongs he had
perpetrated he liberated the Holy Father, in the beginning of the year
1814. But the repentance came too late. Already the enemy stood before
the gates of Paris, and Napoleon learned that the day of his imperial
domination was at an end. In his despair he fled to Fontainebleau, and
there, in the very same chamber wherein he had confined his spiritual
superior, he signed the articles of his abdication (April 6, 1814). His
fate was soon sealed by those triumphant powers against which he had so
long contended, and he retired a humbler man to his place of exile upon
the island of Elba.

[Illustration: RETURN OF PIUS VII.]

Meanwhile Pius VII., who was by this time far on his way to Rome, was
waiting at Imola for the final ending of the great tragedy which was
taking place in France, and hearing of the downfall of his old-time foe,
he hurried on with all dispatch to Rome. He arrived there on May 24,
1814, and made a solemn entrance into the Eternal City, whence five
years before, he had been dragged away with so much violence. The joy
and enthusiasm of the people, augmented by the memories of recent
usurpation and tyranny, were unbounded. It was not alone that Rome had
regained her sovereign but the Church also had again her beloved head,
and all the Catholic world took part in the triumph of Religion over the
unbridled ambition of her enemies.

It is true the storm had not entirely subsided. Napoleon again broke
forth from captivity, and the Holy See for a moment trembled lest new
outrages might yet be perpetrated against the Church. But before the
danger could have been brought to its accomplishment, the newly arisen
Napoleon was again overthrown at Waterloo, June 18, 1815, after which he
was exiled beyond all hope of return, to the lonely island of St.
Helena, where he died on May 5, 1821, after six years of penance.

Peace now settled upon the troubled Church. Religion once more dried the
tears of sorrow, and the Pope, restored to the love of his faithful
people, began to give his attention to arts nobler than that of war; the
raising up of Catholic peoples in the knowledge of that God, Who, after
purging them in the land of bondage, had overwhelmed their enemies and
brought them to newer and richer prospects in the land of promise.


[Footnote 1: _Memoires of King Joseph._]


Anti-Christianism In Rome.


Pius VII. re-entered his capital May 24, 1814. In the meantime the
princes of Europe had remade the map of Europe; but in spite of all
hopes of permanent peace, their efforts only served to sow more widely
the seeds of trouble and revolution. The Congress of Vienna, in session
from November 1, 1814, to June 9, 1815, was, through the triumph it
accorded to Protestantism, a triumph for the Revolution. That coalition
was termed the Holy Alliance. Never was appellation more misleading, for
the work of those princes only compromised the interests of religion,
and put back for generations the empire of peace. Religious indifference
had become the first article of the international code and the first
requisite in the profession of diplomacy.

Pius VII. found the Eternal City despoiled of its artistic treasures,
and he hastened to supply the deficiency made by Napoleon. He set to
work to reorganize his kingdom. He replenished the impoverished
treasury; he published civil, commercial, penal and legal codes, and
regulated the taxes, re-established the Society of Jesus, and entered
into Concordats with Bavaria, France, Sicily, Piedmont, Russia and
Austria. Comparative peace settled upon his domains so that when he
closed his eyes in death on August 20, 1823, the fortunes of the Papacy
in Italy were apparently secure.

Nevertheless, even in his day, the storm was already rumbling and the
first threats were heard of that war which was later to wrest the
temporal power from the hands of his successor, Pius IX. In the forests
of Italy, in the fastnesses of the Abruzzi, among the woods of Calabria,
in the mountains of Sicily and in the caves and valleys of the
Appenines, a new spirit was in the mold taking shape.


The Freemasons, silenced after the defeat of Napoleon, took a new form
in the notorious Carbonari, a secret society whose branches were
spreading throughout every part of the peninsula. They were called
Carbonari, which signifies charcoal-burners, because they held their
assemblies in places called Vendite or places for selling coal. Their
object was the overthrow of all organized government both in Church and
State, and they swore their oaths with the most bloody promises under
the most revolting penalties. Like all secret societies they had many
degrees, their lowest being formed of young unsuspecting candidates, who
were lured into the horrors of the higher grades by professions of
loyalty to religion and the promise of quick and certain wealth.

The younger portion of Italy, quickly caught by the bait, was bound by
oaths the infraction of which meant death, and finally led on to
associations in which revolution and plunder formed the means and end.
Pope Pius VII. issued an Encyclical directed against their insidious and
dangerous doctrines, which was followed by another from Pope Leo XII.
Both documents were enforced throughout the Papal States, and effected
some little relief; but the disease had gained too great a headway,
and even in secret continued to make its progress felt in various
centres of the country.

[Illustration: POPE LEO XII.]

The efforts of the secret societies in Italy became more pronounced
during the pontificate of Pope Gregory XVI., when the Carbonari were
united with a new association, the Young Italy of Mazzini.


Joseph Mazzini, born at Genoa in 1810, began to express his
revolutionary doctrines in 1830, in the _Genoese Indicator_, and in the
_Leghorn Indicator_. He was arrested and expelled from Genoa, whence he
fled to Marseilles. There he met with three Piedmontese: Bianchi, Santi,
and Rimini. These three conspirators furnished him with the idea of a
new branch of secret societies, which they called Young Italy. To this
nascent association Mazzini gave the motto "For God and the People,"
giving it to be understood that between God and the people there was to
be no intermediary, neither political nor religious.

In accord with the Carbonari in making war upon Catholicism, and
inspired by their title, they refused admission into their society to
anyone over forty years of age. At first the unity of the peninsula was
their apparent end, to which they added hatred of ecclesiastical
government, and made the dagger and revolution the means for attaining
those purposes.

The Republic appeared to them the only possible mode of government.
Nevertheless that preference was not so exclusive but that they could
consent to a monarchy as they actually did when they promised to Charles
Felix, in 1831, that they would not molest a monarch who would agree to
be a protege of the revolution and of the lodges.

[Illustration: POPE PIUS VIII.]

Exiled to Marseilles, in 1831, Mazzini passed on into Switzerland, where
he made disciples of some Polish and German exiles. Thence he went to
England, whence he directed the expedition in Savoie. Among the
propagators of the Young Italy movement, who gave most sorrow to the
heart of the Holy Father, were such apostates as Achilli, Gavazzi and
Gioberti. It is a significant fact that these disloyal ecclesiastics
received no real recognition for their treason, and as soon as their
services were no longer of use, they were cast aside by those for whom
they had betrayed both country and God. There were also some of the
nobility who betrayed a most shameful treason. Nearly all of them owed
their prestige to the Holy See, but abandoned their benefactor when the
promise of power was held out to them by Mazzini.

[Illustration: MAZZINI.]

From his retreat in London Mazzini sent out his messages of hate and
revolt. In 1842 he founded a revolutionary sheet called the "Popular
Apostolate," a weekly which propagated his doctrines and sent them as a
ferment of disorder into Italy.

At the same time, in France, Michelet, Sue and Quinet were attacking the
Jesuits; books with the same object were printed in London; and even in
Italy, Gioberti was publishing his _Modern Jesuit_, wherein he
ventilated for the benefit of revolutionaries and sectaries the idea of
a lay pontificate.


Among the many means employed to attack the Pope were certain Congresses
which were held successively at Turin, Florence, Naples, Milan, Genoa
and Venice. These Congresses were called _scientific_, and did actually
treat of the natural sciences and economic studies; but their true
purpose was to afford a forum for the expression of the views of Young
Italy, and of hatred to the Holy See. Gregory XVI. perceived the real
intent of these assemblies and forbade their holding in Rome, a refusal
which excited the protestations of the conspirators who did not hesitate
to proclaim him an enemy of progress and enlightenment.


Gregory XVI. died in 1846 and was succeeded by Cardinal Giovanni
Mastai-Ferretti, Archbishop of Spoleto who took the name of Pius IX. The
proclamation of the election was marked in Rome by indescribable
enthusiasm. He was hailed as a savior from the severe rule of this
predecessor, and even Young Italy pretended to see in him a fosterer of
their republican intentions. The future indeed looked inviting to the
young Pope, who nevertheless, could not but see the darkness that hid
the horizon from view. The Revolution continued its work. Despite the
ovations of his people, despite the plaudits of the nations and their
governments, Pius IX. was made to feel that the storm was at hand. At
the same time while he felt the obligation of defending the rights of
the Church with courage, he determined to make all reasonable
concessions, and to accord as much liberty as his conscience might
permit. For a month he debated with himself and his councillors upon the
advisability of granting an amnesty to prisoners confined during the
reign of Gregory XVI. The cardinals with certain personal experiences to
guide them refused to accede to the demand for such amnesty, but the
Holy Father in his solicitude for peace, granted the request actuated by
the revolutionaries. All the political prisoners and exiles were
amnestied on the condition of recognizing the Supreme Pontiff as their
legitimate king, and of serving him as loyal subjects. All signed the
contract, some going so far in their protestations of affection and
loyalty as to arouse suspicion in the minds of some very practical
ecclesiastics. Popular satisfaction manifested itself in enthusiastic
fetes and dithyrambic felicitations.


The amnesty was followed by other marks of generosity on the part of the
new Pope. On April 19, 1847, the Holy Father gave to Rome a strong
municipal organization; the State had its two chambers, its civic guard,
an electoral law, a juris-consult, and a council of ministers. According
to the new order of things laymen were permitted to enter the Council of
His Holiness.

[Illustration: GREGORY XVI.]

The whole world applauded; but the revolutionists were disappointed and
prepared for a decisive blow. It looked for only one thing--the
overthrow of the Papacy. Pius IX. had done much in reforming the
administration, in laicising it to a reasonable degree, in providing
for all the popular needs, in creating asylums for the afflicted,
schools for the children, and retreats for the poor; but the fall of the
Pope was decreed, and Rome began to fill up with members of the secret
societies, evangelical societies, Bible societies, all of whom worked
together with implacable perseverance. Inspired by the perfidious and
meddlesome English agents, they clamored for a larger liberty of the
press, and for a greater national representation. Full liberty of the
press was accorded, March 15, 1847, and journalism began immediately its
work of destruction.


The year 1848 came. The situation throughout all Southern Europe wore a
foreboding aspect. The king of Naples was menaced by a revolution;
Venice was in the midst of an insurrection; Piedmont was at war with
Austria; Hungary had arisen and driven the Emperor Ferdinand from his
capital; and the July Revolution was just beginning in Paris. It was
then that Rome re-echoed with the sound of revolution. Demagogues
besieged the Vatican, and mobs yelled for impossible demands, to all of
which Pius IX. was forced to answer: "Non possumus." His minister Rossi
was assassinated on the steps of the Assembly, and the gentle Mgr. Palma
was shot as he stood near a window of the Quirinal Palace. The next day,
November 16, the Quirinal was invaded; Rome was in the hands of the mob.
Even the Holy Father yielded for the sake of peace, and signed the list
of a new cabinet.

When Europe learned of this, it concluded that the Pope, deprived of his
liberty had signed a document which was null. The Constituent Assembly
at Paris reproached in severe terms the actions of the Roman mob.


Finally on November 24, 1848, the Holy Father, realizing that he was a
prisoner of an infuriated revolutionary crowd, determined to escape as
soon as possible from Rome and seek asylum elsewhere. His release was
effected through the strategy of the Duke of Harcourt. In company with
Count de Spaur, the Bavarian ambassador, he contrived to ride incognito
through the lines of sentinels around the Quirinal and about the city
walls, and set out for Gaeta, where he arrived after some days. Here he
was received with cordial welcome by the King of Naples, under whose
filial care the Holy Father passed two years of exile.

In the meantime Mazzini had fastened his yoke upon the City of the
Popes. Clubs were formed here and there. The Circolo Populare directed
by Bonaparte Canino named a governmental junta, a sort of provisional
government. Mazzini himself hid behind the scenes and directed the
movements of the figures.


At that time there arrived from South America a personage who was to
play a serious part in the final spoliation of the Holy See. This was
the infamous Giuseppe Garibaldi, who was born at Nice, July 4, 1807. He
was a conspirator from the beginning. As a young man he had conducted a
practice of piracy with the Moroccan savages, after which he went to
South America. The European insurrections of 1848 awakened the old
passion for turbulence and disorder in his brain, and he hastened back
to Italy. He came to Rome in the very moment of republican triumph.

[Illustration: GARIBALDI.]

On February 5, 1849, the Roman Parliament held a session in the Capitol.
After a discourse pronounced by Armelini, the Prince de Canino arose
and cried out "Viva la Republica!" In a moment Garibaldi was on his feet
and added: "We are losing time in vain ceremonies. Let us hasten our
work." His words were repeated everywhere. By a decree of February 9, it
was declared that the Papacy had actually and legally lost the
government of the Roman States; that the Roman Pontiff, however, would
have all the guarantees necessary for independence in the exercise of
his spiritual power, that the form of government of the Roman State
would be democratic pure and simple, and would be known as the Roman

Mazzini, the soul of the conspiracy, remained its dictator despite the
nomination of a triumvirate. Garibaldi was charged by him to guard the
Roman frontier against the operations of the Neapolitans. Rome itself
was delivered up to all the horrors of anarchy. The European Powers
intervened, and France sent under the walls of Rome, General Oudinot
with a corps of the army.

During the first days of the siege Garibaldi gained over the French a
slight advantage which gained for him the title of General.

One of the first acts of the exiled Pope at Gaeta was to issue a
proclamation addressed to his subjects. Therein he expressed the hope
that his misguided subjects would repent of their conduct toward him.
But seeing that they were every day proceeding from one excess to
another, he felt constrained to appeal against them to that supreme
power of which he was the depository, and to arm himself with the
spiritual sword which Jesus Christ had placed in the hand of His earthly
Vicar. Therefore, he pronounced the decree of excommunication against
all those who had taken an active part in the Revolution. Then, as if in
sorrow for the righteous severity, to which he was obliged to have
recourse, and of the just defence which he had to make for the rights
of the Church, he promised mercy and pardon to all who should give
evidence of repentance.

His words, however, fell upon deaf ears. Mazzini was still in power.
Atrocities of the most horrible type disgraced the streets of Rome,
Imola, Ancona and Loretto. The clergy were persecuted and some of them
strangled. Indeed, the triumvirs made use of fallen priests to celebrate
the sacred ceremonies. It was then that the Catholic nations began to
attest their veneration for the exile of Gaeta. France sent pressing
offers of hospitality. Spain, Portugal, Austria, Bavaria, even Prussia
and Russia offered their aid towards his restoration.


It was finally to France that he owed the glory of his return. While the
Austrians were advancing through the Legations, the French army under
Oudinot, Duke of Reggio, entered Rome after a siege of twenty-six days.
At the end of June, 1849, the city finally capitulated, and General
Oudinot proclaimed the restoration of the Pontifical sovereignty. On
April 12, 1850, the Holy Father took possession of the City. An amnesty
was granted, but with certain exclusions, among them being the
triumvirs, the military chiefs and the members of the provisional

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception, which was received in all Catholic lands with a concert of
acclamations. But this triumph of Mary was only like a symbol of hope
before the approaching storm whose mutterings could already be heard in
the distance.

When Pius IX had returned from Gaeta, the secret societies made a solemn
oath that they would yet obtain possession of Rome. Not content with
wishing to deliver Italy from foreign domination, they held up before
the Italian people the illusory hope of becoming, through the defeat of
the Papacy, the first nation of Europe. To attain this end it was
necessary not only that the States should unite in one solid
confederation, but that they should constitute one kingdom the
government of which should be confided to the princes of the House of
Savoy, to be held at the discretion of the sectaries. Their method
consisted in spreading broadcast calumnies against the Holy See, in
discrediting in Austria the House of Hapsburg which had been the last in
Europe to shield the Papacy with the sword of the Holy Roman Empire, and
in assuring the hypocritical neutrality of Napoleon III., who had
ascended the throne only to be their supple instrument. Then they would
place the King of Piedmont and Sardinia, Victor Emmanuel, upon the
conquered throne of United Italy, first in the North and South, and
finally in the Eternal City itself.


In fact, the first attacks upon the temporal power of the Pope came from
the sectaries abroad. In the Congress of Paris, just after the Crimean
War, the ministers of France, Sardinia and England formulated against
the Papal States certain accusations, which they hastened to make
public. Therein they declared the government of the Pope to be the most
retrograde and perverse of the age. The Minister of Piedmont, Cavour,
already dreaming of the unification of Italy, placed in the hands of the
French and English ministers a verbal note in which he outlined a scheme
for the expropriation of the Papal States. The note had no immediate
effect, but combining with other hostile expressions against the Holy
See, it was the signal of the storm which was about to burst upon the

[Illustration: POPE PIUS IX.]

Piedmont had become a veritable hot-bed of liberalism and irreligion.
The government had ceased to respect its concordats with the Holy See.
It had violated the rights of the churches, and had established itself
as absolute judge in matters purely religious. The Archbishop of Turin
was banished and died in exile for having spoken in reproof of these
unwarranted usurpations. The Bishop of Cagliari was obliged to leave his
diocese. The encroachments of the civil government went from bad to
worse; the property of the churches was confiscated, the religious
orders persecuted, and a general reign of iniquity inaugurated.

In thus abandoning itself to the spirit of revolution, Piedmont went far
in the way of iniquity. Under the pretext of working for the
independence of Italy, its real design was to subjugate the whole land
and make all its princes tributary. In fact, the history of the
formation of the Kingdom of Italy is the history of all the treasons,
corruptions, and turpitudes that one can imagine. The records of Europe
contain nothing more high-handed or shameful. The Piedmontese
Government, at once astute and brutal, secretly arousing the people by
its paid emissaries, and then invading territories with violence;
shamefully dissimulating the manoeuvres of its ambition, and their
unmasking its projects with cynical audacity; scorning equally the
rights of the people and the anathemas of the Church; recoiling before
no means of corruption, and purchasing everything even military honor;
insulting after its victories those whom it had surprised and defeated,
not by the superiority of courage or skill, but by the aid of lying,
treason, and the force of numbers; boasting of having yielded to the
will of the peoples whose territory it was invading, and whose will it
was forcing by the most odious of martial laws. It was the Piedmontese,
Cialdini, who gave orders to shoot without mercy those peasants who were
faithful to their King, the Pope, to religion and to country. It was
Pinelli who said: "We must crush the sacerdotal Vampire, the vicar, not
of Christ, but of Satan." It was he who called for fire and sword, an
inexorable revenge against the Papacy and the Church. Other like
savages were Fantoni and Fumel, an Italian deputy speaking of them from
the tribune said: "The proclamations of Cialdini and the other
Piedmontese leaders are worthy of Tamerlane, Ghengeskhan and Attila."

In consequence of these barbarous orders, butchery was the order of the
day. Priests, magistrates, women, mothers, were imprisoned and shot. On
one occasion thirteen citizens were burned alive. Fourteen towns were
set on fire and their inhabitants pursued and shot down. At
Pontelandolfo thirty unhappy women who had taken refuge under the
shelter of a cross were savagely massacred. Ancona was bombarded, and
then Capua, and then Gaeta.

In that unholy war France hitherto the protectrix of the Church forgot
her past. It is true she redeemed herself at Castelfidardo and at
Mentana, giving to Pius IX her most generous blood; but she was
powerless to prevent the consummation of the most perfidious and
iniquitous acts of the nineteenth century.

Cavour recognized in Napoleon III., the French Emperor, a worthy
accomplice. The two statesmen met at Plombieres and there decided to
declare war against Austria. In the treaty of Zurich, concluded November
10, 1859, it was decided that Italy should be formed into one
confederation under the honorary presidency of the Pope.

But hardly had the treaty been signed than Piedmont disregarded it by
commencing a series of invasions, thanks to the silence of France and
the influence of England. Pius IX protested in an allocution, reproving
those acts of rebellion accomplished against the power and sovereignty
of the Holy See.


In the midst of these events there appeared a pamphlet entitled: "The
Pope and the Congress," which public opinion attributed to Napoleon
III. Therein, the author, posing as a pious and sincere Catholic, gave
his adhesion to what had been done and counselled the separation of the
province of Romagna. Napoleon finding that his trick was discovered
wrote a hypocritical letter to the Holy Father.

At the same time Victor Emmanuel pursued his projects of annexation.
After a vote manipulated by Cavour, Tuscany, Modena, Parma and the
Romagnas were confiscated to the Piedmontese government. On March 26,
1860, Pius IX issued a Bull of excommunication against the usurpers and
against all who had participated therein whether by counsel or by
action. Without being named directly the King of Piedmont and Napoleon
III. were the objects of the censure. The two accomplices thereupon
threw aside all reserve and hastened to direct operations.

As the price of his complicity Napoleon III. obtained Nice and Savoy, in
March, 1860. Only two States of Italy remained to be conquered, those of
Naples (Italy) and the Holy See. The Revolution intoxicated with
success, set to work to gain these two prizes. A revolt in Sicily served
as a pretext. An Italian bandit, Garibaldi, favored by England, obtained
control of Sicily; then Naples was delivered to the cause of Victor
Emmanuel by treason and sacrilege. Francis II., its King, was forced to
shut himself up in Gaeta. At the same time Cialdini, a creature of
Victor Emmanuel, invaded the Papal territory, and brought his
Piedmontese army against the forces of the Pontifical troupes, commanded
by the gallant Lamoriciere. This brutal aggression aroused such
indignation in France and in Europe, that the French government felt
itself bound to remonstrate with Piedmont. The latter government,
however, paid no attention to the remonstrance, but continued its
invasion. All the Catholic countries of Europe sent to the Holy Father
the elite of their young men, and a gallant army of Papal Zouaves was
soon under arms, ready to shed its blood for the cause of the Church.

Piedmont, under the silent and inactive eye of France, crushed that army
on September 18, 1860. A few days later Ancona capitulated, and the
Marches and Umbria were lost to the Holy See. In the South, Francis II.
was still enclosed in Gaeta; Cialdini hastened thither and laid siege to
the town. The King defended himself bravely, but at length, February 13,
1861, was obliged to yield and retired to Rome.


At length, through robbery and brigandage, Victor Emmanuel, in February,
1861, took the title of King of Italy, which Europe had the weakness to
recognize. The moment seemed propitious to make the Rome of the Popes
the capital of the new kingdom; Garibaldi tried to effect it, but was
shamefully defeated at Aspromonte and forced to retreat. On September
15, 1864, took place the famous Convention, whereby Piedmont agreed to
respect what remained of the Pontifical Kingdom, while France withdrew
her forces from the Papal States.

The promise of Piedmont was illusory, and deceived no one. Garibaldi
marched almost immediately on Rome with six thousand revolutionaries.
Happily he was overtaken by Captain Costes, who commanded 388 horsemen,
and this delay, although only twenty-six hours, saved the city for that
time. The bands of Garibaldians were again defeated by the troops of
Saussier and de Charette, at Mentana, November 3, 1867.

From that time until 1870, the power of France maintained the Pope on
his throne. But when the Prussian war broke out, Napoleon recalled his
troops to the number of 5000; he needed them, he said, for the defence
of France in her danger. Nothing now could oppose the Piedmontese. The
Court of Florence at once sent 60,000 men, commanded by a renegade,
General Caderna, who arrived before Rome in September. The whole Papal
force amounted to scarcely 10,000, so that resistance became practically
impossible. The Holy Father, nevertheless, went through the form of
resistance. The enemy was obliged to force its way through a breach in
the wall at Porta Pia, and entered Rome thus on September 20, 1870.


The same evening Cardinal Antonelli, the Papal Secretary of State, sent
a circular of protest to all the civilized governments. It met, however,
with silence, except in one instance. The Republic of Equador, through
its President, the heroic Garcia Moreno, sent a message of sympathy, so
full of courage and loyalty as to call forth the admiration and
affection of Pius IX.

In order to give an appearance of decency to his usurpation, and to
throw dust into the eyes of the European governments, Victor Emmanuel
caused a plebiscite to be taken at Rome. This pretence of a popular vote
called out only 40,000 names, most of which belonged to soldiers of the
invading army. A law of guarantees was also published, whereby the
person of the Pope was declared sacred and inviolable; the honors of
sovereignty were to be maintained by him; he was to possess the Vatican
Palace, the Lateran, and the country palace at Castel Gandolfo, besides
an annual indemnity of 3,225,000 francs, which was naturally refused.
There was also a guarantee of full liberty for future conclaves and
ecumenical councils. Only one thing was certain under all the
guarantees: that the usurpers would have their way in any case.

After the taking of Rome by the Piedmontese, Pius IX shut himself up in
the Vatican from which he was never to go forth alive. There he died,
February 7, 1878. Victor Emmanuel, who had fixed his Court at the
Quirinal, lived only until January 9, 1878.


The new Pope, Leo XIII., a native of _Carpinetti_, of the family of the
Pecci, was one fitted to guide the bark of Peter in the trying
circumstances in which he found it. The law of guarantees apparently in
force could be said to shield the person of the Holy Father only because
he gave no opportunity for its infringement. As a prisoner in the
Vatican he could not easily come into conflict with the radical elements
of the City who would show him scant courtesy did he choose to appear in
the public streets, notwithstanding the law of guarantees.

In fact the temper of the mob has betrayed itself on more than one
occasion. On the night of July 12, 1881, as the remains of the late Pope
Pius IX were being borne to their last resting place in the cemetery of
San Lorenzo. The event was made the occasion of rowdyism unimpeded by
any surveillance on the part of the government authorities. As the
funeral cortege moved along, the chorus of mockery and insult was raised
on all sides. The police did nothing to silence the disturbers.
Encouraged by this tolerance the mob went still farther. Insults were
succeeded by threats. Then followed violence; stones were hurled and
blows rained upon the members of the cortege. The faithful followed
piously chanting the Miserere or reciting the Rosary, while the enemy
howled the Garibaldian song. In the Piazza dei Termi the crowd hurled
showers of stones. The attending prelates were insulted, threatened
with death, and struck upon the face. The faithful gathered around the
funeral car determined to resent the profanations of the savage mob. It
was only when the Church of San Lorenzo was reached that the police at
length thought fit to intervene. The danger was then over, and the
funeral obsequies proceeded in comparative peace.


The true genius of the prisoner of the Vatican began first to manifest
itself in his attitude towards the Knights of Labor in the States of
America and Canada. Cardinal Taschereau of Quebec, and the Canadian
prelates, as well as some prelates of the extreme party in the United
States had almost secured the condemnation of this great labor
organization by the Sacred Congregation at Rome. This body, it was
claimed, was constituted somewhat after the model of Freemasonry; it had
its secrets hidden from the outside world, and it had likewise a code of
signs and passwords known only to the initiated. Catholics numbered
largely among its members, and for this reason it was considered that
the characteristics of this organization were those of a secret society
which brought it under the ban of the Church.

[Illustration: POPE LEO XIII.]

But for the Pope the condemnation of the Knights of Labor by the Sacred
Congregation would no doubt have been pronounced. Freemasonry, with its
stupendous oaths and its invocations of dire and dreadful penalties in
case of the violation of such oaths, with its liturgical services and
elaborate ceremonial--not to mention Continental Freemasonry with its
factional political policy and aims--was an altogether different thing
from the constitution and workings of the society known as the Knights
of Labor. The avowed object of the Knights of Labor was the right of
the laborer to a voice in determining the price at which he should part
with his labor. It had no suggestion of anything revolutionary or
anti-Christian. To have condemned this particular organization would
have meant the condemnation of labor unionism everywhere.

Leo had already shown his sympathy for the workingman in many an
expression of marked significance. His unconcealed admiration for much
of what was characteristically American made him glad of the opportunity
to pronounce officially in favor of this great organization of American

The Encyclical which followed in 1891 made glad the sons of Labor
throughout the world, and gave satisfaction to all democratic
communities. Some of the sentences may well be quoted here: "The customs
of working by contract, and the concentration of so many branches of
trade in the hands of a few individuals, have brought about a condition
of things by means of which a very small number of rich men have been
able to lay upon the masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better
than slavery itself.... Is it that the fruit of a man's own sweat and
labor should be possessed by someone else?... If the workman has to
accept harder conditions because the employer will not grant him better,
he is the victim of force and injustice." Sentiments like these had been
expressed by other writers and other teachers, but coming from such a
quarter and at such a time, they powerfully influenced the minds of the
working classes, and won a regard for the Pope which has not died with
his death. Even so great an aristocrat as Dr. Moorehouse, the Protestant
Bishop of Melbourne, later of Manchester, in speaking of the Pope's
Encyclical, said: "He shows a spirit very vast, a great depth of
knowledge and a foresight most sagacious." Barres, the celebrated
French Socialist, said: "Let the Pope go on, and democracy will no
longer see an enemy in the priest."

President Cleveland recognized the Pope's spirit by sending him a bound
copy of the American Constitution, to which his Holiness graciously
replied, and added these words: "In your country men enjoy liberty in
the true sense of the word, guaranteed by that Constitution of which you
have sent me a copy. The character of the President rouses my most
genuine admiration." The Pope's recognition of the French Republic was
part of his policy of conciliation, and gained for the Church many
practical benefits in France.

Leo XIII. died peacefully on July 20, 1903. He was succeeded by Cardinal
Joseph Sarto, patriarch of Venice, a native of Riese near Padua in
Northern Italy, where he was born June 2, 1835. He was ordained to the
priesthood September 18, 1858; was made Bishop of Mantua November 10,
1884; Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice in June, 1893; and finally Pope,
taking the name of Pius X. on August 4, 1903.


Pope Pius X. came to his inheritance in a time of fearful storm and
stress. The war on religion was already far advanced in France, and its
mutterings were beginning to be heard in other States. But the new Pope,
putting his trust in Him Whose Vicar he was, placed before himself the
sublime mission of restoring all things in Christ.

His reign of seven years has already been signalized by an extraordinary
virility, and a care for all in the Church. His encyclicals are marked
by their timeliness and practical character. In 1906, his eyes as they
surveyed the new direction of anti-Christianism, that modern refinement
of error, detected its features in the movement to which he gave the
name of Modernism. This system condemned by him as the synthesis of all
heresies, is the destruction of the idea of Christian doctrine by the
theoretical or practical subordination of Catholicism to the modern
spirit. The modern world, with its ideas, its customs, its needs,
Modernism tells us, is an imposing fact; no power, not even the Church,
can arrest its progress; it is therefore necessary to prevent the
Church, intimately allied as it is with the life of modern society, from
falling into ruin; it must transform its doctrines, and make them
harmonize with the needs of a new age. The ideas of the Catholic faith
ought to progress like the ideas of philosophy and the profane sciences.
Such is the contention of the Modernists.


They forget that the Catholic also can have modern ideas and can draw
profit for himself from all that is commendable in modern progress. But
at the same time the Church is actually in possession of a deposit of
faith infinitely true and intangible, coming as it does from divine
Truth itself, and being true it cannot undergo such changes as are
signified by the word evolution. But the adaptations which this modern
spirit would demand of her are nothing more than an evolution, and would
mean the abandonment of her Gospel, her dogmas, her supernatural
life--in a word of herself.

The condemnation of Modernism naturally aroused the anger of its
votaries. It had already gained to itself many men of prominence such as
Schell in Germany, Fogazzaro in Italy, Loisy in France, and Tyrrell in
England, all of whom made desperate endeavors to offset the effect of
the Papal condemnation. But the efforts of the Holy Father were
successful; Modernism has lost its prestige as a system, and men now
that they are warned of its true character are quickly abandoning its


An incident which created considerable excitement both in Europe and
America was the visit of ex-President Roosevelt to Rome in April, 1910.
While Mr. Roosevelt was yet in Egypt on his way homeward, he sent a
telegram to Mr. Leishman, the American Ambassador in Rome, requesting
that official to arrange for an audience with the Holy Father. It was
only shortly before that Mr. Fairbanks, the former Vice-President, had
been refused an audience because of his expressed determination to visit
and address the Methodist establishment in the Via Venti Settembre, an
institution hostile and insulting to the Papacy and the Catholic Church.

Just as the desire of Mr. Roosevelt became known to the Vatican, it was
also ascertained that strenuous efforts were being made by the
Methodists to secure the presence of the ex-President at a public
gathering. They had enlisted the services of Mr. Leishman to this end,
and as Mr. Roosevelt had not declined the invitation, it became
necessary to ascertain that he would not accept it before being invited
to an audience at the Vatican. The arrangements for the audience were
being made through Rt. Rev. Thomas F. Kennedy, D. D., titular bishop of
Indianapolis and rector of the American College, but the ex-President
refused to say that he would not accept the invitation of the
Methodists, and thus the audience was cancelled. The incident was a sad
reflection upon the good judgment of Mr. Roosevelt, who should have
known the character of the Roman Methodist concern and what it meant to
the Holy See; that it was an insult to the Holy Father, and to millions
of his fellow-citizens.


On September 20 of last year, the fortieth anniversary of the breach of
Porta Pia, an incident took place which betrayed the real character of
Italian anti-clericalism. It was on that day forty years before that the
Pope was deprived not only of his temporal dominions but even of his
liberty. The Vatican became as a little rock, in the midst of a stormy
sea whose waves lashed it incessantly. Since 1870 no Pope has ever left
the Vatican alive. Even the dead remains of Pope Pius IX. could not be
carried through the streets without molestations. This fact made it
evident last year that the remains of Leo XIII. could not be brought
safely from their temporary resting place to their tomb in St. John
Lateran. To avoid all similar trouble Pius X. has chosen for his last
resting place the crypt of St. Peter's.

In the beginning of the Piedmontese occupation excessive care was taken
to show a good face before the world. The politicians and political
measures of the new government were at least moderate. But as time went
on the enemies of the Church became emboldened in their hostility. The
confiscations of the early eighties encouraged the spirit of unbelief
and outrage which was embedded by evil example in the minds of a new


In 1889, the votaries of every manner of disorder, intellectual,
religious, and social, celebrated the reign of anarchy by the unveiling,
in the Campo dei Fiori, of a statue of Giordano Bruno, an apostate monk,
who has thus become the patron of anti-Christianism in Rome. Every year
thenceforth the anniversary of the taking of Rome has been made the
occasion of insult and defamation against the Holy See and the Catholic
religion. Last year, Nathan, the Jewish Mayor of Rome, carried
effrontery to its extreme. In a speech delivered on the occasion of the
20th September he hurled abuse, calumny and insult upon the Holy See in
a manner to call for protests from even the anti-clerical forces of the
City. The Holy Father himself uttered a vigorous protest, which met with
responsive sympathy from every part of the Catholic world. In Montreal,
especially, a mighty meeting of twenty thousand Catholics voiced their
indignation in the name of that Catholic city. Its effectiveness is
evident from the fact that it forced a speedy though very lame
explanation from Nathan himself, whose letter showed both his ignorance
and his lack of acquaintance with the elementary notions of good

[Illustration: POPE PIUS X.]


Pius X. shines as an exemplar of indomitable Christian Faith,
confronting the infidelity of a modern world. He has the faith of Leo
I., which stopped the march of Attila against Rome; the unwavering
courage of Gregory VII., who died in exile but triumphed after his death
over his enemies. The crises which he faces are not new, and he meets
them with the old weapons of supernatural manufacture which have proved
to be the most effective against the enemies of the Church in all the
ages which have passed. He is the true diplomat relying not on earthly
defences, but on the promises of Christ to His Church.

The Latin statesmen who are opposed to him have found an impregnable
barrier to their sinister designs. They may exult in a cheap, temporary
triumph, but they have set loose to attain it the forces of disorder,
and they will reap in time the deadly fruitage of their ill-advised
plotting against the rights of the Church.

The Church ever triumphs. It is strange that these masters of a day do
not learn a lesson from the history of the past. They are blinded by
present power and position, and seek to accomplish what greater than
they have failed to achieve.

Meanwhile, Pius X. serenely carries on the government of the Universal
Church. He is unmoved by the clamors of politicians in high places, and
quietly steers his course, unmindful of their threats, but calmly
confident in the protection of a higher power.

He is an inspiration to the Catholics of the world. But especially to
Americans, who like fair play and admire devotion to a high ideal. He is
an exemplar whom they venerate and love. They admire his consistency and
single-minded devotion to the interests of the Church which he guards.
They are impressed by his courage and simple faith. In the face of the
trying difficulties which beset him on every side they commend his calm
faith in the ultimate triumph of right, and his serene confidence in the
victory of justice.

The enemies opposed to him are powerful and resourceful; but the brave
stand against them made by him and his Secretary of State elicit the
sympathy of all true Americans who love the right and adhere to it
despite the temporary prestige of those who are opposed to it.

The hope of all Catholics is that the reign of Pius X. may be prolonged
until he may reap the reward of his labors for the independence and
liberty of the Church. But in every event they feel assured that the
blessed result will be attained, if not in the lifetime of the present
illustrious Pontiff, at least in the years to come as a blessed heritage
of the intrepid Pius X.

At present the position of the Church is one of great difficulty.
Represented as Rome is in Parliament by deputies who are all hostile to
the Church, she has little to expect in the way of courtesy or justice.
The law of guarantees which holds the person and good name of the
Sovereign Pontiff inviolable, offers in fact but little security in the
time of need. There are, indeed, hopes that a better era is opening up;
that the people are beginning to look clearly upon the illusory promises
of men whose only interest is their own elevation and power. If this
hope is realized the Church may again breathe more freely, and the Holy
Father may hope for some little release from the worries that constantly
assail him.


The Kulturkampf--The Causes--The Men--and the Events.


Looking into the history of the times just preceding the Kulturkampf,
and the nature of the events transpiring during its progress, among the
causes may be enumerated the following: 1, the liberalism of the
rationalists; 2, the liberalism of certain pseudo-Catholics; 3, the
desire for Protestant ascendancy; 4, the hatred of ultramontainism as
incarnated in the "Old Catholic" sect; and 5, the determination of
Caesarism to reduce all religion in Germany to the domination of the


Emanuel Kant, and then Hegel and his disciples, had opened the way to
unrestricted rationalism. They taught that religion was only an inferior
form of "the idea," which "idea" formed its truth only in the "superior
form" of philosophy. In 1833 Frederick Richter, a disciple of Hegel,
denied the immortality of the soul, declaring the doctrine the cause of
every evil. In 1835, another Hegelian, Strauss, denied the divinity of
Christ. In 1837, Richard Rothe wrote a book to demonstrate that the
Gospel would triumph only when all churches and religious societies were
exterminated from the face of the earth.

This species of philosophy, by denying the immortality of the soul, the
divinity of Christ, and the value of the Church, reduced all religion to
a vague form without any fixed or determinate existence. But, after all,
what did Hegel and his disciples mean by religion? It is difficult to
give an answer when one examines his works, barbarous as they are in
style, and more nebulous in their conceptions than these of any other
German writer. Nevertheless out of his misty speculations one can thus
formulate his conception of religion: "Religion is only a creation, a
phantasm of the mind of man, who adores a god whom he himself has formed
to his own image; so that divine nature is only human nature idealized,
unconfined, and then considered as a real and personal being."

From this principle which denied God, by confounding Him with man, and
reducing all religion to simple philanthropy, Feuerbach deduced the
theory that all theology was founded upon anthropology; that God was
man, and that the love of God meant merely the love of man. Thus German
philosophy had arrived at mystical atheism and was turning rapidly to
open paganism with its denial of Christianity. This doctrine was
preached by Stirner and by Gaspar Schmidt, who esteemed egoism as
something sacred, and began to advocate revolution and anarchy.

Side by side with the school of Hegel was that of Tubingen, the head and
master of which was Ferdinand Christian Baur (died in 1860). Baur had
written, in 1835, a work on Gnosticism, which suggested many of the
errors of Renan, and ten years later another work on St. Paul, of which
Renan made much use when after denying the divinity of Christ, he wished
also to deny the sanctity of Paul. Baur had once attempted to answer
Moehler's monumental work, that "_Symbolism_" which exposed the
contradictions of Protestantism and the constant doctrine of the

Under the leadership of Baur, the School of Tubingen rejected the Gospel
of St. John, the whole theme of which is the divinity of Christ.

While the philosophers of Tubingen and other German universities were
thus assailing the divine foundations of Christianity, another class of
writers, Moleschott, Büchrer, Vogt, Löwenthal, and many Protestants,
were turning to naturalism and atheistic materialism, the consequences
of Hegelianism. The materialistic school, which was socialistic in
politics, atheistic in religion, realistic in literature, had the
impudence to present itself as the savior of society.

It would have mattered little had these various systems been compelled
to rely upon their un-Christian apostles for support; but the pity was
that men who pretended to believe in Christianity, in the Bible, in
revelation only too often listened with favor to their teachings and
applauded them. Thus it was that by the time of the French War of 1870,
the Protestant mind of Germany was deeply infected with rationalistic
ideas, so far at least as to render it unfit to understand even the
primary principles of Christianity. Under such conditions it is easy to
perceive how the teachings of Catholicity, resting firmly upon the
Gospels and drawing their vigor from the divinity of its Founder, could
prove a very eyesore to a misguided generation.

In Germany, in the course of the nineteenth century, until 1870, the
Church suffered from a weak-kneed policy of many on whom she thought she
could rely. The poison of Frebonianism was never quite eradicated, and
made itself manifest from time to time in various wild disorders.
Wessenberg and Dalberg strove to supplant the authority of the Holy See
with a national church. Efforts were made to abolish clerical celibacy,
to establish a new ritual, to inflate Catholic doctrine with a certain
heretical mysticism, to destroy Catholic devotion and loyalty by means
of Rongeism. These and a hundred similar movements were evidences of the
continuing influence of old Frebonianism, suppressed in one place only
to break out in another. And yet, if the disorders had merely confined
themselves to such wild distortions of Catholic practices, it would have
been only a matter of time to cause their ultimate disappearance. But it
is a singular quality in such pseudo Catholic movements, that they lead
their supporters insensibly to the region of absolute heresy. Indeed, as
is the case with the Modernists of today, the votaries of these
"advanced" Catholic notions are often actual pantheists and atheists,
while proclaiming their loyalty to the Church and her teachings.

The liberal Catholic of Germany will have much to answer for when judged
for his part in leading to the persecutions of the Church in that
country. In the first part of the century his presence was noted
everywhere, in the court, in the schools, and especially in the


About the time that Pope Gregory XVI. condemned the errors of Hermes, a
certain ecclesiastic, Anthony Günther, was already creating a reputation
because of his philosophical and theological novelties. As it was then a
time when many strange systems were constantly appearing, and confusing
the Catholic mind, the first writings of Günther, far from exciting
suspicion, aroused words of admiration, even from men like Goerres,
Moehler, Arnoldi and many other prominent ecclesiastics. Günther had so
ingeniously concealed his true sentiments that their presence was not


After 1850, however, he began to show his real position. Residing then
at Cologne, he permitted himself to be drawn into the vortex of
unrestrained liberalism, and conceived the project of reconciling the
new doctrines of the rationalistic world with the truths of
Christianity. In his works he accordingly gave the leading place to
philosophy, to which he made theology subservient. His attitude, in
fact, was nothing less than a return to the theories of Abelard, so
vigorously condemned and exposed by St. Bernard. In this manner Günther
approached the Rationalists; he repudiated tradition wherever it seemed
in contradiction to his teachings; he passed carelessly over the Holy
Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, often changing their form; he
created new words for his theology, and attempted every conceit to
produce a certain harmony between the faith and the spirit of the age.

In his doctrines, he purposely clouded the revealed truths. In an
attempted explanation of the dogmas of the Trinity and of the
Incarnation he displayed an ignorance as to their true conception. On
such questions as the creation, and the union of the soul and body, he
reasoned in a manner not only different from that of St. Thomas, but
entirely opposed to that of the Church. The bishops of Germany were
aroused to this new danger, all the more that many disciples were
beginning to show the influence of the new master, and among them he had
already begun to be hailed as a saint, the restorer of true philosophy,
the savior of the Church. His doctrines were examined at Rome, and were
condemned January 8, 1857.

Thereupon Günther wrote to Pope Pius IX., declaring himself obedient and
submissive, and accepting in all humility his condemnation. Some of his
disciples imitated his example; others, however, while declaring
themselves obedient to the Holy See, continued to defend the condemned
doctrines, bolstering their conduct with the sophism, that as the
condemnation was given in a general manner, the Holy See had not
indicated in any way what precise words or propositions of the works had
caused them to be placed on the Index. Hence, they said, that while the
system of Günther might be condemned taken as a whole, the separate and
individual doctrines of the author might be accepted. It was a new mode
of evasion, which rejected the condemnation while pretending to accept

Pius IX., accordingly, wrote to Cardinal Geissel, on June 15, 1857,
explaining clearly the untenableness of this new pretext. The Sovereign
Pontiff, moreover, exhorted the Cardinal to forbid the books in his
diocese, and to watch with all vigilance "that the doctrine contained in
them, and already condemned, be not taught in any manner by anyone,
whether in the schools of philosophy or in those of theology."

The school of Günther was thus suppressed; his teachings, however,
continued to influence the minds of Germans far into the next decade,
and contributed not a little to excite that craving manifested by the
liberals for compromising the Church in favor of the spirit of the age.


In 1862 Pius IX. warned Catholics of new dangers. In the University of
Munich, which from being the centre of German Catholic thought in the
days of Görres, had under Maximilian become a very nest of false
Catholicism, there was a professor of theology, James Frohschammer,
whose tenets approached so closely to rationalism as to excite suspicion
from the very outset. In 1858 he published his _Introduction to
Philosophy_, and in 1861 a treatise on the _Liberty of Science_, and
another work entitled _Atheneus_. These three volumes were full of grave
errors and pernicious doctrines. In Frohschammer's system reason was
accredited with undue authority; full freedom of thought was permitted
without regard to revealed or unrevealed truth; philosophy, it was
declared, by its own power could arrive at those same principles which
are common to faith and to natural reason, and even the divinely
revealed truths of the Christian religion such as the supernatural end
of man, the great mysteries of the Incarnation, and others like it were,
it was stated, a part of science, and hence the material of philosophy,
which could attain to the knowledge of them not through the principle of
divine authority, but through its own natural forces. Moreover, it was
taught that philosophy had no right to subject itself to any authority
whatsoever; that its liberty was boundless, even though, as was
asserted, the philosopher himself ought not to teach anything contrary
to what divine revelation and the Church has taught, to call it into
doubt because he cannot understand it, or to refuse to accept the
judgment of the Church. Hence the wish expressed by Frohschammer that
the Church should not meddle with philosophy, that it ought to permit
philosophy to make its own corrections, even though it should have
fallen into error.

These errors were especially harmful when rationalism was rampant in
Germany; in fact the works of Frohschammer were condemned by the Church,
not as if she loved philosophy less than a misguided world, but that she
might prevent it from falling from its true position and becoming a
poison rather than a food, and it was to that effect that Pius IX. wrote
to the Archbishop of Munich on December 11, 1862.

Frohschammer had already one of his former books _On the Origin of the
Soul_ condemned by the Church: but instead of acknowledging his errors,
he repeated them in subsequent works, at the same time maligning the
Congregation of the Index and abusing the Church with epithets and
calumnies. But Frohschammer effected less harm when he placed himself in
open rebellion so that all Catholics could be on their guard when his
teachings were brought forward. To the liberals, however, he was a
welcome aid, reading as they did in his works, and as coming from a
Catholic source, the very tenets they were striving to inject into the
German mind.


Perhaps no more potent evil genius existed for the corruption of the
Catholic German mind at the time than the too famous theologian of
Munich, Ignatius Doellinger. Born at Bamberg, on February 28, 1799, he
made rapid and brilliant studies at Wurzburg and in his native town. He
was ordained priest in 1822 and spent a few months in parochial work. In
1823 he was made professor of history and canon law in the preparatory
college of Aschaffenburg, and when the University of Landshut was
transferred to Munich, he was selected for the chair of history in the
new institution.

[Illustration: DOELLINGER.]

In his earlier career, in fact as late as 1860, Doellinger was one of
the foremost and loyal of German Catholics. At a time when so many of
his co-religionists were being led into the campaign of hostility to
Papal authority and the ancient discipline of the Church, Doellinger
ever remained true to his ultramontain principles. In 1826 appeared his
first theological work, _The Doctrine of the Eucharist During the First
Three Centuries of the Church_, which was followed in rapid succession
by a series of brilliant expositions of Catholic truth and history. In
1847 appeared his three magnificent volumes on "_The Reformation, Its
Interior Development and Its Effects_." It was the signal for a crusade
against the falsehoods of Protestant historians as uttered in nearly all
the universities of Germany.

In 1861 appeared his "_Church and the Churches, the Papacy and the
Temporal Power_," a collection of public lectures which the author had
delivered at the "Odeon" of Munich during that year. The work created a
sensation among the Catholic teachers of the land, who could not but
recognize in it the germs of the conflict which Doellinger was yet to
wage with the Holy See. The Piedmontese had just completed their
invasion of the Papal States, and naturally the world looked to
Doellinger for words of protest. The unhappy theologian proved recreant
to his duty at a moment of so much importance. Instead of uttering an
unequivocal protest, Doellinger babbled only about the necessity of
liberal institutions secularization, etc., imitating to a humiliating
degree the expressions of Cavour and Napoleon III. Doellinger had now
steered his bark into the stormy waters of Liberalism.

In 1863, at an assembly of savants, at Munich, he discussed in a very
bold manner the "_Past and the Present of Catholic Theology_," which
called forth words of indignation from Scheeben, the eminent theologian
of Cologne. Doellinger, together with some other disaffected Catholics,
considered that the moment had nearly arrived for displaying open
hostility to Rome. The man who had defended the Church in the Bavarian
Chamber from the year 1845, who had spoken in terms of pure loyalty and
affection at the Parliament of Frankfort, and at the Catholic
congresses, who had spoken in no uncertain terms against the
persecutions incident to the question of mixed marriages, who had flayed
with his vehement scorn the supporters of a bill to abolish clerical
celibacy, and had denounced the profligacy of King Louis and his
favorite Lola Montez, in 1848, was preparing to turn his back upon a
career so brilliant, and to take up arms against his mother, the ancient

In 1869 when Pope Pius IX. named the commission which was to prepare the
way for the Council of the Vatican, the name of Doellinger was omitted
from the list. Although he could expect no other treatment than this,
having already signified his utter disregard of all that history and
tradition had taught concerning the Holy See, and having even gone out
of his way to invent calumnies and garbled citations from historical
writers in opposition to every papal claim, nevertheless Doellinger
protested against his exclusion from this august body, and accordingly
manifested even in advance his hostile attitude to any and every
decision which the future Council might make. One of his principal moves
in this direction was to instigate Prince Hohenlohe, president of the
Bavarian ministry, to arouse all the cabinets of Europe against the Holy

During the Vatican Council he gave his best talents to the cause of
opposition. While the episcopate of the whole world was deliberating in
St. Peter's, Doellinger published his heretical views in his _Janus_,
and in various _Roman Letters to the Allgemeine Zeitung_, besides
putting forth many "declarations" stigmatizing the work of the Council.
When the Archbishop of Munich demanded his submission to the decrees of
the Council, Doellinger made a formal refusal, on March 28, 1871, and
drew upon himself the sentence of excommunication.


The decisive step was now taken, and Doellinger in separating himself
from the Catholic body was welcomed by the enthusiastic acclamations of
all the liberal camp. Dreaming that he was about to play the role of a
new Luther, the apostate gathered about him the disaffected elements of
German Catholicism, especially in the various universities of the
country. Men who held high prestige in the scientific and literary
world, threw themselves at his feet and called him the savior of
Germany. Forty-four professors in the University of Munich, a stronghold
of Rationalism ever since 1848, and among them Freiderich Sepp and
Reischl, were foremost among the defenders. Theologians like Hilgers,
Langen, Reusch, and Knoodt from the University of Bonn; Reinkens,
Baltzer and Weber, from Breslau; Michelis, from Braunsberg, and Schulte
from Prague were but the leaders in the list of eminent savants who
placed themselves under his rebel banner. The heart of Doellinger was
inflated with pride and in laying the foundations of that sect to which
the euphonious title of "The Old Catholics" was given, the apostate
imagined that a new Reformation was beginning, which would presently
count its supporters by the thousands and millions.

History, with pitiless irony, has told the sad fate of his ambitions.
Despite the immense aid given by the State to the new religion, despite
the prestige even of Doellinger and his savants, the Old Catholics
degenerated in a few years into a squabbling, disunited mob, to such an
extent that Doellinger himself became ashamed of the child of his fancy.
Too proud to acknowledge publicly the error which his heart recognized,
he continued his apostasy until his death, by apoplexy, January 10,

Hermes, Günther, Frohschammer and Doellinger were but the manifestations
of that spirit of disorder among the German Catholics, whose purpose was
primarily to reconcile, by their own methods, the spirit of faith with
the spirit of the age. Pride had created blindness, and blindness,
spiritual suicide. But the liberal world that looked on placed their
mutilated carcasses upon the altars of hate, and made their fall the
occasion of fiery denunciations against the Church and all that it


A second cause of the Kulturkampf lay in the desire of Prussia's rulers
and statesmen to place the Protestant Evangelical Church in a position
whence it might dominate all religious life in the Empire. Long before
efforts were made, especially after the Third Centenary of Luther in
1817, to bring the whole of Prussian Germany into the ranks of the
Evangelical Church. The schemes manipulated by means of mixed marriages,
the long and pitiless persecutions of Frederick William III., followed
by the comparative peace during the reign of Frederick William IV. This
latter period had been prolific in examples of Christian life, in
pilgrimages to holy shrines, in a great increase of popular devotion, in
the spread of religious orders with their sane and vivifying
influences. The Catholic Church had been gradually arising out of a
state of torpor and subjection to a position of prominence that called
for consideration and respect from all non-Catholic sources.

The Protestants of Germany, however, were not altogether gratified at
these beautiful results, and indeed, it was not long before they began
to resent openly the evidences of Catholic progress. In their
determination to stem the tide of Catholic conversion and increase they
were not slow to use every means that opportunity placed at their
disposal. Among these was the spirit of the Prussian people to which the
name of Borussianism has been given, and which manifested itself as
early as 1848.

The two great powers of Germany then contending for supremacy among the
loosely confederated States were Prussia and Austria. In the Parliament
of Frankfort the presidency of that body was conferred upon an Austrian
archduke. The alarm was immediately sounded. If Germany were to become a
united empire, was it not possible that Austria, as an integral part,
might gain the ascendancy, and thus subject the whole German nation to
the rule of a Catholic sovereign? In 1848 the union of the German Empire
was set aside, and Frederick William IV. even refused to accept an
imperial crown that would have among its gems the great Austrian state.
Again in 1866, when the union of German States was being formed, Austria
was formally excluded, nor has she been invited to enter the
Confederation ever since. Her Catholic influences were the obstacles
that stood in her way toward Prussian favor.


At the same time Prussia could not ignore the fact that many powerful
and influential States around her and even within her dominions were
almost entirely Catholic. Poland, Bavaria and the Rhenish Provinces were
too strongly Catholic to permit of any open aggression upon religious
lines, although in the secrecy of ministerial cabinets the way for such
aggressions was being constantly prepared. What was wanted was only an
evidence of political weakness in the Catholic States, and this
opportunity was offered only too soon.

Since 1860 the papal power had been slowly yielding in Italy to the
attacks of Liberalism, aided very much by the encouragement of German
cabinets. In 1866, Austria was stricken down by the hand of Prussia; in
1870, Catholic France felt its force at Sedan and at Paris; in the same
year, Rome fell into the hands of usurpers. Even among the Catholic
States of Germany the influence of Prussian intrigue had weakened the
governments and made them tools in the hands of the more powerful ally.
All these disasters in Catholic countries signified that Protestant
Prussia was now in a position to impose herself with her laws and her
religion upon the whole body of people coming within her sway. It is not
surprising, therefore, that when William I. felt the glory of the
imperial crown upon his brow, he should begin, like his predecessor,
Frederick William III., to dream of a universal German Church of which
he should be the Pope, and of which all his people should become willing
and faithful members.

[Illustration: THE EMPEROR WILLIAM I.]

Closely allied with this desire for a Protestant ascendancy was an
intense hatred of Rome and of Ultramontainism, especially as manifested
in the dogma of Papal Infallibility as declared in the Council of the
Vatican in 1870. This spirit had betrayed itself before 1870 especially
in the words and actions of Bismarck, who remarked during the course of
the French War: "As soon as the war with France is ended, I shall march
against the infallibility." To this end the populace was aroused and
Protestant fanaticism was given full swing. The tocsin of alarm was
sounded before the imaginary peril of a Roman invasion, and before the
pretended assaults of the Church upon the State.


For two years the secular press had echoed these fears and waved before
the eyes of Germany the effigy of "Infallibility." All sane notions were
cast aside, while defiance and hatred were sown in all hearts. All the
journals, with one accord, took up the ever new theme of the _Syllabus_
and of Infallibility to demonstrate to the German people that the
jurisdiction of the bishops was absorbed forever by the papal
jurisdiction, that the clergy were now slaves, and that every Roman
Catholic, at a sign from the Pope, was bound henceforth to betray his
king, his conscience, and the laws of the country. Feeling, under such
impulsion, ran high, to such an extent in fact that the fear of
Infallibility made many forget the part the Catholics had ever taken for
the defence of the King, the country, and social order.

Underlying all these causes was the true reason of the Kulturkampf, the
spirit of Caesarism, the desire to make the Church subservient in its
life, in its doctrines, and in its hierarchy, to the caprices of the
sovereign State. The forces to effect this had been growing steadily for
some time. There were especially three parties to which the idea of a
State controlled Church appealed. There were those who were hostile
radically to the idea of religion, and whose campaign was directed
against God; their leader was Bluntschl. Others, antagonistic to the
Christian idea, attacked all positive religion, and desired the
abolition of all Christian denominations; they were led on by Bennigsen.
Finally, the Prussian Evangelicals, jealous of the progress of
Catholicity, wished to create a great national Church in what they would
call the Evangelical Empire, a Church that would acknowledge no
interference from the outside, from Rome or elsewhere. Into this
national Church it was determined to absorb all the Catholics of the
Empire. This was the dream of Bismarck.

In 1870 these various elements of disorder seemed to unite into a
compact force directed against the common enemy, the Catholic Church.
Rancors, divisions, jealousies, all were forgotten in the common
impulse. It was the world banding together to exterminate the handiwork
of God. The years have passed by, the Kulturkampf is over, its leaders
are forgotten, its purposes have lapsed into history; but the Church in
Germany has not been exterminated; indeed, it enjoys at present the most
flourishing epoch in its history.




Among the characters most prominent in the Kulturkampf, we shall confine
our more lengthy consideration to Bismarck, Windthorst, Malincrodt and

In Prince Bismarck were concentrated all the forces of the various
parties uniting against the Church. He was born in the patrimonial
castle of Schoenhausen, April 1, 1815, and received the name of Otto
Edward Leopold von Bismarck. In 1832, when seventeen years of age, he
entered the University of Goettingen. Here he attracted attention by his
turbulent and fantastic character. A lively, boisterous companion, he
was known as a drinker, epicure, smoker, duellist, and eccentric. He
fought more than twenty duels. He became popular among his fellow
students for his feats of arms, and his reputation in that regard
extended to other universities. After leaving the University, he became
an assessor of the Tribunal of Berlin, then referendary at
Aix-la-Chapelle, and at Pottsdam, after which he enlisted as a
lieutenant in the Uhlan guards. Shortly after 1846 he married Johanna
von Puttkammer, a woman who was later to exercise a malevolent influence
over him during the troubles following 1870.

[Illustration: BISMARCK.]

In 1847 Bismarck entered actively into the political life of the
nation. It was at the time when King Frederick William IV., yielding to
the importunities of the Liberals, convoked a preliminary Diet, at which
Bismarck was present to supply the place of a member rendered incapable
of attending through sickness. Therein he showed himself an
indefatigable defender of the conservatives against the demands of the
Liberals, making himself soon the chief of his party.

This consultive Diet was forced to yield, the following year, 1848, to
the popular demand for a more representative assembly. Another Diet
accordingly met and voted for universal suffrage and the immediate
elaboration of a new constitution. Bismarck distinguished himself in
that Assembly, as in the preceding, by his unyielding opposition to
Liberal innovations, and by the violence and asperity which
characterized his utterances.

To propagate his ideas Bismarck founded a journal, which remains even
yet the organ of the Conservative party in Germany, the _Gazette of the
Cross_. As a result of Bismarck's many efforts, the King, urged on by
the nobility, dispersed the Parliament, assembled the troops in Berlin
and placed the city in a state of siege. The same year, 1848, the
national Diet, composed of Liberals and Conservatives, met at Frankfort,
and decided to re-establish the Empire, offering the imperial crown to
the King of Prussia. In this matter Bismarck strongly opposed the views
of the delegates and induced the King to refuse the proffered honor. The
same actions recurred in the following year, Bismarck taking the same
stand against German unity.

Thenceforth the new statesman began to be a power for the Kingdom of
Prussia. His hatred of Austria seems to have dictated all his policies
for the next twenty years. The war for the annexation of
Schleswig-Holstein in 1864, the war against Austria in 1866, the
question of the Duchy of Luxembourg, and even the Franco-Prussian war of
1870, were all inspired by the fear that Austria should become too
powerful, and deprive the Protestant State of Prussia of that ascendancy
which Bismarck more than any other determined that she should have.

It was in 1862 that Bismarck was called upon by the King to take up the
post of Premier, a position which was to make him in a few years the
most powerful statesman of Europe. At the ending of the Franco-Prussian
War, on January 18, 1871, in the Palace of Versailles, it was the power
of Bismarck that placed the imperial crown upon the head of the new
Emperor, William I. of Germany. The union of German States against which
the Chancellor had fought in years gone by, was now the creature of his
own making. The time was propitious, France, Austria and the Papacy were
all humbled. Prussia had become one of the Great Powers. If Bismarck had
rested there, his name would have been greeted with the accumulated
blessings of all the German people, even though all these triumphs had
been won by the way of deceit, brutality and an absolute disregard of
all the promptings of justice and humanity.

That Bismarck had been preparing for his persecution of the Catholics is
sufficiently proven from documentary evidence, although after 1888 he
spent much time and effort to disclaim his part in the Kulturkampf. The
Crown Prince of Germany in his diary of the date of October 24, 1870,
wrote: "Bismarck related to my brother-in-law that immediately after the
war he would enter upon the campaign against infallibility." Again, the
Abbe Majunke, the eminent historian of the Kulturkampf, published in the
_Historico Political Papers_ of Munich, a sensational article wherein he
proved from existing documents that Bismarck was meditating the
Kulturkampf before the opening of the Council: "The notes gathered
together by Poschinger demonstrate that as early as 1850 the adversary
of Windthorst has been the principal instigator of the Bavarian
Kulturkampf," a fact which argued that he was the real instigator of the
late Prussian persecution. Again Arnim, the former ambassador to Rome,
shows that the Chancellor was projecting the conflict against
infallibility at least while the Council was going on. Again, on
September 13, 1870, Bismarck remarked to the deputy Werle, Mayor of
Rheims: "When we have disposed of Catholicism, they (i. e. the Latin
nations) will not be long in disappearing." All these and other
evidences remain to show that the mind of Bismarck had been meditating
the extermination of the Catholic religion before the actual hostilities
began. His part in the conflict itself will be shown in discussing its
events. In 1887, he made his peace with Pope Leo XIII., from whom he
received the Grand Cross of the Order of Christ, and died in 1898, after
witnessing the final collapse of the Kulturkampf and acknowledging its
utter failure to accomplish the the end it had in view.

Directly opposed to Bismarck was another statesman in whom with all the
energy and determination of his adversary were found the qualities of
honor and justice united together in absolute loyalty to Catholic
principles. This man was Louis Joseph Windthorst, born January 17, 1812,
at Osterkapelln in the Kingdom of Hanover. After showing for some time
an inclination for the ecclesiastical state, he finally decided his
vocation in 1836 by entering the bar at Osnabrück. He was later made
syndic of the Equestrian Order of the Nobility, and then lay President
of the ecclesiastical tribunal. In 1838 he married and his union was
blessed not only by conjugal happiness, but more than all by the birth
of four children, the eldest of whom survived him.

[Illustration: WINDTHORST.]

In 1848 there were in Germany two political parties; one defending the
maintaining of Austria in the Confederation and desirous that she should
be at its head; the other demanding the exclusion of Austria, and the
preponderance of Prussia. Elected to the Diet from Hanover in 1849,
Windthorst declared himself for Austria, a Catholic power which promised
to permit the different States to retain their autonomy; and he
combatted openly the members of the German Parliament at Frankfort when
they offered the imperial crown to William IV. of Prussia. Windthorst
had just been nominated to the Presidency of the Hanoverian Chamber of
Deputies, in 1851, when upon the accession of George V. to the throne,
he received the portfolio of Justice. He served in that capacity until
1853 when the ministry of which he formed a part was overturned.

It was during the period of comparative quiet that followed, that
Windthorst rendered to his natal diocese a remarkable service. Both in
the Chamber and at Court he pleaded for the ancient principality of
Osnabrück, which had been in the hands of a lay administrator ever since
the great secularization. His efforts were crowned with success. In 1857
the diocese of Osnabrück was re-established and the Abbe Melchers, then
Vicar General of Münster, was made its bishop.

In 1862 Windthorst was again called to the ministry of Justice, and
again pleaded the cause of Austria. In a short time, however, he again
left the ministry and was made Procurator General of the Court of
Appeals at Celle. Hitherto Windthorst had been the principal adviser of
George V., the intrepid defender of his country's independence, and the
influential protector of Catholic interests in the midst of a Protestant
Court; when at length his powers in that direction were ended by the
action of Prussia in taking possession of Hanover.

The little kingdom thus blotted out, Windthorst turned his attention to
the larger interests of the whole country. In placing himself, however
unwillingly upon the platform of accomplished facts, and in taking the
oath of the Prussian Constitution, Windthorst accepted the ruling of the
Prussian Landtag, and was elected first to the Constituent Assembly, and
then to the Reichstag of the Confederation of Northern Germany, in
1871. He remained until his death the representative from Meppen, whence
his soubriquet, the Pearl of Meppen. He was also sometimes termed His
Little Excellency, from his slight stature, and also "the Guelph
Leader," from his indomitable attitude in defending the interests of the
weaker side against the aggressions of the unscrupulous majority.

In the Kulturkampf his position was the exact antithesis to that of
Bismarck. By his strict ideas of honor and justice, and his indomitable
courage in forcing the issues he had at stake, he gained his cause over
the brutal and unscrupulous strength of the Chancellor. The ideal which
he pursued was that of Christian society, the independence of the
Church, respect for authority, and the maintenance of liberty and of
civil equality. He was a contrast in every way to Bismarck. Windthorst
was the champion of right, Bismarck the representative of force; the one
was calm in his certainty of ultimate victory; the other fought with
animosity and fury. Windthorst strove to enlighten and convince his
adversary; the Chancellor was bent upon crushing and annihilating his
enemy. In seeking the triumph of a principle, the one recognized neither
menaces nor boastings; the other seeking his own personal aggrandisement
spoke in terms of haughtiness and contempt of all who dared to differ
from him. Windthorst was almost the only man who could not be cowed by
Bismarck, and thus, urged on by the hand of God, the Pearl of Meppen
crushed at last the Iron Chancellor. Windthorst was a man of men,
constant, faithful to his friends, and firm as a rock in his trust in
God. The words of Pope Leo XIII., at the time of his death in 1891, were
significant: "He so loved his country and respected his sovereign, that
he never separated his duties as a citizen from his zeal for religion.
So well did he encounter his adversaries by the weight of his
arguments and the force of his eloquence, that it was easy to see that
it was the love of truth which urged him on, and not any greedy desire
for personal advantages or honors."

[Illustration: MALINCRODT.]

Herrmann von Malincrodt, the great orator of the Centre during the
Kulturkampf, was a native of Minden in Westphalia, where he was born on
February 5, 1821. His father was a Protestant, yet of such natural
honesty, that he would not stand in the way of his son's education in
Catholic faith and doctrine. The mother of Herrmann was a pious
Catholic, a cultured lady, whose care for the religious bringing up of
her children was not satisfied with the religious teaching given them at
school, but called a priest to her house to supplement the training of
the school. The classical studies of young Malincrodt were made at
Aix-la-Chapelle, where his father had taken up his residence in 1823.
When, in 1838, the future deputy went to study law at Bonn, and later at
Berlin, his faith was still intact as his heart was pure. He passed
through the University with equal safety. The teachings of his good
mother, who died some years before, were his safeguard and preserved him
against the dangers so often fatal to youth. The anti-Christian
doctrines of his professors, and the shameless examples of his fellow
students had no effect upon his strong character. In his twentieth year
he left his studies as good a Catholic as he was a learned jurist.

After a short period at the tribunal of Paderborn, and having been
referendary successively at Münster and Erfurt, he retired for over a
year to study for his degree. When his thesis, entitled _Juridical
Relations between Church and State_ was presented, the judges marvelled
to find in so young a man such an evidence of solid learning, clear
reasoning, and originality of thought. They noted moreover the
uncompromising Catholic character of his essay, and accordingly, while
they accounted his endeavor a success, they added the remark: "A work
too favorable to the Church." In 1849 he was named Assessor for the
Regency of Minden, and two years later was sent to Erfurt to fulfil the
same functions. In the latter place he made so favorable an impression
upon the people that the government made him First Burgomaster of the
town. This choice was all the more significant that four-fifths of the
population were Protestants, while Malincrodt was known as an ultra
Catholic; they were won, indeed, by his characteristic integrity, his
tolerance and justice, and the nobility of deportment. So well satisfied
were the citizens with his administration that he was accorded the right
of the city.

The people of Westphalia were naturally proud of their fellow citizen,
and in the elections of 1852, the district of Münster-Coesfeld sent him
to the Prussian Landtag. He arrived at Parliament at a moment when a new
conflict was threatening between the State and the Church. The ministers
had just interdicted the missions of the Jesuits and forbade Prussian
students to pursue their theological studies at Rome. King Frederick
William IV. was animated with kindlier dispositions. He had witnessed
the bravery and loyalty of the Catholics during the stirring times of
1848, and in recognition of the same he had effected that a clause
should be inscribed in the Constitution guaranteeing the most essential
ecclesiastical liberties. Unfortunately his ministers did not share his
sentiments, and the court canonists found it too difficult to break with
the old Prussian traditions, and accordingly they gave their best
efforts to nullify the concessions of the sovereign. In the presence of
the hostile manifestations the Catholics felt it incumbent upon them to
organize for the better defence of their rights. In the elections of
1852, despite every ministerial pressure, they succeeded in sending
sixty-three Catholics to the Parliament, and the group thus elected
took the name of the Catholic Faction.

Malincrodt had his place in the ranks of these pleaders for the Church.
On March 11, 1853, after many months of silence, he made his maiden
speech and proved himself an orator of the first rank. During that
session he held the floor thirty-six times. In all the parliamentary
discussions, whenever it was necessary to defend the Holy See, the
rights of Catholics, or conservative principles, Malincrodt was always
to the fore. His talents increased year by year, and would have brought
him still higher distinction, had not the elections of 1864 sent him
back to private life.

During the following three years events in his country were fast
approaching a climax. The Danish and Austrian wars had demonstrated what
Bismarck meant by "moral conquests." Malincrodt was among those who
could foresee the coming storm. In 1867 the electors of Westphalia sent
him to the Federal Diet of Northern Germany. It was there that he met
for the first time that lilliputian of Hanover, already known as the
Meppen Pearl, the Little Excellency, Herr Windthorst. The two Catholic
statesmen recognized each other, and began a friendship which was to
continue, under the aegis of the Church, until death. The speeches of
Malincrodt in the Reichstag were a revelation to the assembly who
recognized in him a man with whom German statesmen would have to reckon.
He was as much opposed to German union as desired by the Prussians, as
was Windthorst, and that because he knew how Prussia with the power in
her hands would not fail to destroy the autonomy of the lesser States.

The Franco Prussian War followed, with its consequence of the
unification of Germany under the imperial domination of Prussia. The
Kulturkampf made necessary the formation of the Centre, of which
Malincrodt was at first the chief and spokesman. His eloquence
throughout that stormy period was terrific, and had his career lasted a
little longer, he could no doubt, in conjunction with Windthorst, have
ended the struggle much earlier. He died, however, in his sixty-third
year, in 1874, at Berlin after a burst of oratory that convinced even
Lasker, one of the most implacable of his adversaries.

William Emmanuel von Ketteler was born on December 25, 1811, at Münster
in Westphalia. He was thus, like his colleagues, Windthorst and
Malincrodt, a Saxon. His mother, the former Baroness von Wenge von Beck,
exercised a decisive influence over his heart and at an early age she
inspired him with that truly Christian love for the poor which was one
of his salient characteristics during life. He was remarkable even in
childhood for his air of reflection and gravity, significant of a mind
that was serious and inclined to a sense of conscientious duty. At the
age of thirteen, in 1824, he was sent to the Jesuit College of Brieg in
the Valais, where he finished his studies.

According to the German usage, his family sent him to many Universities,
and thus he spent a short period successively at Goettingen, Berlin,
Heidelberg, and Munich. He was everywhere an adept at athletic exercises
and an ardent worker. After his examinations in law he was appointed
referendary of the government of his natal city, Münster.

It seemed as if he had found his vocation in law and politics. It was
about this time, 1838, that he beheld the venerable Archbishop of
Cologne, Clement August von Droste Vischering, dragged a prisoner to the
fortress of Minden. Indignant at this act of barbarity, Ketteler threw
up his governmental position. On July 9, 1838, he wrote to his brother
Wilderich: "As I do not care to serve a State which demands the
sacrifice of my conscience, it seems to me that the priesthood is my
most certain refuge. But how far I am from such a determination! To make
me worthy of that sublime ministry would require a miracle greater than
raising the dead to life." In 1841, he overcame his scruples, and went
to seek counsel from Mgr. de Reisach, the Bishop of Eichstadt, who
assured him that his vocation was genuine.

[Illustration: BISHOP KETTELER.]

He entered the University of Munich, then at the zenith of its renown.
Under the patronage of King Louis of Bavaria it had become the
rendezvous of all that Catholic society esteemed as brilliant and
distinguished. Görres, the great philosopher, was there with Philipps,
the Professor of Law, and Doellinger, as yet orthodox in his teaching of

After three years of study he was ordained to the priesthood on June 1,
1844, after which he was appointed assistant in the little town of
Beckum, in Westphalia, where he shared the labors of two young priests,
one of whom, Brinckmann, afterwards also became a bishop. After two
years he was sent as pastor to Hopsten on the confines of Hanover, where
he spent his time in those duties which had become so dear to his heart,
the care of the poor and the instruction of the young.

In 1848 he was sent as a deputy to the national Diet of Frankfort from a
district composed chiefly of Protestants. Out of the 600 members present
there, he found that forty were priests, while there were a few bishops
and many notable Catholic laymen. Ketteler appeared in the tribune, a
man with no political record and no literary glory. But his first speech
aroused enthusiasm and proclaimed him one of the orators of the day.
Ketteler demanded liberty of religious association for all creeds,
liberty of education, and autonomy in the commune in all that concerns
the public school and the interior administration. After the
assassination of Prince Lichnowsky and General von Auerwald by the
insurgents, the Abbe Ketteler was charged by the Assembly to pronounce
the funeral oration.

Fifteen days after this event the first great Catholic Congress was held
at Mentz, and instituted a programme in which Ketteler was for nearly
thirty years to have a leading part. This was the Catholic action in the
Social question.

In 1850 William Ketteler was consecrated Bishop of Mentz, and entered at
once into his role as the great social reformer of Germany. His
solicitude for the poor was constant and practical. For the sick poor he
called into his diocese the Franciscans of Aix-la-Chapelle; for the
orphans and abandoned children he founded establishments in 1856 and
1864. For the workingmen he founded, in 1851, a Geselleverein, or
Workingmen's Association, one of the first of its kind, besides bureaus
of aid, and circles and societies for procuring cheap lodging for the
needy. He had remarked that the numerous class of servant girls were
almost altogether without religious attendance, moral protection, or
material assistance. With the aid of the Countess Ida von Hahn-Hahn he
founded refuges for their kind, and looking then toward those others to
whom the allurements of the world had proved too fascinating, he
established a House of the Good Shepherd. His work in the direction of
the poor and of the laboring men went on without ceasing. His
Establishments of Hospitality for the Workers provided board and lodging
at the price of eighteen pennies a day. In 1856 the Association of Notre
Dame de Bon Secours came to the aid of those who, while out of a place
for a time, could find lodging until another situation were found for

Nor was he content with the mere attention to the ordinary routine
implied by such works. The service of his brilliant and well stored mind
was also devoted to the cause, presenting some works that still remain
authoritative guides in the matter of social economics. His great work
in this regard was his _Christianity and the Labor Question_, written at
a time when the doctrines of Lasalle and his companions were beginning
to stir the workingmen into a campaign of violence and anarchy. The
voice of the great prelate was heard also in the various congresses held
every year in Germany to discuss questions of Catholic interest. In the
Meeting of the Bishops at Fulda, in 1869, Mgr. Ketteler spoke eloquently
upon the questions, "Does the Social Question Exist in Germany?" "Can
the Church Aid Therein, and What is Her Duty?" "What are the Remedies at
Her Disposal?" In the Catholic Congress of 1871, he delivered a masterly
discourse upon _Liberalism, Socialism, and Christianity_.

In the Council of the Vatican, the position held by Ketteler in regard
to the Definition of the Great Dogma, was that of many German bishops,
namely, that while admitting the doctrine of infallibility as true and
essentially Catholic, they were unwilling to admit that its definition
was just then opportune. On the eve of the last session Mgr. Ketteler
addressed to Pius IX. a letter full of submission, and during the rest
of his life he defended the doctrine with all the enthusiasm of his
heart and soul.

During the Kulturkampf until his death the great prelate proved a power
of resistance against the tyranny of Bismarck, and although he could not
live to behold the final failure of the enemy, he was rejoiced to know
that the persecution was already producing fruits of conversion and
edification everywhere. His great soul comprehended that the Church must
finally come forth from the contest crowned with the glory of triumph.
It was in the assurance of this hope that he died in the Capuchin
Convent of Bruchhausen in Bavaria, as he was returning from his last
visit to Pope Pius IX. His part in the Kulturkampf, we shall review in
the succeeding paragraphs.

Such then were the giants who came to the conflict of the Kulturkampf
armed cap-a-pie, one indeed, with the weapons forged by hate and selfish
ambition; the others with those emblems of Christian faith the lustre of
which called forth the admiration even of the adversaries, and finally
brought all opposition to a standstill.


The Kulturkampf! The name was invented by Virchow, the atheistic
professor. He calls it a War for Civilization, though he of all men very
well knew that the reality could mean only a return to savagery and
barbarism. But as the Kulturkampf began in hypocrisy, was continued in
hypocrisy, and finished in cowardly hypocrisy, what matters it, if even
the name by which the mongrel is called is also born of hypocrisy!

The war was not the sudden ebullition of frenzied fear; it was a
carefully prepared campaign. It was launched only when every
circumstance seemed favorable to its success. France and Austria were
helpless to oppose it; England and Italy were full of encouragement; the
Protestants of Germany were excited by the spectre of infallibility; the
Liberals welcomed it as a rebuke against their old enemy, Conservatism;
the Holy Father himself was closed in behind the walls of the Vatican, a
prisoner, and therefore without the prestige of governmental influence.
At the beginning of 1871, the Catholic Church in Germany stood alone
without an influential friend in the world. It was then that cowardice
raised its hand to strike; it was the act of a ruffian felling with a
blow of his mailed fist the woman whom robbers had left half dead by the

If the Catholics were to blame in any manner, it was only because they
had permitted themselves to be cajoled in advance by the smiles and
hypocritical advances of Bismarck and his henchman, though it is true,
they had every right to expect a grateful treatment from the new Empire.
In 1870, Peter Reichensperger, one of the most prudent leaders of the
Catholic party, advised the Bavarian Diet to join the Prussian alliance,
through the trust he had in that State at the moment. Even Bishop
Ketteler was deceived when he beheld the comparatively fair treatment of
Catholics in the Rhenish province, whose proximity to France rendered it
advisable that they should not be discomforted, though at the same time
the Polish subjects of Prussia, at the other end of the Kingdom were
complaining of political aggressions against their religious liberty.
Bishop Ketteler, however, was soon compelled to avow his mistake. "It
was a great fault on our part," he writes, "to have believed in the
stability of the Prussian Constitution, in the rights which it plainly
allowed us. We were culpable for having believed that, in Prussia,
justice could triumph over the inveterate prejudice against Catholics,
and over party feelings. We were deceived; but our fault is not of the
kind that should cause us to blush."

The Catholics had, indeed, just reason to expect favorable treatment.
They had been repeatedly assured that it would be accorded to them. In
1870 the Emperor, replying to an address from the Knights of Malta from
the Rhenish Provinces and Westphalia, had uttered the significant words:
"I regard the occupation of Rome by the Italians as an act of violence;
and when this war is ended, I shall not fail to take it into
consideration, in concert with other sovereigns."

Thus it was that the Catholic people of Germany, whose men fought
against the bullets of France for the Fatherland, whose priests and nuns
went about the battle fields succoring and comforting the wounded and
the dying, who, in a word, stood in every trial foremost among the
defenders of the King and of his Government, were unprepared to see the
hand that they had aided, raised in a moment to strike them down, and
the sword that they had supported, uplifted for their extermination. It
was again the conflict of the Church against a lying, hypocritical,
ungrateful world.


To the most farseeing Catholics of the country it had long been evident
that there was need of a strong organization of Catholic political
forces. Before the Franco Prussian war no such distinctive organization
existed. At the Reichstag of Northern Germany the Catholics were not
grouped together, and at the Prussian Landtag they formed only an
inconsiderable minority. There appeared to be no need of concerted
action in the political field since peace and security seemed fully
assured. The schools were Christian, the religious Orders performed
their benevolent actions freely and unimpeded, the clergy was respected
and honored. Nothing being attacked, there was nothing to defend. The
Catholic deputies could enroll their names in any party they chose to
favor. Thus it was that when the time of danger came they were scattered
on every side.

After the war, however, Malincrodt, with some of his friends, brought
the Catholic members together, and elaborated a manifesto which served
as a platform for the voters of the country, according to which
Catholics were asked to cast their votes only for such candidates as
would pledge themselves to enter the new Catholic party and support its
principles. In the elections of March 3, 1871, the advice of these
leaders brought sixty-seven Catholic representatives to the Chamber, a
number that increased as the Kulturkampf progressed.

The new party took the name of the "Centre," and on March 27 affirmed
its existence by publishing its programme. At the head of this document
was written its motto: "Justice, the basis of Governments." The chiefs
of the party, Savigny, Windthorst, Malincrodt, Peter Reichensperger,
Prince Loëwenstein, and Freitag, were appointed a committee of direction
for the party and empowered to act for the furtherance of its interests.
The party thus constituted took for its permanent devise the words: "For
truth, justice and liberty," and the Catholic deputies pledged
themselves to defend these three causes with all the energy of their
will and intelligence. They demanded, moreover, in the members of the
party qualities worthy of its great purposes; no candidate might place
his name on their list except such as were without fear and without
reproach. For the interests of religion were in danger; and could they
be defended efficaciously by men who were not themselves living in
conformity with that religion? Every inconsistency of behavior would
naturally be taken advantage of by the enemy and made the basis of
scandal, and hence, as it was necessary not to give an opportunity for
criticism, the party bound itself to a platform of moral integrity and
austerity. A Catholic deputy guilty of having engaged in a duel contrary
to the laws of the Church, could not be admitted. Even the stain of
imputation, however undeserved, provided it gained popular credence,
could debar one from its numbers. And thus for the thirty years of its
existence not one of its members, as far as is known, has cast dishonor
upon the standard thus raised by its leaders. It is because of this high
moral standard, this unflinching loyalty to the Church in all her
endeavors, that the Centre was enabled to stand uncowed and unconquered
throughout the long war that followed its inception.

The new Centre party was called into action almost from the day of its
birth. The first Reichstag of the German Empire met on March 21, 1871.
In his speech from the throne the Emperor solemnly declared that the new
Empire was to be "the citadel of the peace of Europe." The Reichstag
voted an address in answer to the Emperor's speech, which, while
containing a sentiment of greeting and congratulation to the sovereign,
was at the same time, to define the attitude of Germany with regard to
European questions of the day. The Catholic people still remembered the
promises formulated at Versailles on November 8, 1870, and confirmed at
the beginning of 1871, and accordingly had reason to hope that Germany
would make use of her diplomatic intervention in favor of Pope Pius IX.,
despoiled by his enemies and imprisoned in the Vatican. This hope was
expressed in a resolution formulated by the Centre and proposed for the
acceptation of the Reichstag. But the Liberal party, at the instigation
of Bennigsen, repulsed the proposal of the Centre as a clerical
intrigue, and voted that "Germany, without being influenced either by
sympathy or antipathy, would permit every nation to attain its unity in
its own way, and leave to each State the choice of the form of
government which that State might consider best." This attitude of the
new Government was thus a refusal to support the Holy See and an
official recognition of the claims of Victor Emmanuel and his followers.

It was an act, moreover, which placed the Centre party in a very
compromising position, for in refusing to vote the address containing
such an article they would lay themselves open to the charge of
disloyalty and disrespect toward the sovereign, while in case they
should vote for it, they would thereby approve of the iniquitous
spoliation of the Papal States and the indignities heaped upon the Holy
Father. There was no hesitation, however, in the action of the Centre.
While faithful to their religious principles, and at the same time
loyally devoted to their Fatherland, they refused to vote the obnoxious
article. As was expected, their action drew upon them the envenomed
hatred of all parties, in months they were greeted as traitors,
renegades, and the "ultramontaine party."

The resolution of Bennigsen was voted on March 30, 1871, by a majority
of 150. It was but the prelude of open hostilities. On April 1, 3 and 4,
a discussion upon the Constitution was in progress, and Peter
Reichensperger, of the Centre, endeavored to conserve in the new
document the religious liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of 1850,
with its consequences of freedom of worship and freedom of association.
Under the leadership of Lasker, Treitschke and Blankenberg, the Liberals
again repulsed the claims of the Catholic despite the fervid and logical
eloquence of Bishop Ketteler. By a vote of 223 to 59 these liberties
were expunged from the Constitution, and at its reading one of the
Liberals, Marquard, remarked: "We have declared war upon
Ultramontainism, and we will carry it to a finish."

The efforts of the Centre, however, although meeting with repulse in
their first appearances, were yet indicative of a power with which the
Liberal party would have to reckon. Hence it was considered necessary to
effect its ruin in order that the principles of State absolution should
acquire the domination to which it aspired. To effect this object,
Bismarck made use of a stratagem entirely in accord with his usual
dishonesty and lack of scruple. His plan was no other than to throw
discredit upon the Centre attack in the eyes of the Catholic people. He
had already misrepresented the Centre before the Holy See as a source of
trouble for the Church in the Empire, and he strove to induce the Holy
See to formally disavow the operations of the Centre. Not being able to
obtain such a disavowal, he pretended that he had actually obtained it.
One of the Catholic members, Count Frankenberg, was deceived by the
assurances of the Chancellor, and abandoned the party, on May 17, 1871,
without giving any apparent reason. Three days later Malincrodt, certain
of the trickery of Bismarck, published a formal protest against such an
unworthy manoeuvre. Frankenberg, beginning to doubt, asked of Bismarck
an explanation, and was assured that "the interview of which you have
spoken between Count Tauffkirchen and the Cardinal Secretary of State
will hardly be revoked. The Centre party has been disapproved. This
disapprobation does not surprise me after the evidences of satisfaction
and the expressions of entire confidence which His Majesty, the King,
has received from His Holiness, the Pope, on the occasion of the
re-establishment of the German Empire." So categorical an avowal at
first threw the Catholics into a state of consternation, but Bishop
Ketteler, of Mentz, feeling that something was wrong, wrote to Cardinal
Antonelli, who at once, on June 5, sent a solemn denial of the
interview, which was published as an answer to the declaration of

The chagrin caused by this exposure found its vent in the non-Catholic
journals of the time, stigmatizing in the broadest terms the loyalty of
Catholics. Bismarck's own newspaper, the _Gazette of the Cross_, called
all Prussia to arms against the Centre and Ultramontainism, those
internal enemies who must be punished as were the Austrians and the
French "for it is time to take up again the work of the Reformation, and
to assure the supreme victory of Germanism over Romanism." In accordance
with these sentiments the friends of Bismarck set to work with open
aggressions. On July 8, 1871, a royal ordinance suppressed the Catholic
section of the Ministry of Worship, which had been founded by Frederick
William IV. in 1841, to give the Catholics an opportunity of presenting
their needs and claims before the Government. The Catholic population
was thus shut out from any officially favorable recognition.

At the same time Bismarck hastened to acts whereby the free action of
the German bishops were nullified at the caprice of the State. There was
at the time, in the Gymnasium of Brauensberg, a certain teacher of
Christian doctrine, named Wollmann, who had undertaken to speak openly
in opposition to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and thus incurred the
imputation of heresy, together with a director of the Normal School, one
Freibel, a member of the Old Catholic sect. Bishop Krementz, of Ermland,
after vain endeavors to bring him to a sense of his errors,
excommunicated him and his companion, and then reported his action to
the Minister of Worship, von Muhler, claiming that an excommunicated
heretic should not be permitted to teach in a Catholic school. The
Minister refused to remove the objectionable teacher (June 29, 1871),
declaring that the dogma of Infallibility in no way affected the
relations of Church and State. When, on July 9, following, Bishop
Krementz protested in so just and logical a manner that none of the
official journals dared to report his words, the Ministry replied by
threatening to expel any student of the Gymnasium who should refuse to
attend the lessons of Wollmann.

The persecution proceeded from day to day. On November 23, 1871, the
Bavarian Minister, von Lutz, presented before the Reichstag a law
entitled "for abuse of the pulpit," the "Kanzel-paragraph," which went
into vigor on December 10, 1871, and which was expressed in the
following terms: "Any ecclesiastic or official of the Church, who during
the exercise, or on the occasion of the exercise of his ministry, be it
in the church in presence of the crowd, or in any place set apart for
religious gatherings, shall, before several persons take as the theme of
his discussions affairs relating to the domain of the State, in such a
manner as to jeopardize the public tranquility, shall be punished by
imprisonment the duration of which can be extended to two years."

The purport of this law was plainly perceived by the Catholic people. De
Lutz, who with Prince Hohenlohe of Bavaria, a Catholic in a Catholic
State, had elaborated the law, confessed openly, that "this was the
first buttress in the defence of the State against the Catholic Church,
and that still others would yet be erected." He admitted even more, that
the law's intent was to protect apostasy, the rebellion of disloyal
theologians against the dogmas and discipline of the Church. Hence he
declared: "The law is framed to give courage to 'good priests,' who
might suffer from the tyranny of the infalliblist bishops, who might
force them to acts which we would punish." In reply to this declaration
Herr Windthorst remarked: "Thus this law is an agreement between the new
Empire and the Protestantism of Doellinger."

On the 8th of the following February, 1872, another law was proposed,
giving to the Government all rights over the schools. It had been
suggested by Muhler, and was sustained by his worthy successor, Falk,
aided by Bismarck. To oppose it more than 500 petitions were placed
before the Landtag; those from Silesia alone contained more than 80,000

In the discussions, Bismarck brought to sustain his cause the most
influential members of the ministerial group, such as Gneist, a Freemason,
Lasker, a hostile Jew, the apostate pastor, Richter-Mariendorf, and the
materialist professor, Virchow. He himself met with his usual brutal
cynicism the protests of Windthorst, and Malincrodt, and all the Polish
and Guelph orators who dared to take the stand for justice and honor. The
law was finally voted and passed with a majority of 42. Thus the
Government had the right to supervise all institutes of education both
public and private, the right to appoint the inspectors of schools, or to
deprive those exercising such posts of their office. It was a law in fact
which placed Catholic pastors under the direct and unreasoning
surveillance of the State in a matter most closely connected with

The tyrannical character of the law was recognized not by Catholics
alone, but by all fair-minded men. The _Kreutzeitung_, and the
_Germania_, differing in faith and thought, were in accord in this
matter and complained bitterly of a law which meant only "the loss of
that which had hitherto been the good fortune of Prussia, since it was
clear that the Government and the National Liberals desired only the
extinction of religion." The bishops protested with one voice, declaring
the law "offensive to the essential and inalienable rights of the
Church, and that grave perils and dangers were hovering over Church and
State." Then as their protests and petitions remained unheard, they sent
forth, on April 11, 1872, a collective letter informing their priests of
their resolution never to yield except to violence: "Since no power on
earth can dispense us from the obligation of watching over the Christian
education of the little children who have been confided to us by the
divine Savior, we are firmly resolved to continue to fulfil faithfully
the duties of our pastoral charge in that which touches the popular
schools which the law takes away, in principle, from the maternal action
of the Church, and that duty we shall fulfil to the end, as long as it
is not made absolutely impossible."

The Government, however, which at first pretended to respect the rights
of the Church, little by little removed many priests from the schools,
took away as far as possible the priestly supervision, and favored mixed
schools of Catholics and Protestants. The crucifix was then removed from
the school rooms, together with all biblical pictures and the statues of
the saints.

The Bishop of Ermland, who in July, 1871, had excommunicated the
apostate Wollmann, received from the Minister of Public Worship, Falk, a
notification to the effect that: "as the excommunication was not a
merely spiritual penalty, but had also a civil signification, so it
could not be admitted that it should be inflicted only by an
ecclesiastical superior, and that the latter in using it would violate
the prerogatives of citizens placed under the protection of the State,
and would commit an assault against the rights of the State, which can
and ought to oppose it; hence in his action against the two
excommunicated persons, he had gone beyond the limits of his
ecclesiastical powers; this act was therefore annulled, and the
Government would refuse any longer to recognize him who had so acted, as
the Bishop of Ermland."

Bishop Krementz answered, on March 30, exposing the absurdity of Falk's
doctrine, the justice of his own action in regard to Wollmann and
Michelis, and dissipating the many sophisms and garbled citations
contained in the letter of March 11. The Bishop declared, moreover, that
he could not and would not obey, and spurned the malicious action he was
commanded to do despite all right and all laws. The words of the
courageous Bishop only served to fan the flame of hatred, but had no
effect in lessening the injustice and violence of the Government.

When the bureaucrats of Berlin perceived that the bishops of the country
were holding firm to their principles, they again had recourse to the
dishonest methods of strategy. There was at the time a cardinal in
Germany, the brother of that Prince Hohenlohe who had been instrumental
in Bavaria in stirring up an agitation against the Papal authority.
Cardinal Hohenlohe was one of those ecclesiastics who at the Council of
the Vatican had held out most strongly against the definition of
infallibility, and though he had finally acquiesced with the other
bishops, he harbored in his heart something not at all in harmony with
the Catholic position of his native land. He was therefore looked upon
by the Government at Berlin as a most favorable subject to act as an
intermediary between Berlin and Rome to force the hands of the unwilling
bishops. Accordingly in the beginning of 1872, Bismarck caused it to be
reported abroad that the Cardinal was to be sent to Rome as the German
ambassador to the Holy See. A strange feature of this appointment was
that the Pope had received no official intimation of the Government's
intention, contrary to all diplomatic usages. The Cardinal accepted the
mission without having asked the consent of the Holy See. In fact, the
Papal Secretary, Cardinal Antonelli, soon received a laconic dispatch
from the Chancellor informing him of the approaching arrival of the new
ambassador. The plan of Bismarck was clearly to effect through the
offices of Cardinal Hohenlohe the suppression of the Centre party,
knowing well that in case the Holy See refused to accept the embassy, it
would arouse in Germany a storm of animosity which must prove invaluable
in aiding the anti-Catholic movement.

The Pope naturally refused to receive Cardinal Hohenlohe as an
ambassador. As a result the anti-Catholic press began at once to print
its most violent invectives against the Catholic Church. In the
Reichstag, the deputy Bennigsen, boiling with fury, demanded the final
suppression of the embassy to the Holy See. The embassy was,
nevertheless, continued, for Bismarck could not think of thus closing up
an avenue, which, he fondly thought, would finally lead to the
extinction of that Centre party which he hated as he hated the Catholic
Church itself. Moreover, official documents are existent which betray
the fact that Bismarck even at that early date was seriously considering
the project of directing the future Conclave towards a choice which
would favor the political ends he had in view.

On May 28, 1872, Von Roon, Minister of War, suspended Bishop
Namszanowski, the high military chaplain, from his office, because the
latter had refused to officiate in a place desecrated by the services of
the Old Catholics. It was an act of Caesarism which tended to reduce the
whole episcopate to the entire will of the State. It was remonstrated
that there were no laws to authorize the action of Von Roon; accordingly
it was proposed to make such laws.

While these were in preparation the persecution was for a time
concentrated upon the Jesuits. For two years, indeed, the more bitter
among the Protestants united at Darmstadt had demanded the banishment of
the members of this Order. It was a proposition most savory to the Old
Catholics, who would find it more easy to banish the Jesuits than to
conquer them, and it was through their efforts principally that the
question of their persecution was finally brought before the Reichstag.

In the meantime the Government began to be besieged with petitions, some
demanding the expulsion of the Jesuits, others defending them by greater
numbers and stronger arguments. By April 29, 1872, there were forty-one
such petitions against the Order, while its defenders presented as many
as four hundred and seventy-six. On May 16, the Reichstag consigned all
petitions to the Chancellor, Bismarck, as was proposed by the
Councillor, Wagener. Thus was left to the arbitration of one man a
matter which interested the whole Empire, to a man, moreover, who that
same day was charged with preparing a law regulating the legal
conditions of the religious Orders, congregations and associations, and
which "should establish penalties for their activity when hurtful to the

While hardly ten thousand signatures demanded from the Reichstag the
banishment of the Jesuits, more than four hundred thousand more were
presented in their favor. On June 12, a law against the Jesuits was
proposed; Prince Hohenlohe and three others aggravated its hostile
measures by extending its effects to all Congregations bearing a
resemblance to the Society of Jesus. Wagener declared openly that its
purpose was to combat Rome, and hence that the law which was to strike
the Jesuits should be only the beginning of the war upon Catholics. To
give some semblance of plausibility to such a far-reaching design, he
spread abroad the rumor that there were Jesuits hidden under every kind
of habit. Malincrodt responded ably to the sensational clamorings of
Wagener, proving that the intentions of the proposed law were violations
of the rights of nature, of existing legislation, of the particular
Constitutions of the States, of that of the Empire, and of the primary
elements of justice and good sense. The battle that ensued called for
the loftiest eloquence of the Centre, from Windthorst, Ballestrem, the
two Reichenspergers, and from Ketteler. One of the Reichenspergers
declared that the enemies of the Jesuits "believe they must break every
law to create a new law of proscription in order to protect themselves
from two hundred Jesuits. Ah, gentlemen! confess that your law is but
the failure of Liberalism!" On June 19, the infamous law was passed.

A few days after Pius IX., addressing on June 25, 1872, some Germans at
Rome, gave them such advice as might be expected from the great Father
of Christendom. "Pray," he said, for prayer is the most powerful means
of restraining the persecutors of the Church. He bade them to oppose
their enemies by word and writing, with firmness, and yet with respect.
It was God's will that they should obey and respect their superiors, but
He wills also that we should speak out the truth and combat error. The
discourse of the holy Pontiff aroused evil feelings among the enemies of
the Church in Germany, who declared it an exhortation to rebellion, and
to civil war, that it was an intolerable usurpation, and that the Pope
ought not to meddle with such matters.

Meanwhile the sisters were banished from the public schools, and the
communes were ordered to break all contracts made with religious
Congregations. The young men in the gymnasiums and high schools were
forbidden to be members of Catholic societies, though Protestants were
permitted full liberty in such matters. Thus in Bavaria the Government
forbade the meetings of the great St. Boniface Association which looked
after the spiritual interests of Catholics in Protestant districts,
while at the same time it tolerated the Society of Gustavus Adolphus,
an association which pretended to care for Protestants in Catholic
States. Indeed, Falk boasted that his aim was to restrain the Catholic

The law against the Jesuits as printed in the decree of July 5, 1872,
reads as follows: "The Order of the Company of Jesus, being excluded
from the German Empire, it is no longer lawful for the members of that
Order to continue to exercise any office of the Order itself, above all
in the church and in the school; nor is it permitted to them to preach
missions; within six months at the most the houses of the Company of
Jesus must be closed."

Following the issue of this decree the Catholics everywhere were
subjected to a most humiliating espionage. Jesuits were discovered
everywhere and denounced to the authorities. Not only secular priests,
but laymen and officials of the army were accused. The decree gave the
Jesuits six months; but in many places their persecution began
immediately. Colleges, houses and churches were closed; the Jesuits were
forbidden to preach, to hear confessions and even to say Mass.

With the Jesuits were included also the Redemptorists, the Lazarists,
and the Brothers and Sisters of the Christian Schools; even the pious
congregations directed by these Orders were dispersed as being
affiliated with the Jesuits.

The Bishops of Germany assembled at Fulda on September 20, 1872, and
protested against the persecutions. They made use of the occasion to
defend the noble attitude of Bishop Krementz of Ermland, to reproach the
Government for its open favoritism in the case of the Old Catholics, to
declare that Bishop Namszanowski had fulfilled his duty. They deplored
this new offense against the Church through the persecution of the
Company of Jesus and of other Orders. In their summing up they declared
that "the principles herein expressed by us will always be the criterion
of our actions, and we are ready for that end to make the greatest
sacrifices, even that of our lives."

In the meantime the anti-Catholics were busily elaborating their plan of
campaign. A certain professor, Emile Friedberg of the University of
Leipzig, published a rabid attack upon the Church wherein he outlined
the policy to be pursued by his party in dealing with them. Among his
suggestions, nearly all of which were ultimately adopted, were the
following: The establishment of obligatory civil marriage; suppression
of obligatory baptism; separation of Church and State; secularization of
charitable works; a penal law against "abuse of the pulpit;" measures to
prevent ecclesiastics not in harmony with the Government from using the
pulpit; a rigorous surveillance of the education of the clergy; an order
forbidding the appointment of ecclesiastics who by their civil or
political relations could create difficulties for the Government;
suppression of the Order of Jesuits; an interdict striking all
Congregations not authorized by the Government; recourse to the State
against the decisions of ecclesiastical authority; punishment of "abuse
of power" by fines, and by suspension from exercise of jurisdiction;
measures compelling the State never to place its powers at the
discretion of the Church, never to punish an ecclesiastic resisting his
ecclesiastical superiors, never to confirm the penalties ordained by the
bishops; measures to abolish the sanctification of the holy days, etc.

All these measures and many more like them are worthy of note inasmuch
as they contained the program of the real hostilities now about to
begin. The separation of Church and State, being in the eyes of the
Radicals, the supreme end, it was proposed to proceed gradually,
destroying first the means of life in the German Church, stopping up its
veins and arteries, and finally strangling all its activities, until it
should at length have become so weak and inert that any measure for its
extinction should be easy and successful. It was the proposal of men;
God, Himself, however, was to show that the last word remained in His
divine power.


On January 9, 1873, Falk, the Minister of Worship, placed upon the desk
of the Chamber four resolutions, the object of which was to inaugurate a
certain Civil Constitution for the clergy, and to place the Church
entirely at the mercy of the State. After having proscribed the
religious Orders, these new resolutions aimed at the destruction of the
secular clergy.

The first of these laws, "on the appointment and education of
ecclesiastics," required that all ecclesiastics should be of German
birth, that they should have graduated from a German gymnasium, and have
spent three years in a State University, after which they should undergo
an examination directed by the prescriptions of the ministry of worship.
The State was to supervise all establishments of ecclesiastical
training, even the Grand Seminaries which alone were to remain, all the
lesser Seminaries being closed. The President of the Province had the
right to reject every appointment or transfer of ecclesiastics made by a
bishop, and the bishops should be obliged to notify the President of all
appointments and transfers; moreover, the President could impose a fine
of one thousand thallers upon any bishop who should not appoint a person
acceptable to the ministry, and this appointment should be made within
the space of a year; otherwise he could lay hands upon the property of
the bishop or of any other ecclesiastic refusing obedience, nor could
the bishop appeal from such judgment to the crown. This civil punishment
rendered the ecclesiastic unfit for the divine ministry. A fine was to
be imposed upon any priest who after being deposed by the Government
should dare to exercise his ecclesiastical functions.

A second law assigned the limits within which the bishops might judge in
ecclesiastical affairs, the penalties they were to pronounce, though
always with the consent of the civil authorities; an appeal was
instituted from the judgment of the bishop to the High Court of Justice
for Ecclesiastical Affairs, which Court could order the suspension of a
bishop who had unjustly condemned a subject. There was to be a penalty
for the bishop who should refuse to surrender to the State the records
of any ecclesiastical trial; moreover, the High Court could justify
itself for any deposition of a bishop by the plea that his continuance
could not be permitted for reasons of public utility.

A third law regarded those who should wish to abandon the Catholic
religion. It was a measure of encouragement to apostates whose defection
it surrounded with the most benevolent and watchful care. The only thing
necessary to legalize any act of apostasy was that the unfortunate
should appear before a civil official with a declaration written and
sealed, and the payment of five silver groschen (12 cents).

The fourth and last law, "on the limits of the use of means of
punishment and correction in the Church" was one hardly likely to have
any honest interest for the bishops, since it forbade, what they were
never likely to do, the physical punishment of lay people, and any
punishment attaining the fortune or the honor of the citizens. It was a
law which hoped that by formally forbidding any criminal act, would
lead an inflamed public opinion to believe such a criminal act had
really been perpetrated.

Such were the May laws which despite the pleading of the Centre orators,
and their innate and evident injustice passed the lower House on April
5, 1873. In the Landtag, however, the difficulty of pushing them through
was at once evident. To win his point at all hazards moved Bismarck to a
stratagem worthy of his evil genius. The Emperor was accordingly induced
to appoint twenty-four new members to the Landtag, all of whom were warm
partisans of the Chancellor. The best men of the Landtag pleaded
eloquently for justice and right, but their voices were drowned in the
chorus of hate swelled by these new accessions. On the 1st of May the
whole bill was passed, and by the middle of the month they received the
royal signature.

As soon as the discussion upon the new laws was begun the German bishops
addressed a memorial to the Government detailing with all precision and
clearness the injustice and the necessary consequences of the proposed
legislation. On February 5, they addressed a collective letter to the
Landtag containing the principal portions of the former memorial, and
declaring firmly: "For, if these projects, which are in direct
opposition to the prescriptions and very essence of the Church, are
adopted, not a Catholic, and still less a priest or a bishop, can
recognize them, or submit voluntarily to them without betraying his
faith." The petitions of the bishops had little effect with the Iron
Chancellor, who smiled at the thought that fifteen aged prelates could
turn him aside from his set purpose. On May 2, the bishops of Prussia
addressed a circular to the priests and faithful of their dioceses,
declaring: "The projects in question have not yet the force of law; if
that should happen, however, with God's grace, let us defend
unanimously and constantly the principles exposed in our memorials,
those principles not being our own, but those of Christianity itself and
of eternal justice. We shall thus accomplish our pastoral duty even
until death, and as we stand before the tribunal of the divine Pastor
Who has called us, and Who Himself gave His life for His sheep, we shall
not be rejected as hirelings."

On May 16, the day when the May Laws first appeared before the public,
the bishops of Prussia sent a collective declaration to Secretary of
State, again stating their claims to liberty of conscience and affirming
the utter impossibility of submitting to these persecuting laws. "The
Church cannot recognize the principle of a pagan State, according to
which the civil laws are the only source of right, so that the Church
can have only so much liberty as is conceded by legislation and the
Constitution of the State. She cannot recognize such pretensions without
denying the divinity of Christ, the heavenly Source of her doctrine and
institution, and without placing Christianity itself under the arbitrary
caprice of men."

The example of the bishops found an echo in the courageous behavior of
the priests and faithful. From all sides the priests of Germany joined
in collective protestations of their loyalty to the principles of the
Church, and gave the lie to the Liberal sheets which pretended that
defections had already begun in the ranks of the clergy. The faithful
were not less zealous in manifesting their sentiments of admiration for
the courage of their bishops and priests, and of a determined resolve to
start firm for all their God and their Church should demand of them.

An election for the Reichstag was approaching, and the influential
Catholics of the Empire bent all their energies to gain whatever might
lie in their power. On May 20, this election took place at Neustadt, a
place that in 1871 had sent Count Oppensdorf, a strong partisan of
Bismarck, to the Chamber with a majority of 5000 votes. The Catholics
took up the struggle for this district. Their candidate was Count
Frederic von Stolberg-Stolberg. Their efforts were successful and the
Catholic candidate was elected by a vote of 6427 against 2155. The glory
of this triumph was due principally to the work of the General
Association of German Catholics, which now took up the cause of Catholic
liberty as never before. As if in gratitude for this and some other
similar successes, the General Association, at once published an
official circular announcing that it had placed all Catholic committees
under the protection of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and
declaring: "If we place our confidence in that Savior so bitterly
rejected by our times, we shall not be confounded."

The Government looked with astonishment upon these manifestations of
Catholic loyalty and zeal, and endeavored by subtle trickery to bring
them to nothing. To overcome the firm stand of the Catholic nobility,
Bismarck induced Prince Ratibor, a Catholic, whose honor was not
immaculate, to address the Emperor in the name of the Catholic people.
His memorial entitled "_Address of the Catholics of the State_,"
recognized in the imperial Government the right of placing the Church in
subjection; but nobody, even among the enemies of the Church, was
deceived by the ruse.

The High Court for Ecclesiastical Affairs now began its work. It was
composed at the time of nine Protestants and two Catholics, Dooc and
Forckenbeck, both being creatures of Bismarck. It immediately sent out
its police inspectors to spy upon all public meetings; every speech was
criticized, the audience disturbed, the names of all present at such
meetings set down in note books, and, if caprice so dictated, the
meetings might be dissolved by the police. While every sheet that
attacked the Catholics was protected and subsidized, the Catholic
newspapers were subjected to vexatious intermeddling and suppression.
Many Catholic editors, like Dr. Majunke, of the _Germania_, payed for
their zeal by imprisonment.

In the midst of these troubles, Pope Pius IX. wrote on August 7, 1873,
to the Emperor: "Every measure of the Government demonstrates that its
intention is to combat Catholicity; nor is there any apparent reason for
such deeds; His Majesty approves of them as is shown by his letters; how
then, can they continue? Does not the Emperor perceive that they are a
menace to his throne?" The answer of William was worthy of the injustice
of his Government; he defended himself by appealing to his rights and
casting the blame upon the Centre and the German bishops. This
correspondence between the Emperor and the Pope was spread throughout
all Germany, which in its inflamed state was willing to take every word
of the Pontiff as an insult and cause for further persecution. But the
holy Pontiff, in his Encyclical of November 21, 1873, exposed the
hypocritical sophisms of the Emperor, and upheld both the Centre and the
bishops in the magnificent work they were carrying on.

In the meantime a ministerial ordinance of Falk, dated September 2,
abolished all difference between the Old Catholics and the Catholics of
Rome, declaring that the name, Catholic, should be common to both. At
the same time, Reinkens of Breslau, who had been chosen by his
co-religionaries as the "German Bishop," and consecrated by the
Jansenists of Deventee and Harlem, was so highly recognized by the
Government, that the Emperor decided, by an official act, communicated
on September 19, to all the provincial governors, that "Bishop" Reinkens
constituted a part of the Catholic Church. The document is interesting:
"We, William, by the grace of God, King of Prussia, etc., announce by
these presents that we recognize and wish to have recognized as a
Catholic bishop Joseph Hubert Reinkens, ordinary professor in the
Faculty of theology of Breslau."


The May Laws of 1873 were put into operation with hardly any delay. The
first to feel their force was Archbishop Melchers of Cologne, who had
excommunicated the apostates, Rabbers and Pasfrath, and who had
forbidden any ecclesiastic ordained by the Jansenists of Utrecht to
exercise the clerical offices. The Government closed the Grand
Seminaries of Posen and of Paderborn after the bishops of those Sees had
refused to submit to the Government, or to bend to its will even after
the sequestration of their salaries. At Treves, Cologne and Fulda also
the income of the Seminaries were confiscated.

The Archbishop of Gnesen-Posen, Mgr. Ledochowski, had named a pastor and
a vicar without consulting the Government. He was cited before the High
Court, and was condemned to a fine of two hundred thallers, while the
two priests he had appointed received notice that they could not
exercise any ecclesiastical office. The same courageous Archbishop had
ordered that the catechism in the Catholic school of Wongrowitz should
be taught in the Polish language, while the Government demanded that it
should be taught in German. As a result the teachers of the school were
deprived of their places, and an effort was made to forbid religious
instruction even in the churches.

Again in August the High Court condemned for the crime of appointing
pastors and assistants, the same Archbishop Ledochowski, together with
Bishops Förster of Breslau, Martin of Paderborn, Cardinal Schwartzemberg
of Prague, the Bishop of Olmutz and the Administrator of Freiberg in
Brisgovia. The two latter prelates were not even subjects of Prussia,
but were persecuted for having appointed pastors in Prussian territory
without the permission of Berlin. Bishop Koett of Fulda was actually
dying when the sentence of condemnation was launched against him; he saw
the closing of his Seminary just before he died on October 15, 1873. The
furniture of the dead prelate's house was taken to pay the fine imposed
upon him. Truly even the dead were pursued by the fanatics of hatred.

The bishops of Heldesheim, Osnabrück, Münster and Treves, were also
condemned by the High Court. Every day the priests of the Prussian
dioceses were punished for daring to prefer the jurisdiction of the
bishops to that of the bureaucrats. Religious and Sisters were hunted
and banished under the pretext that they were affiliated with the
Jesuits. Catholic teachers were driven from the schools, which were then
committed to Protestants, rationalists, anything but Catholics.

On November 24 the Government invited Mgr. Ledochowski to resign his
See; on the 30th of that month his palace was forced by agents of the
Government, and searched, and all his correspondence with Rome and with
his clergy was seized. In answer to the demand of the Government he had
declared that as he had been placed over his diocese by God, through the
means of His Vicar, the Government had no power to depose him; nor could
any Court deprive him of his jurisdiction; as to resigning his See,
that would never happen as long as his persecuted people were exposed to
such dangers.

On February 6, 1874, the Archbishop was arrested in his palace, and
without trial or sentence, was carried away to Ostrowo, where he was
cast into prison. On April 15 the High Court passed its sentence upon
the Archbishop, already in prison, as on March 31, Archbishop Mechers
had been sentenced and imprisoned. On March 6, Bishop Eberhard of Treves
received the same fate, and three days after soldiers and guards
surrounded his Grand Seminary, banished its directors and professors and
confiscated all its property.

In the meantime a dissension had arisen in the Camp of the enemy. Arnim,
who had served Bismarck during the Council of the Vatican, had come into
disfavor with his powerful employer, and began to show revolutionary
tendencies. One of the results of this discord between the Chancellor
and his former tool was the disclosure of certain shady operations of
Bismarck prior to 1870. Certain documents were brought forth showing
that, in 1869, Doellinger had influenced the Bavarian Prince Hohenlohe
to begin the war against Rome, and that at that time Bismarck was
laboring in every part of Europe to arouse the Governments against the
definition of papal infallibility. It was shown also that from June 18,
1870, this Arnim, whom Pius IX. called the "New Architofel," had
suggested against the Church all the measures of which Bismarck had made
use during the year that followed. These revelations coming thus in
1874, in the very heat of the persecution, gave additional evidence that
the Council and the infallibility were only pretexts, and not the real
causes of the Kulturkampf, an event which had been in preparation long
before the Council was convened.

The greater indignities perpetrated upon the heads of the Catholic
Church in Germany now followed each other with such rapidity and
violence as to overshadow the thousands of minor grievances. On July 27,
1874, Bishop Janiczewski, auxiliary of the See of Posen, was imprisoned
at Kosmin for fifteen months for having assumed the episcopal office
without the permission of the Government. The same day, Mgr.
Koryskowski, delegated by the Archbishop of Gnesen to administer the
affairs of that diocese, was sent into exile at Stargard. The Canon
Woiyewski was imprisoned for having continued in his capacity as
ecclesiastical judge after the imprisonment of his Archbishop. Bishop
Martin of Paderborn was deposed from his bishopric; he refused to read
the sentence which was nailed to the door of his prison cell; he was
liberated, however, but conducted to the frontiers at Wesel. On January
18, 1875, the Seminary of Fulda, the most ancient establishment of its
kind in Germany, was closed.

The record of persecution during the first five years of the Kulturkampf
is an appalling arraignment of its perpetrators. Five bishops
imprisoned, and all bishops fined and insulted, fourteen hundred priests
incarcerated, all the seminaries closed, it seemed little short of
miraculous that religion survived the merciless onslaught. Yet the end
had not arrived. On December 4, 1874, Bismarck suppressed the embassy to
the Vatican, an act which moved the Catholic people to send to the
Sovereign Pontiff an address signed by all the faithful of the Empire.
It was in answer to this address that Pius IX. published that eloquent
encyclical of February 5, 1875.

Strange to say, however, all the previous legislation had not begotten
the results that were expected. The clergy like the episcopate resisted
the anti-religious laws, preferring exile, imprisonment and fines to
defection, however tempting. The faithful stood loyally by their
afflicted pastors, refusing with one mind the ministrations of
ecclesiastics sent to them by governmental orders.

The Chancellor, therefore, was driven to a final resort to effect his
purpose of extinguishing Catholic faith in Germany. Accordingly a new
series of laws was elaborated, entitled the Sperrgesetz, or laws
suppressing the payments made to ecclesiastics by the State. One cannot
rightly term these payments "salaries," a word which indicates no other
claim than remuneration for services performed. The amounts annually
payed to the Church by the State were moneys which the State owed to the
Church since the beginning of the century on account of the wholesale
confiscation of ecclesiastical properties and revenues following upon
the Treaty of Luneville in 1803. As such they had been formally
recognized, and hence their payment to the officials of the Church was a
matter of justice which the State could not afford to refuse without
incurring the stigma of robbery.

This, however, was the object of the new laws which were as follows:

     Article 1. Beginning from the day on which the present law
     shall be published, the payment of all that the Government
     has hitherto allotted to dioceses, to institutions and to
     ecclesiastics who belong to such dioceses shall be
     suppressed. The same measure shall be extended to such
     ecclesiastical funds as the State administers permanently.

     Art. 2. The ecclesiastical salaries shall be re-established
     whenever the bishop, or the diocesan administrator shall
     pledge himself in writing to observe the laws of the State.

     Art. 3. In the dioceses of Posen-Gnesen and Paderborn the
     ecclesiastical salaries shall be re-established as soon as a
     new bishop shall be appointed in concert with the Government.

     Art. 5. If in any diocese, in which the ecclesiastical
     salaries shall have been re-established, any priest refuses
     obedience to the laws of the State despite the pledges given
     by his bishop, the Government is authorized to suppress anew
     any allowance in favor of such recalcitrants.

     Art. 6. The Government is authorized to re-establish the
     salaries of priests who by their acts manifest the intention
     of obeying the laws of the State. If after that they shall
     violate the law, the suppression of their salaries shall be

This was the law, variously called the Brodkorbgesetz, the Sperrgesetz
and the like, which was passed on April 22, 1875, with the hope thereby
of starving the priesthood of Germany into submission.

On May 13, 1875, the minister Falk brought forth another law placing
under the power of the State all sales and alienations of ecclesiastical
properties and of pious foundations. A law of June 20 gave to the State
the temporal administration of Catholic parishes; it was a law very much
like that of the present French regime which would impose associations
cultuelles upon the French churches. On July 4 came a still more
iniquitous ordinance, regulating "the rights of the Old Catholics to the
property of the churches." Thereby these sectaries were authorized to
claim a part of the usufruct of parochial properties, and to employ in
their services the use of Catholic churches and vestments.

If a pastor or curate should apostatize to this sect he might claim
possession of the rectory and church, which at his death would pass into
the hands of the Old Catholics, should they be in the majority. In fact,
in some places, such as Bochum and Wiesbaden, the Catholics were
expelled from their Church by a very small minority of the sectaries.

On February 18, 1876, the priest was deprived of the right of directing
Catholic instruction in the primary schools. On June 7, of the same
year, the State claimed formally the right of surveillance over the
administration of the property of the Catholic Church.

There was little more that the State could now do to subjugate Catholic
faith short of absolute murder. The Kulturkampf had reached its most
critical stage. It was, indeed, a moment when the human pride of the
persecutors impelled them to boast of their crimes, and promise, if it
were possible, greater exactitude in the future. The Chancellor could
declare, in 1877, that the Kulturkampf was then at its zenith. In
consequence it was time to look for that civilization which Virchow had
prophesied as its ultimate result. Its real fruits were not what
Bismarck or his Protestant clientele would have wished.

A new order had arisen in Germany, an order of unrest and anarchy which
manifested its existence in a manner not at all to the liking of the
ruling powers. Thus, on May 11, 1878, the Socialist Hoedel attempted the
life of the Emperor, and the crime was repeated by Nobiling a few weeks
after, on June 2. Even Protestantism felt the destructive force of the
blow aimed at Catholicity. There were hardly any more marriages
performed by Protestant ministers; their temples were deserted; their
pastors openly attacked the divinity of Christ, while everywhere like a
shadow of death a reign of crime and immorality rested upon the


The country at length began to awaken to a sense of the criminality of
those laws which it had imposed upon an inoffensive people. Even the
_Gazette of the Cross_, the organ of the orthodox conservatives, could
say: "It is through the Kulturkampf that we have encountered our moral
and material miseries, miseries that are evident in every part of the
German Empire. It is only by renouncing the Kulturkampf, and the ideas
which brought it forth, that we can hope to escape from our
embarrassments. Such is our opinion, and it is becoming more general
every day. Where there is a will there is a way." The _Gazette_ but
echoed the sentiments of nearly all the German Protestants who had
retained anything of Christian faith, and in consequence a demand was
sounded throughout the Empire for a cessation of the persecution.

Bismarck, himself, though still wedded to his hope of dominating the
spiritual life of the Church, saw clearly that his methods had proven
abortive. Hence, from 1878 onward, the trend of governmental action
proceeded slowly but surely towards a reconciliation with the Catholic
elements in the nation. Moreover, it was becoming more and more evident
that the Government needed the co-operation of the Catholics in curbing
the spirit of revolution now making itself heard above the clamor of
intrigue and oppression.

It was not surprising, therefore, that Prince Bismarck should turn to
the Holy See for succor in his difficulty. Mgr. Masella, the papal
nuncio at Munich, afterwards Cardinal, was therefore invited to Berlin
to confer upon matters touching the relations of Church and State. Such
a visit, however, was entirely out of the question as long as the laws
against Catholics continued in vigor. The Chancellor contrived
nevertheless to arrange a meeting at the baths of Kissingen, but without
arriving at any satisfactory agreement. The Prince then sent his
representative, Count Hübner, to Vienna to confer with the papal nuncio
at that Court, Mgr. Jacobini. Again negotiations were opened at Gastein
in the duchy of Salzburg, but like the others came to naught, as the
papal representative refused conciliation as long as the May Laws should

It now became quite evident that the plans of Bismarck must require a
reversal of his former policy. Accordingly, in 1880, a beginning was
made by a slight modification of the obnoxious laws. The Government
thereby yielded its claim to the right of deposing ecclesiastics; in
1881, it recognized the vicars-general who had been appointed through
ecclesiastical channels to administer the dioceses of Paderborn,
Osnabrück and Breslau; nor were these prelates required to take the oath
of blind obedience to obnoxious laws. The bishoprics of Fulda and of
Treves had been filled by papal appointment, the former receiving as its
incumbent, Mgr. Kopp, and the latter, Mgr. Korum; strange to say, the
Chancellor recognized both prelates.

These victories of the Catholics, slight in themselves, were powerful as
evidencing the direction of governmental policies. The reversion,
however, of Bismarck, was not so quickly followed by the creatures whom
he had placed in the Chambers, and whose hostility to Catholic interests
continued as violent and bitter as ever. "Let us be patient for one or
two years," cried Bennigsen, the leader of the Liberals, "and we shall
see the fruits of our glorious policy; we shall have conquered the
Pope." In two years, 1882, the Pope remained unconquered, while in
Germany the Catholic party increased in numbers and in power.

On May 31, 1883, new concessions were made to the Catholics. Provision
was made for the pardoning of deposed bishops, the legal formalities
required by candidates for ecclesiastical offices could be dispensed
with at the option of the Minister of Worship, the State examinations
of ecclesiastical students were set aside. Still the May Laws remained
upon the statute books, and against them the Centre party, under the
leadership of Windthorst, continued to protest even though advised to
show some leniency by Mgr. Galimberti. The firmness of the great leader
was rewarded. The affair of the Caroline Islands, disputed between
Germany and Spain, gave Bismarck an opportunity of approaching the Holy
See with better grace than before. Accordingly the Chancellor arranged
that the Holy Father, Leo XIII., should be invited to arbitrate between
the contending nations. The Sovereign Pontiff could not help being
happily impressed by this diplomatic action on the part of the two
powers, which thereby recognized the Holy Father as a temporal sovereign
despite the Piedmontese occupation of Rome.

The successful result of the papal arbitration opened up new avenues
whereby reconciliation might be effected in Germany. The Sees of Cologne
and Fribourg were at once filled, and Mgr. Kopp, Bishop of Fulda, was
offered a seat in the Upper House of Prussia. In return for the many
evidences of good feeling thus betrayed by the Government, Cardinal
Ledochowski, who knew himself to be a persona non grata to the Prussian
State, resigned his diocese of Posen, which was immediately filled by a
new incumbent, Mgr. Dinder. On May 21, 1886, the theological schools
were re-established as they had been before the beginning of the
Kulturkampf. The High Court instituted for the adjudging of
ecclesiastical affairs was suppressed, and the Sovereign Pontiff was
hitherto to be recognized as the superior judge in such matters. The
elections of February, 1887, increased the numbers of the Centre party,
and Bismarck, thereupon, deemed the time fitting to end once for all the
supreme trial of the Kulturkampf. Certain modifications of the May Laws
were placed in the hands of the Centre; some were accepted, others
rejected. The concessions, however, were of such a nature that they
might be in a way accepted, inasmuch as they gave promise of other and
larger benefits. Through that diplomatic farsightedness which ever
distinguished the great Pope Leo XIII., affairs were gradually assuming
a condition satisfactory to the Catholics of Germany, although
Windthorst and the Centre Party still claimed many concessions due in
ordinary justice. The peace finally concluded, the Holy Father conferred
upon the Chancellor the Order of Christ. It was a complimentary
decoration that if it did not win the real convictions of Bismarck, at
least served to silence any open hostility on his part for the future.
The May Laws were finally revised in the Reichstag and abolished.
Thenceforth cordial relations were established between the Pope and the
Emperor William II. The Catholics of Germany began to taste the fruits
of peace; today they have become a power in the country.


The Third Republic.

The Second Empire, especially during its last ten years, had proven
itself no less hostile and treacherous to the Church than had many of
its predecessors. This was evident most of all in the unworthy treatment
of the Holy See during its trying conflict with the revolutionists of
Italy. France had encouraged the spoliation of the Papal States by the
forces of Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel, and in 1870 it was forced to
abandon Rome to the Italian Unionists. Before this last act had been
consummated, however, a revolution broke out in France, September 4,
1870, and overturned the imperial Government.


The new republic was born in the midst of war and confusion. The
Prussians were already displaying admirable vigor and activity, and the
cause of France was trembling in the balance. A provisory government was
established, entitled the Government of the National Defence. During the
five and a half months of its life the National Defence held its
sessions in Paris, then surrounded by the besieging forces of the enemy.
In the meantime the French armies met with one defeat after another.
Paris itself capitulated on Jan. 29, 1871. Preliminaries of peace were
signed that day at Versailles and confirmed by the Treaty of Frankfort
on May 10 of the same year. After the capitulation of Paris a general
election was held to provide representatives to a national Assembly.
This Assembly met at Bordeaux and named Adolph Thiers, Chief of the
Executive of the French Republic. On August 31 of the same year, 1871,
Thiers was elected President of the Republic. The presidents thence to
the present time were: Marshal MacMahon, from May 24, 1873 to 1879;
Jules Grévy, from January 30, 1879 to December, 1887; Sadi Carnot, from
December 3, 1887, to his assassination in June, 1894; Casimir Périer,
from June 27, 1894, to January, 1895; Felix Faure, from January 17,
1895, to his death, Feb. 16, 1899; Loubet, from Feb. 18, 1899, to
February, 1906; Fallières, at present holding that office.


It was while the Prussian army was yet encamped near Paris, during the
months of March, April and May of 1871, that the Commune held its sway.
At the very moment when France was bleeding from a thousand wounds, the
International, taking advantage of the circumstances, and aided by
150,000 of the National Guard, took possession of Paris and ruled the
city with a high hand. On March 18 the Assembly fled to Versailles,
leaving the place in the hands of the insurgents. On the 26th a species
of election was held which surrendered the destinies of the Capital to
the Commune. It numbered among its members fifty-four Jacobins,
Blanquists and Hebertists, out of a total of seventy-nine. It was an
assembly of Internationalists indeed. During the two months that
followed, from March 18 to May 26, nothing was done without the
approbation or intervention of the International.

[Illustration: ABBE DEGUERRY. A Martyr of the Commune.]

Socialists of a later date, in their shame over the excesses of their
party, have endeavored to excuse their actions; but the cold facts of
history stand unshaken to condemn them, and to point out the sort of
destiny to which practical socialism must inevitably lead.

The Commune was an orgy of dissipation. Its officials, to compensate
themselves for their services, sat down to banquets worthy of
Sardanapalus, where there was no lack of the wines of Beaune and Màcon,
nor of litres of cognac, nor of routs unmentionable. The simple National
Guards gorged themselves with wine and alcohol, while the common people
looked on and howled their approbation and applause. There were women in
their ranks, dressed as men, who feared neither sword nor rifle, and to
whom in their unsexed condition the horrors of bloodshed and
conflagration acted as intoxicating draughts of burning absinthe.

The Commune was above all an explosion of rage against religion and the
middle classes. All who in any way represented religion or the social
order--priests, magistrates, soldiers, police--were arrested and cast
into prison as "hostages." The Archbishop of Paris, Mgr. Darboy; M.
Bonjean, President of the Tribunal; M. Deguerry, Pastor of the
Madeleine; the Jesuits; the Fathers of Picpus; the Dominicans; the
Sulpicians, and other priests, besides an entire convent of religious
women, were confined in the various jails of the city. The Commune
imprisoned about 5000 persons, both lay and clerical. At the same time
it laid hands upon the property of the churches, sacked the Archbishop's
palace, and turned the churches to sacrilegious and scandalous uses.

Feeling at length that its victory could only be short-lived, and that
Paris must soon fall before the army of MacMahon, surrounding it from
without, the Commune began its campaign of destruction of the city
itself. Vast quantities of petroleum were procured, and tons of
gun-powder were made the instruments for furthering this end. On the
night of May 21, the army of Versailles made a breach in the walls, the
savage instincts of the mob were loosened and the "bloody week" began.
Cluseret, the International, had already written: "It is we, or
nothing! Paris will be ours, or it will cease to exist." The Commune
accomplished as much as it could of this sinister programme.

[Illustration: ADOLF THIERS. First President of French Republic.]

As the army of Versailles advanced, the Communards applied the torch to
every monument of note that came in their way.

During the 23rd of May petroleum was poured upon the Tuileries, and all
along the Rue de Lille. Toward the end of the day the buildings on the
Rue Royale and the Rue Saint-Honoré were burning. The Court of Accounts,
the Legion of Honor, the Council of State, the Barracks, went down one
by one. The next day the flames attacked the Prefecture of Police, the
City Hall, the Custom House, the Archives and other buildings. How far
the fury of the Communards might have gone toward the complete
destruction of Paris cannot be said; it was a fortunate circumstance
which saved from their torches the Louvre with its treasures of art, and
the great Church of Notre Dame.

When it was not possible to employ fire, the artillery was called into
action. The batteries of Père-Lachaise poured shot and shell against the
dome of St. Augustine's, the bourse, the post-office, and other
prominent edifices. Murder accompanied the horrors of fire. Men were
shot down in the open street, or stabbed in the shadows of dark alleys.
Six hostages, among them Mgr. Darboy and M. Bonjean fell at La Roquette.
Fifteen priests and religious sustained on that day the agonies that
make martyrs, pierced with bullets, transfixed by bayonets, and beaten
to death by the blows of a savage mob. With them a number of laymen fell
victims to hatred on that fateful 25th of May, 1871.

[Illustration: JULES FERRY.]

While all Europe felt a thrill of horror at these cowardly and brutal
deeds, socialism seized the occasion to chant the praises of the
Commune. Its principal organ, the _Vorbote_, calls it a revolution
"which the socialist democracy of the whole world ought to hail with
enthusiasm," "which is only an episode in the social revolution." "The
Commune is dead," it cried, "Long live the Commune!"


It is not surprising that a Government born under such auspices should
prove very unfavorable to the cause of religious and social freedom. The
first promptings of war against the Church had sounded in the very first
moments of the Third Republic. Its actual declaration and acts of
hostility required a preparation of several years. It was on May 4,
1877, that M. Gambetta terminated his vehement assault upon the Catholic
Church in the Chamber of Deputies with those words which have become
famous: "Our enemy is clericalism!" In spite of the protest uttered by
the Count de Mun, the Chamber acquiesced silently in the charge and
thereby betrayed its evident purpose of antagonizing the Church. The
administration of President MacMahon proving unfavorable to
anti-religious sectarianism, it was determined to compel the hero of so
many battles to resign--a consummation that was finally effected in
January, 1879.


The following election placed Jules Grévy in the chair, with Jules Ferry
as Minister of Public Instruction. The latter, one of the most acrobatic
and unscrupulous demagogues of the century, would have courted the favor
of the Catholic party had it been dominant at the time; but his
ambition for power and notoriety led him to the side he found most
opportune. His zeal against the Church was increased by the competition
of such rivals as Gambetta, Brisson and Paul Bert, all worthy apostles
in the cause of de-christianization. The law of laicisation constitutes
the culminating point in the life of Jules Ferry.

This law was not of recent origin; it had already been proposed in 1876,
by the extreme Left. Paul Bert was then one of its most enthusiastic
exponents. It is a law that denies to French Catholics the most
essential liberties.

It required the elimination of the religious element in the Superior
Council of Public Instruction, the reservation to the State of the
monopoly of degrees, the suppression of mixed juries,--established by
the law of 1875 in regard to higher education,--the suppression of
university rights for every Catholic establishment of superior
education, and, finally, it asserted that every member of a Congregation
not authorized should be held incapable of participating in any
instruction public or private. In a word, it made the Catholic an
outcast in the domain of education.

The discussion upon the law took place in the Chamber from June 16 to
July 9, 1879. During this time the high lodges of Masonry hoped to
diminish in the eyes of Catholics the importance of this law. But the
Catholic Press did its duty; the question was placed in its proper
light, public attention was awakened, and the contest promised to become
warm. It became especially bitter when the discussions touched upon the
Congregations. Jules Ferry had inserted in the bill, under Article VII.,
the words: "No one shall be permitted to participate in instruction,
whether public or private, or to direct an establishment of instruction,
of whatever order it may be, who belongs to a Congregation not

These few lines awakened the Catholics of the country, and with them the
more honest republicans. To declare an immense category of French
citizens incapable of teaching, in spite of the fact that they held
diplomas, and that only because they pleased to live in community,
constituted the most evident violation of justice and equality.

A cry of protest went up from every side. Jules Ferry, realizing that he
was playing his highest stakes, and urged on by his brethren, struggled
desperately for his _Article_. Moreover, all the Masonic lodges had
entered into the contest; every morning the irreligious journals,
denounced the Congregations as the great peril of the nation. Political
questions, both foreign and domestic, seemed to have no more interest;
the military reorganization of Germany was forgotten; all attention was
concentrated upon the Congregations, the members of which were
themselves astonished at the importance given to them by their
adversaries; even in the tribune it was considered proper to discuss
cases of conscience selected from old volumes of Jesuit theologians.

Nevertheless, despite the mobilization of all the forces of irreligion,
despite the explosion of the most unbridled anger that was ever seen
since the Revolution, despite the personal intervention of De Freycinet
at the Luxembourg the Senate, influenced by more than 1,800,000 protests
from heads of families, vetoed _Article VII_. Jules Ferry was defeated,
and every one imagined his defeat to be definitive.

[Illustration: JULES GRÉVY.]

The worthy Minister of Public Instruction revised his tactics. Repulsed
in one method of action, he knew how to gain his end by other and more
decisive ways. On March 27, 1880, in concert with his friends of the
Cabinet, he induced the President to affix his signature to the famous
decrees of expulsion. In virtue of these decrees, which were launched
under the pretence of "existing laws," thousands of religious were
expelled from their convents--with what violence, and in the midst of
what protestations and tragic incidents, it would take too long to tell.

When the decrees were made known to the Pope Leo XIII., on March 31, the
Holy Father replied to M. Desprez, then ambassador of France to the Holy

     The Church, which seeks the salvation of souls, has no more
     ardent desire than to preserve peace with those who govern
     public affairs, and to strengthen that peace among peoples.
     At the same time, the Church never changes. We are plunged in
     grief to learn that it is intended to adopt certain measures
     in regard to the religious Congregations. In the eyes of the
     Holy See the Congregations are all of equal value. Our heart
     is torn with the profoundest sorrow to learn that they have
     become the butt of a hostile power, and it is our duty to
     raise our voice to protest in their favor.

Still later, in writing to Cardinal Guibert, the Holy Father said:

     As soon as the expulsion of the Company of Jesus was ordered,
     we have directed our Nuncio in Paris to bear our
     remonstrances to the members of the government of the
     Republic, and to represent to them the injustice of this
     treatment accorded to men of virtue, of devotion, and of
     recognized and approved learning. But, as the remonstrances
     formulated by our Nuncio have been fruitless, we were on the
     point of raising our Apostolic voice, as it was our right and
     our duty to do, when it was represented to us that there was
     a chance of arresting the execution of the decrees.

This last resource, which M. de Freycinet proposed to the Holy Father,
was to obtain from the Congregations not yet stricken the written
declaration that they were not hostile to the political institutions of
France. Following the guidance of Cardinals Guibert and Bonnechose, and
counselled by the Holy Father, the Congregations appended their
signatures to the declaration. The action of M. Freycinet only aroused
the anger of the Masons, whose adherents in the Cabinet met the
declaration and destroyed it as soon as presented. Freycinet was not
long in meeting summary punishment from the sectaries. On the day
following the presentation of the declaration he was forced to resign
his portfolio.


In October, 1880, the expulsions began. The residences and colleges of
the Jesuits and other Congregations were entered and their occupants
driven out. Very often the military were called upon to enforce the
decrees. It was to no purpose that the Catholics of the nation lifted up
their voices in angry protest, or that bishops--like Mgr. Gay and Mgr.
de Cabrieres--clothed in their pontifical vestments, uttered sentence of
excommunication against the despoilers. The rout went on with
ever-increasing ardor. It is to the credit of the French bar of the time
that it refused to concur in the shameful acts. M. Chesnelong, in 1891,
writes: "After the decrees of March 29, 1880, more than three hundred
magistrates abandoned their career rather than sacrifice the least
particle of their honor; these heroes of duty displayed a magnificent
spirit of sacrifice to the very end."

Against the Congregations not attainted by the decrees, recourse was had
to tactics slower but more perfidious. They were rounded up in a
pitiless circle of taxes and assessments to such an extent as to rob the
Congregations of one-fifth of their net revenues.

Once more the Holy Father sent forth his vigorous protestations. In an
open letter to Cardinal Guibert of Paris, dated October 22, 1880, after
reviewing the situation he writes: "But today, in the midst of these new
disasters, our emotion is great, our anguish is extreme; and we cannot
help but grieve and protest against the injury done to the Catholic
Church." The great Pope ended by declaring that "in the presence of this
license, the duties of his office commanded him to safeguard with
invincible constancy the institutions of the Church, and to defend her
rights with a courage that would not end at any peril." Following this
letter of the Sovereign Pontiff the Apostolic Nuncio, Mgr. Czacki,
proceeded in a few weeks, November 25, to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and placed before him a ministerial declaration of November 9,
which glorified in having dispersed two hundred and sixty-one
non-authorized establishments, together with a note protesting against
these avowed and cowardly persecutions.

The word, however, had gone forth to pursue the Church and her influence
wherever they should appear, in any form. During the ten following years
a veritable fury of laicisation and de-christianization was let loose.
Catholicity was hunted down in every section of the social organization.
The laws were penetrated more and more with an irreligious spirit. In
the army the chaplaincies were disorganized. (Law of July 8, 1880) the
military Mass was suppressed, and the troops were forbidden to take
part--as a body--in any religious ceremonies (Ministerial circulars of
December 7 and 29, 1883), nor were they permitted even to enter a
Catholic Church in a body (Decree October 23, 1883); moreover, numerous
Catholic military associations were closed upon the slightest pretext.
In the Courts the usual prayers at the opening of judicial proceedings
were either suppressed or declared optional (May 23, 1884); the
members of the bar were forbidden to assist in a body at religious
processions (May 23, 1880). In the matter of education the bishops and
clergy were excluded from the Superior Council of Public Instruction.
Before 1880 the episcopate had been represented in this Council by four
of its members. Since that date the representatives of private education
held four seats out of sixty; but a priest has never been admitted.


In the matter of higher education, the faculties of Catholic theology in
the Sorbonne were suppressed (Budget of 1885), while the Protestant
faculties have been maintained. In secondary education, religious
instruction was made optional (December 21, 1881). In primary education
a law of March 28, 1882, interdicted anyone from teaching the catechism
in the local schools. In the prisons the religious services were notably
reduced. In the hospitals of many cities the Sisters were driven out
despite protestations of all kinds; moreover, no priest was henceforth
to be placed upon the administrative commissions of the hospitals (April
5, 1879). The curés were also driven from the bureau of charity (April
5, 1879). The exterior ceremonies of religion were forbidden in the
streets and religious monuments proscribed. In the cemeteries
non-Catholics were to be admitted to burial side by side with Catholics
(November 15, 1881.) In the churches, the mayor of the town was to have
a key, could order the church bells to be rung, and exercise police
supervision within the church limits, in contradiction to Article XV.,
of the Concordat. In the workshops and factories the law of Sunday rest
was abrogated (1880.) In private houses, no private chapels might be
maintained. In the family, the law of divorce was felt (July 27, 1884.)
In May, 1893, this law was so transformed that a mere separation lasting
three years could then, on the demand of one of the parties, be
changed into absolute divorce. Civil contracts were elevated to a
position of honor. The laws stood at the bedside of the dying to prevent
the making of pious legacies; in the cemeteries civil funerals were
permitted with attendant anti-religious manifestations, and the new
practice of cremation.

[Illustration: CASIMER PÉRIER.]

The laws oppressed the consciences of the people by the pressure
constantly exercised and the menace held over the heads of functionaries
culpable of confiding their children to Christian teachers, of taking
part in Catholic works, or of simply performing their religious duties.
State officials were spied upon, denounced, reprimanded, and disgraced
because they endeavored to reconcile the accomplishment of their duties
to the State with the open practice of their religious obligations.

In the matter of schools the laws were especially unreasonable. In 1880,
lyceums were opened for young girls in order to transform their Catholic
spirit. In October 30, 1886, a law was voted declaring that thenceforth
all Congregation teachers, male and female, should be excluded from all
public schools, primary and maternal. In schools for boys the law was
executed promptly, and their personal administrations were completely
laicised before October, 1891. The schools for girls were subjected to
the change more gradually but none the less effectively. By the law of
March 28, 1882, priests were excluded from the schools. In November,
1882, it was forbidden to display any longer the crucifix, which was
thereupon taken down from the walls and cast, in many cases, into the
filth of the sewers.

Other laws attainted the salaries of the clergy. In 1886 that of the
bishops was reduced by one-third, and that of the archbishops by
one-fourth. The salaries of canons were gradually extinguished
altogether, as were also those of many curacies and assistants. The
same method of reduction was brought to bear upon the allowances for
seminaries; the towns were released from the obligation of repairing
churches and religious establishments of charity. From 1876 to 1893, the
budget for religious worship was reduced from 53,727,925 to 42,560,000
francs, or more than 11,000,000.

Still other laws affected the work of the bishops in the administration
of their dioceses. In 1892, the Archbishop of Rheims was condemned for
having taught the Catholic doctrine of marriage, and the Bishop of Lucon
for defending the rights of the Pope. Other bishops were prosecuted for
instructing the faithful in regard to their duty in the elections. In
1889, a law was framed imposing on all religious without exception the
obligation of serving three years in the army. Its object was evidently
to destroy the spirit of the priesthood in the hearts of young men, an
object, however, which happily failed of its realization.


In the midst of all these exasperating infractions of religious liberty,
the Catholic people of France were constantly consoled by the deep and
abiding interest manifested by the Holy Father. In 1884, he addressed to
them his celebrated encyclical _Nobilissima Gallorum gens_, an effusion
of fatherly tenderness towards a noble daughter of the Church. In a
magnificent word-picture he spoke of the past grandeur of France, he
deplored her present evils, and he pointed out, as an efficacious
remedy, a cordial understanding and necessary concord between Church and
State. This understanding the Concordat of 1801 had cemented for the
happiness and prosperity of a country which was then at the height of
its power. And it was still to the Concordat not mutilated and denatured
in its letter and spirit, but loyally interpreted and honestly executed
that recourse must be had for the re-establishment of union and peace.
At the same time he warned the bishops that they should give no occasion
for a suspicion of hostility to the Republic: "Nemo jure criminabitur
vos constitutae reipublicae adversari." The same sentiments, calling for
close union among Catholics in a Catholic State, were reiterated in his
letter to the Bishop of Perigueux, and in his encyclicals, _Immortale
Dei_ of November 19, 1885, in his _Libertas_, June 20, 1888, and still
more in the encyclical, _Sapientiae Christianae_, January 10, 1890, all
of which while defending the glory and rights of the French Catholics,
instructed them in the duties and methods of unity among themselves, and
of loyalty to the Republic.


The enemies of the Church, who during former periods had rested the
defence of their persecutions upon the doctrines and internal life of
Catholics, began during the period of the Third Republic to have
recourse to tactics more effective among a people to whom republican
liberty appeared the consummation of all national well-being. The
Government no longer dared to touch upon the religion of the soul; it
perceived clearly that dogmas and the internal rules of morality were
beyond the scope of civil legislation. In its new war upon religion it
invoked against the Church reasons of State, and interests of a
political order. Comprehending as they did that the French people were
attached to republican institutions, the party of persecution endeavored
to represent the Catholics as the enemies of the republican Government
while they would identify their own cause with that of the established

The Catholics were accused of political ends in all their actions, and
their zeal in defending the spiritual order was transformed into a
greedy desire for exclusive advancement in things temporal. Hence the
Government, menaced by the plots and schemes of Catholics, was obliged
to defend itself, and to adopt the most effective measures for
destroying Catholic conspiracy. These insinuations were constantly
injected into the masses by anti-Christian journals, orators, and
demagogues, whose perpetual cry was that the Church is the enemy of the
State, of civil authority, of modern society and of intellectual
progress, all of which were by them comprehended in the term "Republic."

[Illustration: PAUL BERT.]

The tactics in themselves are not historically new. You find them
mentioned in the Gospel as employed by the Jews in their false testimony
against Christ when they represented Him as a disturber of the people,
as one who would forbid the tribute to Caesar, as one who called
Himself a King. For whosoever maketh himself a king is an enemy to
Caesar. Later still, the pagans in their envy of the Christians, called
them "useless beings, dangerous and factious citizens, the enemies of
the Empire and of the Emperors."

     The same complaints and the same bitterness are renewed more
     or less in the succeeding centuries as often as there are
     governments unreasonably jealous of their power, and animated
     with intentions hostile to the Church. They always know how
     to put before the public the pretext of pretended usurpations
     of the Church over the State, in order to furnish the State
     with the appearance of right in its encroachments and
     violence toward the Catholic religion. (Encyclical of Leo
     XIII. to the Catholics of France, Feb. 16, 1892.)

There were not wanting apologists to place the true position of
Catholics before the nation. Thus Cardinal Guibert, Archbishop of Paris,
in his letter addressed to the President of the Republic, March 30,
1886, declared:

     No, the clergy never had, and has not today any spirit of
     hostility toward existing institutions.... If the Republic
     accepted the obligation, binding on all governments, of
     respecting the faith and worship of the vast majority of our
     country, it would find nothing in the doctrine of the Church,
     nor in her traditions, which would justify in a priest a
     sentiment of mistrust or opposition.... Monsieur le
     President, I appeal to your intelligence and your
     impartiality.... The Catholic clergy has made no opposition
     to the Government which rules France, but the Government for
     six years has not ceased to persecute the clergy, to weaken
     Christian institutions, and to prepare the abolition of
     religion itself.

So also spoke Mgr. Freppel, the bishop-deputy, in a discussion held in
the Chamber, December 12, 1891:

     It is evident that the President of the Council (M. de
     Freycinet) believes in a hostile attitude of the clergy
     towards the Republic. That hostile attitude I deny formally.
     Already, on a former occasion, I was not afraid, from the
     height of this tribune, to defy our adversaries to produce
     one single pastoral letter in which a member of the clergy
     shows himself in favor of the monarchy against the Republic.
     That challenge has remained unanswered. For, Monsieur
     President, to simply demand the modification of certain laws
     as unjust or anti-religious is not sufficient to merit even
     for an instant the epithet of an enemy to the Republic. We
     are certainly allowed to form a different conception of the
     Republic than yours; that is the right of every one. It is
     certainly permissible not to identify in principle the
     republican idea or form with atheism, anti-Christianism, or
     Freemasonry. One may combat these errors or these
     institutions without having thereby an attitude hostile to
     the Republic itself. All that you have the right to exact is
     that in no pastoral writing and by no pastoral act shall a
     member of the clergy pronounce against the actual form of the

The French cardinals, January 16, 1892, presented the same ideas:

     To resume: respect for the laws of the country, where they do
     not conflict with the exigencies of conscience; respect for
     the representatives of power; the frank and loyal acceptation
     of political institutions; but, at the same time, a firm
     resistance to the encroachments of the secular power upon the
     spiritual domain ... such are the duties which, at the
     present hour, are imposed upon the conscience and patriotism
     of the French Catholics.


It is sufficiently evident that all these declarations were in perfect
conformity with the instructions of the Holy See; yet, that there might
be no doubt as to the authoritative teaching of the Church in that
matter, the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII., addressed on February 16, 1892,
an encyclical letter to the Catholics of France, wherein he pointed out
the basis and conditions of a possible peace--provided it was sincerely
wished for--between Catholicism and the republican Government.

[Illustration: GAMBETTA.]

After denouncing the "vast plot which certain men have formed to
annihilate Christianity in France, and the animosity they display in
striving to realize their design," he proceeds:

     The Church, in her relations with the political powers,
     abstracts from the forms which differentiate them, in order
     to treat with them upon the great religious interests of
     peoples, knowing that to her belongs the duty of teaching
     them above every other interest. If each political form is
     good in itself, and can be applied to the government of
     peoples, the fact is that it does not encounter the political
     power under the same form among all peoples; each possesses
     its own. That form arises from the ensemble of circumstances,
     historical or national, but always human, which give rise in
     a nation to traditional or even fundamental laws, and through
     these is determined the particular form of government, the
     basis of transmission of supreme powers. It is useless to
     repeat that all individuals are bound to accept such
     governments, and to attempt in no way to overturn them or to
     change their form. Thence it is that the Church, the guardian
     of the truest and loftiest notion of political sovereignty,
     since she derives it from God, has always reproved the
     doctrines and condemned the men rebellious to legitimate
     authority. And that in times when the depositaries of power
     used it only to abuse her, thus depriving themselves of the
     most powerful support of their authority, and of the most
     efficacious means of popular obedience to their laws.

     But a difficulty presents itself: "This Republic," it may be
     said, "is animated by sentiments so anti-Christian that
     honest men, and above all Catholics, cannot conscientiously
     accept it." This it is which has given rise to dissensions
     and aggravated them. These unfortunate divergences would be
     avoided if one would only take into account the considerable
     distinction between Constituted powers and Legislation....
     Practically the quality of the laws depends more upon the
     quality of the men invested with power than upon the form of
     the power.... One can never approve of points of legislation
     which are hostile to Religion and to God; on the contrary it
     is a duty to reprove them.


The Holy Father thus makes it plain that the Church, and Catholics as
Catholics, are not opposed to existing governments, nor are they _in
principle_ opposed to the legislation of such governments, as long as
such legislation is not hostile to God and religion. When hostility of
this kind is found in legislation, it is the duty of Catholics to oppose
it and to strive to obtain a better law. The form of power remains the
same, and the Catholic people are held by their principles to support it

These declarations coming from so many and such authoritative sources
had their effect upon the common sense of the French people. The spirit
of hostility to Catholicity and its institutions began to show a marked
diminution. This was evidenced most of all in the very abiding place of
former anti-Christianism, the French Chamber of Deputies. On March 3,
1894, M. Spuller, a disciple of Gambetta, and the man who had introduced
the famous Article VII. in 1879, made the following significant
declarations in the Chamber of that day:

     When the Republic had to struggle against the coalition of
     the old parties, when the Church served as a bond for all
     these old parties, I followed at that time the policy exacted
     by the circumstances, and which the supreme interest of the
     Republic commanded.... But does that mean that I ought to
     close my eyes to what is taking place today? Does it mean
     that those religious struggles which I once deplored and
     which I deplore still, which I proclaim a danger that ought
     to be avoided, a peril that it is to the interest of all of
     us to dissipate, does it mean that I did not deplore them
     even at the time I took so ardent a part in them? No,
     gentlemen, and if it were necessary for me today to summon
     what I consider the most precious of testimonies, because it
     is that of a conscience which has never weakened, I would
     address myself to my honorable and dear friend, M. Brisson; I
     would ask him to recall what he said to me himself in an
     intimate conversation, namely, that the struggle against
     clericalism, rendered necessary by the political action of
     the Church, is that which has done the most harm to the
     Republic, and has put back her triumph for ten or rather
     fifteen years.

     Very well, gentlemen, I believe with the profoundest
     conviction, that after twenty-five years of existence, after
     the proofs which the Republic has given of her resistance and
     vitality, this struggle ought, if not to cease altogether, at
     least to take on a different character.... I declare that now
     the Church, instead of serving as the support of the
     monarchical parties, has cast herself into the arms of the
     democracy. I declare that by this movement the Church will
     draw you perhaps, you republicans, further than you would
     wish to go, for if you do not take care she will regain over
     the masses the influence which you have lost. That is why I
     consider that we ought not to abandon any of our old
     traditions in our incessant struggles for the benefit of
     secular and civil society; but at the same time I believe
     that a new spirit ought to animate our democracy and those
     who represent it.

Here the speaker began to be interrupted, thus:

_Voices from the Left:_ "What new spirit?"

_M. Spuller:_ "I will explain.... The new spirit is this: instead of a
mean, vexatious and exasperating war...." (Protests from the Extreme
Left--Applause from the Centre).

_M. Rene Boblet:_ "Whom are you accusing of carrying on this
exasperating war?"

_M. Camille Pelletan:_ "You insult the memory of Ferry."

_M. Spuller:_ "If you permit me, gentlemen, I will say that it is I
myself whom I accuse at the present moment, so that nobody can be

_M. Millerand:_ "That is a _mea culpa_."

_M. Spuller:_ "Precisely, but all your _finesse_, all your casuistry
will not prevent the country from understanding my words."

_M. Chauvin:_ "The country will understand that the Government has
become clerical."

M. Spuller replied:

     I shall certainly be understood without, and when I assert
     that in a new situation we have need of a new policy, a new
     spirit, I am sure of being understood by everyone who is not
     blinded by his passions. That new spirit of which I speak, I
     do not wish you to think it ought under any pretext to be a
     spirit of weakness, of condescension, of abandonment, of
     abdication; on the contrary it ought to be a lofty and large
     spirit of tolerance, of intellectual and moral renovation,
     altogether different from that which has prevailed
     heretofore. Such is my profound conviction.... Yes,
     gentlemen, and mark it well the Church must not any longer
     pretend, as she has so long contended, that she is
     tyrannized, persecuted, hunted, shut out and kept out of the
     social life of the country.

     I will say to M. Goblet, who has done me the honor of
     interrupting me, and of crying out as they cry out to me in
     the public reunions: "Confess that you are with the Pope;" I
     will say to him that it would be no more unworthy of me than
     of him to recognize in the present Pope a man who merits the
     grandest respect, because he is invested with the highest
     moral authority.

These words, in the very Chamber itself, and uttered by a man who
professed himself bound by no religion, found many echoes in the same
quarter. Not the least important and significant were those of M.
Casimir Périer, President of the Council. The Government had spoken its
_mea culpa_ with full consciousness of its fault.

There was another cause also which at this time awoke the country to the
necessity of that moral teaching which only the Church can afford.
Socialism in its rankest form had begun a campaign of assassination and
terror which struck all hearts with consternation. The noise of
anarchistic bombs was heard from one end to the other of France. In
1892, it was those of Ravachol and his accomplices; on December 3, 1893,
Vaillant exploded a bomb in the Chamber of Deputies; Emile Henri cast
another in the café of the Hotel Terminus on February 12, 1894; there
was another in the Rue Saint-Jaques on February 20, 1894, and another in
the Church of the Madeleine on March 15. These evidences of a social
derangement recalled the necessity of religion with its moral power.
This was all the more accentuated when on June 24, 1894, in revenge for
the death of the anarchist, Henri, an Italian assassinated M. Sadi
Carnot, President of the Republic, at Lyons. The result of the
reflections aroused by these revolting crimes was the election on June
27, 1894, of that Casimir Périer who had joined M. Spuller in his demand
for tolerance toward the Church.

It was under the comparative mildness of the rule thus inaugurated that
the Catholics of the country could begin to breathe a little the air of
freedom. From 1894 to 1900, the beneficent works of the Church made
progress; her schools and colleges were filled; the religious orders,
dispossessed in 1880, began to rebuild their houses, open their chapels,
and to undertake publicly the direction of houses of education.
Throughout the whole French Church a development was noticeable, to the
great comfort of many who had groaned for fifteen years under the iron
yoke of anti-Christian legislation.


Through the efforts of Leo XIII., followed by those of the French
cardinals and bishops, a new spirit, a spirit of conciliation, had
indeed grown up in France, to which even the representatives of a
Government hitherto hostile had lent their prestige. Nevertheless, it is
difficult to define the reasons why these common aspirations of peace,
instead of developing into a true religious pacification, ended in a war
on religion the most terrible in its significance that France has ever
known. Nevertheless it can be stated without temerity that the
realization of true and definite peace was hindered through the efforts
of men and circumstances.

The men of France stood in its way. In this matter we can distinguish
three classes of men, the sectaries, the liberals and the Catholics. It
was only natural that the sectaries, whose highest ambition was the
destruction of Christianity, should repulse from evil principle every
convincing argument in favor of peace. It mattered little to them that
Catholics declared their adhesion to the Republican form of government;
they sneered at the distinction made by Leo XIII. between the form of
government and legislation.

The Catholic in combating unjust legislation was pronounced by them a
peril to the Republic, and by the Republic they understood, not a form
of government for the good of the people, but the concrete spirit of
revolution, the glorification of free thought, anti-Christianism and
irreligion. From the sectaries, therefore, nothing could be hoped for in
the way of religious pacification.

The liberals, on the other hand, if they entered into the _new spirit_
and dictated its methods, were nevertheless, at the best, only
opportunists. Their attitude was merely political; at the depth of their
ideas and sentiments they were always hostile to the Church. They feared
Catholicism because it meant the restraints of virtue; they feared its
light, lest it betray the evil of the ways they were treading. There was
thus no real sincerity in their false liberalism towards the Church.
They were, moreover, trimmers, ever on guard lest a false move betray
their position and lead them into parties to which they were averse.
They feared to favor the Right lest the Left call them clerical; they
guarded themselves against the Left, lest the respectable element of the
country should accuse them of excess. When their ministers spoke of the
_new spirit_, they made plain that they looked upon the Church as a
vanquished enemy, which they continued to hold in leash, desiring only
to let out a little more of the rope. They were, moreover, under the
full influence of Masonry. At the very time when the ministry of the
_new spirit_ was constituted, out of the eleven ministers, seven were
Freemasons, a preponderance which the sects have not lost in the
succeeding ministries.

With regard to the Catholics, themselves, it must be confessed that
their want of unity proved as great a hindrance to any effectual
pacification. There were many who refused in a more or less open way to
enter into the movement indicated by the Sovereign Pontiff. They argued,
quarrelled, and remained militant monarchists to the end. Of those who
showed a desire to follow the directions of Leo XIII. some lagged
behind in the movement, uncertain, timid, and nervous; others rushed to
the front with an ardor that proved more bravery than prudence; others,
neither timid nor rash, effected nothing through a want of understanding
among themselves. Thus divided, scattered, disputing among themselves,
they gave the vantage ground to the enemy. With a compact, organized
army of workers, united upon one single line of policy the Catholics of
France could have gained immense advantages.


Among the circumstances which contributed to the continuance of the
anti-Christian spirit must be reckoned the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus was
condemned on December 22, 1894. The affair in itself was entirely a
matter between him and the French army. Yet it served as a pretext for
war against the majority of the French nation as comprised within the
Catholic Church. Whether the defendant were innocent or guilty mattered
little; his condemnation brought with it the humiliation of three orders
of men who had acquired much power in France, and who determined to
obtain revenge not upon the army, which had exposed them to the scorn of
public opinion, but upon a force entirely outside the question, but
easily attainable because of its weakness, the Church.

The Jews, pointed out by press and public speech as rapacious
money-seekers and place-hunters, were only too happy that the
circumstance gave them an opportunity of revenge. Freemasonry still
quivered under the lash of Leo XIII. who had stigmatized them as the
powers of darkness, the enemies of religion and the social order; the
bishops of France had adhered to the word of the Sovereign Pontiff; a
petition of the _League of Patriots_ was gotten up against Masonry;
books and pamphlets were scattered broadcast exposing their illegality
and international character; throughout the whole of France the
anti-masonic movement was spreading day by day. It was to the Church
that the sects attributed their growing unpopularity, and thus Masonry
determined that the Church must be punished. Socialism, also, found in
the Dreyfus affair, a pretext for the solidification of its forces. It
had recognized that the Church alone disputed with it for the guidance
of human souls, and in the Church alone could be found remedies for
social evils incomparably more apt and human than any Socialism could
put forth.

The Dreyfusards arranged themselves under these three banners and,
uniting against the common enemy, began their campaign by laying the
whole affair at the door of the Jesuits, intending through them to
strike down eventually every institution of the Church existing in
France. Hence the words of M. Jaurès in the Chamber, March 23, 1903:
"Now that the country, now that the honest people of this country have
seen the depths of the corruption, the perjury, falsehood and treason,
when it can say that this policy of falsehood was the product of a long
_Jesuitical_ education ... we can see the immense political character of
the battle which has begun." From 1894 to the end of the century the
anti-Jesuitical campaign went on, increasing every year in bitterness
and intensity. In June and July, 1899, seven or eight journals of Paris
every day demanded the expulsion of the Jesuits. Freemasonry, through
the columns of the _Siecle_, circulated a petition against the Jesuits,
laying at their door all recent crimes, especially Boulangism and the
affair of Dreyfus. The Masonic congress held in Paris during the days of
June 22, 23 and 24, 1899, placed at the head of its programme the
dissolution of the Institute of the Jesuits and of all Congregations not



The War on the Religious Orders.

The twentieth century dawned with black and lowering skies, presage of
storms to come. Even while the hymns of thanksgiving were echoing among
the vaulted roofs of cathedral and chapel, the powers of darkness were
assembling in high places to formulate plans of destruction. The word
had gone forth that Catholicity must die, the oath had been taken in the
secret lodges, the generals of the campaign were chosen, and work began
in earnest.

The war with the Church was on. It had its skirmishes ever since 1879.
Any president or minister who dared to favor the cause of Catholicity
must fall. "They must temporize, resign, or die." MacMahon was forced to
resign; Carnot was assassinated; Casimir Périer resigned; Felix Faure,
for having steadfastly opposed the revision of the Dreyfus case, died
almost immediately after swallowing a cup of tea at a soiree, and the
Dreyfus case was made out against the Catholics. President Loubet was
elected on February 18, 1899. In taking up the reins of government he
was made to understand unmistakably that he must follow out the
directions of a party whose slogan was: "Death to the Church!"

[Illustration: WALDECK-ROUSSEAU.]

One fact which shows that the spirit of the Government, which followed
upon the accession of Loubet, was born for persecution, was the case of
the Assumptionist Fathers. The latter were accused of interfering in the
elections of 1898. A case was made out against them "for violation of
the Penal Code interdicting gatherings of more than twenty persons." The
real accusation brought against them, however, was to the effect that
they had favored the _wrong_ candidates, that is, candidates not
agreeable to the dominant powers. The prosecutor, Bulot, in his
arraignment, cited the names of thirty-one deputies who, he declared,
owed their election to the influence of the Assumptionists. The
Assumptionists were condemned, and their congregation dissolved as


The complexion of the new Government which ruled from 1899 to 1902 may
be seen from the following extract taken from the revelations of Madame
Sorgues, sub-editor, a few years ago--of Jaurès' Socialist organ, _La
Petite Republique_:

     In fighting the battles of Dreyfus, Jaurès and his friends
     brought about a singular meeting of the two most
     irreconcilable camps.... The first service rendered was to
     restore the tottering Socialist press.... All the advanced
     (i. e. anti-clerical) dailies have passed into the hands of
     the great barons of finance; they are their journals now, not
     the journals of the workers.... They cast their eyes on
     Waldeck-Rousseau, the clever rescuer of the Panama people....
     The agent of the Dreyfus politics had the happy thought of
     introducing into the Cabinet, Millerand, the Socialist
     leader, with the consent of his party. Socialism by becoming
     ministerial would be domesticated and rendered inoffensive
     against capital.

The Cabinet was thus in the hands of men little disposed to show
fairness towards anything Catholic. In the Chamber of Deputies of that
term there were four hundred Freemasons out of five hundred members; in
the Cabinet out of eleven ministers, ten were Freemasons. This was the
illustrious band which was to make laws for the guidance of thirty-seven
million Catholics.

At the head of this ministry stood Waldeck-Rousseau, President of the
Council. Waldeck-Rousseau personified the policy which obtained during
the two first years of the century, that is, the policy of duplicity and
deception. It was necessary, in the beginning of the campaign, to entice
the Catholics into a trap, after which their annihilation must follow as
a matter of course. In the art of deception Waldeck-Rousseau was an


The instrument by which the deception was exercised was the infamous
Associations Law of 1901. The Congregations had ever been the
_bete-noir_ of the anti-clericals. They represented Religion in its
perfection. In 1892, when the Fallières-Constans bill against the
religious congregations was broached, and M. Carnot, its spokesman, had
presented it before the Chamber, the _Temps_ remarked: "Its purpose was
to resolve the difficult problem of according the right of association
to everyone, with such reserves, however, that the Catholics might not
benefit by it, and that the Congregations might by it be destroyed." In
the bill of Waldeck-Rousseau-Trouillot, prepared in June, 1900, such
embarrassments were simply set aside. It was determined "to take the
bull by the horns." The new project was, therefore, twofold; the first
part assured a large liberty to associations _non-suspected_; the second
part gave the Government a means of suppressing all religious orders. It
read as follows: "No religious congregation can be formed without an
authorization given by a law which shall determine the conditions of its
workings. It cannot found any new establishment except in virtue of a
decree emanating from the Council of State.--The dissolution of a
congregation, or the closing of an establishment can be pronounced by a
decree rendered by the Council of the ministers."

[Illustration: EX-PRESIDENT LOUBET.]

The project which bore the names of Trouillot and Waldeck-Rousseau began
by declaring all religious congregations "illicit," under the pretext
that the members of these associations live in community, that they make
the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and that Article 1118 of
the Civil Code declares that "only such things as enter into commerce
can be made the object of a convention," and that poverty, chastity and
obedience are things which do not enter into commerce.

M. Emile Faguet in his _L'Anticlericalism_ (Paris, 1905) scourges this
method of persecution:

     This argumentation was seething with sophisms. In the first
     place it transposes into the Penal Code a disposition of the
     Civil Code and it makes a crime of that which is only a
     judiciary incapacity: the party who makes a contract upon
     something which does not enter into commerce cannot
     judicially exact the execution of that contract if his
     co-contractor should refuse. That is all that is meant by
     Article 1118, and there is no penalty against a man who makes
     a contract not conformable to Article 1118 of the Civil Code.
     Indeed, if such were the case, marriage would be illicit, for
     it is a convention of obedience, fidelity and protection
     between two persons, and obedience, fidelity and protection
     are not matters of trade; hence marriage would be contrary to
     Article 1118.

     But, it will be said, we must count as illicit every
     convention which is contrary to good morals. Without doubt;
     but it is difficult to conceive how living in common, and
     taking the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience are
     opposed to good morals.

     Finally this position of the question betrays a voluntary
     confusion of the terms "convention" and "vow." A vow is not a
     contract, it is a resolution which one takes and in which one
     persists. Thus in no way does Article 1118 affect the
     question of associations and congregations.

     It is strange indeed that these sapient legislators, after
     declaring religious associations illicit or criminal,
     contradict themselves by inviting these same "criminal"
     associations to seek authorization; which amounts to saying
     that the Waldeck-Rousseau ministry wished to sanction some
     things which it considered as essentially wrong. Thus the new
     law stultifies itself almost in its opening sentences, while
     it makes it quite plain that the subversive intentions of its
     author were to affect all religious congregations without

Waldeck-Rousseau belonged to the same school as Jules Ferry; he believed
in maintaining _provisorily_ the Concordat, but he made it plain that he
intended to laicise all the public service, and especially that of
teaching, in which the congregations held so large a part. In a speech
at Toulouse, October 28, 1900, after arguing that the development of the
monastic possessions ought to be arrested, he declared:

     Two classes of youth, less separated by their social
     condition than by the education they receive, are growing up
     without any mutual acquaintance, until the day comes when
     they shall meet and find themselves so unlike that they will
     not be able to understand one another. Little by little two
     different societies are being prepared--one of them, becoming
     more and more democratic as it is borne on by the great
     current of the Revolution, and the other, more and more
     imbued with doctrines which one would not have believed able
     to survive the great movement of the eighteenth century.

In this sentence was contained his plea for compelling the teachers of
the second class of youth, the congregations, to seek authorization,
while at the same time he made it evident that none should be authorized
whose methods should not be in accordance with the principles of the
French Revolution.

Another element in the deceptive policy of Waldeck-Rousseau was the
endeavor to bolster his proscriptive laws upon the assertion that they
were intended to protect the secular clergy from the encroachments of
the regulars. Hence the phrase: "The Church against the chapel." He
ignored the fact that the secular clergy had no need of such protection
inasmuch as the harmony between them and the religious orders was never
called into question except by these anti-clericals who hated both
religious and seculars.

Still further the same Waldeck-Rousseau took pains to falsify himself on
more than one public occasion. Thus he assured M. Cochin and Mgr.
Gayraud that the law of July, 1901, would permit members of religious
congregations to teach in establishments belonging to persons not
members of the congregation, although he knew at the time that decrees
were being formulated to prevent such practice.

When the iniquitous law was yet before the Chamber the Holy Father, Pope
Leo XIII., in a letter to the superior generals of the orders and
religious institutes, complained bitterly of its purpose:

     We have endeavored by every means to ward off from you a
     persecution so unworthy, and at the same time to save your
     country from evils as great as they are unmerited. That is
     why on many occasions we have pleaded your cause with all our
     power in the name of religion, of justice, of civilization.
     But we have hoped in vain that our remonstrances would be
     heard. Behold, indeed, in these days, in a nation singularly
     fecund in religious vocations, and which we have always
     surrounded with our most particular care, the public powers
     have approved and promulgated laws of exception, apropos of
     which we have, a few months ago, raised our voice in the hope
     of preventing them.


The Livre Jaune, published in 1903, and containing diplomatic documents,
prints the words of Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Holy Father:

     The Holy Father, obedient to the duties imposed on him by his
     sacred ministry, has ordered the subscribed Secretary of
     State to protest, as he does protest in his august name,
     against the above law, as being an unjust law of reprisals
     and of exception, which excludes honest and worthy citizens
     from the benefits of the common right, which equally wounds
     the rights of the Church, which is in opposition to natural
     right, and which is at the same time replete with deplorable
     consequences. It would be superfluous to point out how such a
     law, on the one side, restrains the liberty of the Church
     guaranteed by a solemn contract, and prevents the Church from
     fulfilling her divine mission by depriving her of precious
     co-operators, while on the other hand, it increases
     bitterness of spirit at a moment when the need of
     pacification is most vital and pressing, and it takes away
     from the State the most zealous apostles of civilization and
     charity, the most efficacious propagators of the French name,
     the French tongue and French prestige abroad.

The effects of this law which has been well characterized as
anti-social, inhuman, anti-religious, and anti-French, began to be felt
at once. Many religious orders, such as the Jesuits, the Assumptionists,
the Benedictines, Carmelites, etc., foreseeing that legal authorization
would be denied them, abandoned their country, their colleges and their
convents; many others still hoped. The Government into whose hands they
had fallen had invited them to seek authorization, and there was no
reason, apparently, to suppose that this invitation was only a mockery.
Still others, which had formerly been authorized, imagined that they
might still continue in the enjoyment of such recognition. Both the
latter classes were, however, deceived. According to the new law a
congregation "might not found a new establishment except in virtue of a
decree issued by the Council of State." It was thus difficult to see how
the law could effect the establishments already founded. The
promulgators of the bill, however, intended to confine themselves within
no limits, and hence their purpose was very soon made plain. By a
circular of December 15, 1901, the law was formally extended to include
all establishments, both old and new, going back as far as those
recognized in 1825. Later still, January 23, 1902, the Council of State
decided that: "in the case of the opening of a school by one or more
congregationists, that school should be considered as a new
establishment opened by the congregation, whoever might be proprietor or
tenant." A few days later, February 8, Waldeck-Rousseau sent notice of
the same to the prefects. By these various circulars the law was thus
aimed at all new schools founded by the congregations, at all new
schools not founded by the congregations, but directed by religious, and
at all old schools founded by the congregations.

It is a notable fact that these iniquitous extensions of an evil law
were perpetrated in spite of the clearest assurances of the Government
that the two latter classes of schools should not be touched. Even as
late as February 4, 1902, the Government responded to a request of the
Holy Father for an explanation of its intentions, by a note from M.
Delcasse, which reads as follows:

                                   Paris, February 4, 1902.

     The Council of Ministers have decided that the law of July,
     1901, should not have a retroactive effect, and did not apply
     to educational establishments opened in virtue of the law of
     1886. The conclusions of the Council of State enumerated in
     your despatch of January 29, do not touch them. This was a
     point with which the Nuncio was very much preoccupied. Mgr.
     Lorenzelli appears to be fully satisfied with the decision of
     the Council, of which I immediately made him

The actions of the Government were thus in direct contradiction with its
assurances. Its protestations of fairness and leniency were falsified by
its circulars and decrees. Its intentions were aimed at extermination
complete and irrevocable.

The ending of Waldeck-Rousseau's career was pathetic and tragical. In
1904 he arose one day "from his bed of sickness to unburden his
conscience by protesting against the anti-clerical fury of his ci-devant
supporters and instruments. In vain he denounced the violations of his
law of 1901, travestied by that of 1904 suppressing even authorized
congregations. The verve of the great tribune had abandoned him. His
speech was but a hollow echo of its former eloquence. Twice he reeled
and was forced to steady himself by clinging to the railing. When he
arose for the second time, to reply to the sarcasms of M. Combes, he
suddenly lost the thread of his discourse, and before he had ended many
benches were vacated; the forum, where his words had so often been
greeted with wild applause, was almost empty." (Brodhead.--_Religious
Persecution in France._)

His death came two years later. It was rumored that he attempted to
commit suicide. Whether he received the last sacraments or not is not
known. He had left instructions, however, that he was to be buried from
his parish church of St. Clothilde.


The seventh legislature was dissolved at the beginning of April, 1902,
and preparations were at once begun for the election of its successor.
The point at issue in the approaching elections was the vindication or
the condemnation of the Waldeck-Rousseau ministry, which had now been in
office for three years. The result was entirely satisfactory to the
parties whose life had been lived in open hostility to the Church. The
Ministerialists, that is to say, the supporters of the administration of
Waldeck-Rousseau, won 69 seats in the Chamber, as against 131 by the
several elements of the opposition. The new legislature counted among
its members ninety-six Radicals, eighty-three Republicans of the Left,
135 Radical-Socialists, forty-one Unified Socialists, fourteen
Independent Socialists. Here were 369 men out of 500, every one of whom
was pledged to exert every effort, by fair means or foul, to overthrow
the life and power of the Church in France. As soon as the result of the
election had become known Waldeck-Rousseau, as if satisfied with his
work of destruction, resigned the ministry and retired to private life.

Before abandoning the active field of political life, Waldeck-Rousseau
was careful to point out the man he desired to take his place and carry
into execution the laws he had devised. This man was Emile Combes, the
most violent of politicians. To this man, M. Loubet, who could not bear
him--but who passed his life in doing what he disapproved of, and in
condemning in his speeches the very political acts which he signed with
his name,--to this man M. Loubet hastened to confide the Presidency of
the Council, and the direction of the Government. M. Combes! It is a
name of ill omen, which echoes like the sound of a funeral bell among
the cloisters in the empty convents, and by the firesides of Christian
homes. The aged mutter the name and grow pale as if they had said an
unholy thing. The little ones shrink to their mothers' side as the
horror of that name strikes upon their innocent ears, for it brings back
the memory of dear sisters who have vanished, engulfed as it were in the
cavernous jaws of the anti-Christ. It is a name at which many lips
hesitate when they utter the prayer! "Forgive us our trespasses, as we
forgive those who have trespassed against us." Yet, they will hesitate
only for the moment, for in those very communities which he has robbed
and persecuted a prayer will ever go up to God for his conversion. It is
the way in which the true Christian takes revenge upon those who wrong

[Illustration: EMILE COMBES.]

Emile Combes is a native of Roquecourbe, in the south of France, where
he was born on September 6, 1835. His parents were good, honest people,
filled with that simple piety which characterizes the true French
peasant. He had an uncle, the Abbe Gaubert, curé of Bion to whose
generous interest the future politician owed his first advances in life.
Through the influence of this good man the young Combes entered, in
1846, the _petit seminaire_ of Castres, the scholars of which were
supposed to have the first promptings of ecclesiastical vocation. During
his college days the young man certainly gave every evidence of profound
faith and devotion. The lessons of his pious mother made him, as he says
himself, believe to the very depths of his soul. In his twentieth year
he entered the Grand Seminary at Albi. While in this institution he
received minor orders, thereby proclaiming to the world his intention of
preparing for the priesthood. For two years his purpose remained
unchanged. He even fortified himself therein by deep and special studies
in scholastic theology, and has left as memorials of his better life two
treatises in that matter: _A Study of the Psychology of St. Thomas
Aquinas_, and _The Controversy between St. Bernard and Abelard_, copies
of which are still extant in the library of the Sorbonne at Paris.

Whether the vocation of Emile Combes was real or not, he certainly
abandoned it in the midst of his ecclesiastical studies. He quitted the
Seminary and became a professor in the College of the Assumption at
Nimes, an institution established by the Abbe d'Alzon, founder of the
religious order of the Assumptionists. Here he remained for three years,
until 1860. He taught then in another Catholic college at Pons.

Hitherto there had been no certain indications of a weakening in his
faith. But in 1864, as he was attending the medical school at Paris, he
met with Renan. The acquaintanceship developed the seeds of that atheism
which has since become his ruling quality.

To one who reads French history it ought not to be surprising that a
Catholic seminary should have sheltered the youth of a man like Combes.
Voltaire was a pupil of the Jesuits, whom he betrayed; Renan was once a
student in St. Sulpice; Gambetta, the leader of anti-clericalism in the
stormy 80's, studied in his boyhood in a _petit seminaire_. That they
proved false to their early teaching is not remarkable when one
considers the disaffection of an apostle who was privileged to enjoy an
intimacy with the Savior of the world.

It was during his vacations in 1865 that Combes was initiated into the
Freemasons. It marked the first step in that path which he was soon to
follow with persistent energy. In 1868 he received his degree as doctor
of medicine, a profession which he practised at Pons. In 1874 he was
elected Mayor of that town. His real political life began in 1885 when
he was elected senator. Re-elected in 1894, he accepted the ministry of
Public Instruction, Fine Arts and Worship in the Bourgeois Cabinet,
wherein he showed himself one of the most obstinate promoters of lay
education as opposed to that of the clergy. It was at this time that he
inaugurated, in his relations with the Vatican relative to the
Concordat, the policy which, ten years later, led to the separation of
Church and State.


As President of the Democratic Left in the Senate he lent his efforts to
the policy of Waldeck-Rousseau from 1899 to 1902. He was elected
President of the Senatorial Commission on the Law of Associations; he
contributed largely to its adoption, and notably to the vote on Article
14, when he declared in the tribune his conviction of the moral
incompatibility of the profession of teaching with the doctrine and life
of the monastic orders. On June 7, 1902, upon the recommendation of
Rousseau, he succeeded to the Presidency of the Council thereby becoming
Premier in the Government.

His first words upon taking up this office signalized his determination
of carrying on to its ultimate issue the war just inaugurated against
the Catholic Church. "What can the new Cabinet do," he asked, "what can
any cabinet do but continue the policy of that which precedes us, a
policy which is resumed by saying that it has been nothing more than an
incessant war of the Republican party against two dangers which
republican unity alone can overcome; Caesarian reaction, and theocratic
pretensions. That is the policy which we are determined to pursue and
which we invite you to pursue with us until we have completely disarmed
the enemy."

An _order of the day_ was passed voting confidence in the Government,
and thus adopting as the policy of the Chambers, the war plan enunciated
by the President of the Council. This was the work of the four groups of
the Left, all radical and anti-religious to the depths of their hearts.
The _bloc_, as they called this cohesion of the different parties of the
ministerial majority, was thus constituted, and adopted as its plan of
action the war against Catholicity.

The new Premier set to work at once to put into execution the law of
July 1, 1901. Beginning with schools recently opened, that is, posterity
to the late law, he closed at one stroke on July 15, 1902, as many as
2500. The congregationist teachers were allowed only eight days before
abandoning their establishments and retiring to their mother houses. It
was an illegal act in itself; it not only aggravated unduly the rigor of
the law, but it was also irregular in form, since Article 13 of the law
declared that a measure of this nature could not be taken except "by a
decree emanating from the Council of the ministers," and not by a simple
circular as in the present case.

Cardinal Richard, upon learning of this execution, wrote immediately to
M. Loubet a letter to which many other bishops hastened to give their
adhesion; M. Jules Roche published a letter to the President of the
Council (Combes) in which he proved that the law had been violated; a
petition was presented to M. Loubet by a delegation of the Christian
mothers from the district of Saint-Roch. To these protests the
Government answered by a presidential decree of Aug. 2, 1902--this time
in legal form--whereby it declared the closing of 324 other

The war went on. In Brittany many scenes of open conflict took place as
the troubled peasantry strove to prevent the sudden spoliation of those
institutions which they held dearest on earth. They had reason indeed to
rebel, as the persecutors aimed not only at the extinction of their
beloved teaching orders, but also at the destruction of that cherished
Breton tongue which they had inherited from their fathers. The show of
violence here and there manifested brought its inevitable consequences
from a power only too anxious to find pretexts for persecution. The
powers of many mayors were revoked, many ecclesiastics were deprived of
their livings and correctional measures were pronounced against all who
dared to take part in the various manifestations. Then came other
decrees in August, laicising _en masse_ the greater part of the public
schools as yet directed by the congregations.

When the matter was brought into the Chamber (Oct. 13, 1902,) protests
went up eloquently from a number of indignant deputies. Conspicuous
among these were such bright names as Messrs. Aynard, Baudry d'Asson,
Denys Cochin, George Berry, de Ramel, Charles Benoist and the Count de
Mun. The answer of the latter to the policy of Combes is worth

     Majorities may cover your actions and sanction your
     decisions, but nothing can efface the evil you have done. The
     country--for I speak not of Brittany alone--can never forget
     those scenes of odious violence executed by your orders,
     wherein we have witnessed commissaries of police, followed by
     armed marauders, storming the doors of private houses, not
     merely the doors of a religious dwelling, but the doors of my
     own house, to drive out into the streets humble ladies who
     consecrate their lives, their labors and their devotion to
     the instruction of the children of the people. Nothing--and
     understand it well--nothing can make us forget that; nothing
     above all can make us forget that you have condemned the
     soldiers of France to assist at such scenes, and to march
     with tears in their eyes, in the midst of a distracted and
     desperate crowd, the pathway of your persecutors. That shall
     never be forgotten! That shall never be pardoned.

While these things were going on the bishops of France framed a
collective letter petitioning the Chambers to accede to the application
for authorization made by the congregations. This letter when published
contained the signatures of seventy-four bishops; only seven, for
different reasons had deferred signing, though fully in sympathy with
the movement. This letter, moderate and respectful, as it was, and
merely asking in the way of petition for favors that might easily be
granted, was treated by the Council of State as a hostile manifesto and
was declared "abusive" and as such it rendered its authors culpable
before the law. The Archbishop of Besancon, together with the Bishops of
Orleans and of Séez, were considered as the promoters of the document,
and as such were deprived of their salaries.

When the war against all new establishments was well under way, the
"Bloc" then took up the question of congregations unauthorized but
applying in due legal form for the favor of authorization. This the
orders had been instructed and encouraged to do. Their treatment
displayed at once the insincerity and hatred of the Government. A
"Commission on Congregations" was formed, composed of thirty-three
members, of whom twenty-one were Freemasons. The Commission instructed
the anti-clerical Rabier to draw up a bill. The discussions of the
Chamber upon this bill, resulted in the dissolution of fifty-three
orders of men. On March 18, 1903, twenty-five teaching congregations
were suppressed, comprising 11,763 religious divided into 1690
communities. A few days later twenty-eight preaching orders received the
same sentence. Among these were the Capuchins, the Redemptorists, the
Dominicans, the Passionists, the Salesians, the Franciscans, the Oblates
of Mary Immaculate, the Benedictines, the Fathers of the Oratory, the
Barnabites, the Carmelites and many others. On March 26, the
Carthusians, considered as a commercial order, were condemned by a vote
of 322 against 222. It was at this time that the anti-clerical Rouanet
uttered that saying so significant of the whole Governmental policy: "We
need not concern ourselves with either legality or right." The
proscriptions were hardly pronounced than measures were at once taken
for the liquidation of the property belonging to the dissolved
congregations. We need not linger to relate the pathetic scenes
accompanying the consequent expulsion of these fifty-three orders of
men, nor the wave of indignation it produced throughout France and the
civilized world.

[Illustration: CARDINAL RICHARD.]

After the congregations of men the war was carried on against similar
orders of women. It was to no purpose that Messrs. Plichon and Grousseau
demonstrated in the Chamber the confusion manifested in the articles of
the bill which designated as teaching orders the congregations devoted
to the hospitals, and those whose lives were purely contemplative; it
was in vain that they showed forth the success of the incriminated
orders that they brought forth the declarations of the majority of the
municipal councils pronouncing for the maintenance of these orders. Even
M. Leygues who had voted for the law of July 1, 1901, as Minister of
Public Instruction at the time, declared that the new bill by rejecting
the demands of the Sisters _en bloc_ was contrary to that law. In
spite of all protests the project was voted and carried by a majority of
285 to 269. Thus eighty-one congregations of women were at a single blow

On August 9, 1903, M. Combes speaking at Marseilles before a congress of
teachers declared:

     I have refused 12,600 petitions for authorization. This
     figure suppressed 9,934 teaching establishments, 1,856
     hospital corps, and 822 establishments of a mixed nature, i.
     e. hospitaller and teaching. Out of the 9,934 teaching
     establishments there are 1,770 situated in communes still
     wanting, I am sorry to say, in public schools.

The _Temps_ of December 4, 1903, declared that 10,049 schools had been
closed within a period of eighteen months, and that there remained only
1,300 yet to be suppressed.

To these 10,049 schools must be added 165 colleges and 1,347 schools
conducted by the twenty-five orders of men suppressed on the 18th of
March preceding, as also the 517 establishments directed by the
eighty-one congregations of women proscribed on June 24, thus
representing a total of 12,000 congregationists schools stricken in the
space of eighteen months, with about 50,000 religious thrown out upon
the streets, and more than 1,000,000 children deprived of their beloved

Charles Bota in his _Grand Faute des Catholiques de France_ thus
reflects upon these sinister events:

     One can well imagine what went on in the mother-houses, the
     communities and the schools which the decrees of suppression
     invaded, bringing ravage and desolation! What sad and
     heart-rending scenes! The odious perquisitions of procureurs
     and police commissaries goaded on by superior orders, or
     even perhaps--it looked that way sometimes--by the quality of
     the victims; the painful, insidious interrogatories wherein
     the simplicity and timidity of souls habituated to peace was
     violated; the alarm of the aged religious, of the sick and
     the infirm as they begged to know what it all meant; the
     returning religious hunted from their houses coming back to
     the mother-house to cast themselves weeping into the arms of
     their superiors, while the latter pointed out how the house
     was too small to receive them and too poor to afford them
     food; the uncertainty as to the morrow, the privations, the
     anguish, the moral tortures, the desperation of all; one
     should have seen such scenes near at hand to comprehend all
     that they meant. 'Ah!' cried M. Emile Olivier, 'all the
     cruelty, the tears, the consternation contained in those few
     words written by an official scribe upon the desk of a
     minister--On such a day, such a congregation of women will be
     dispersed.' They merited no regard, no commiseration those
     poor women so good to others, so delicate, so pure, that
     Taine could call them the pride of France.

The efforts of the enemy had thus far touched only unauthorized
congregations. There were still many orders which lived in the
possession of full authorization and which according to the existing
laws had nothing to fear from the hatred of the anti-clericals. In this,
however, they were very much deceived. A new bill directed at all
religious teaching orders, of whatever kind or description, was
introduced in the Chamber on February 29, 1904. Its first article,
declaring the suppression, asserted "teaching of every order and of
every nature is interdicted in France to the congregations." It was
adopted by a majority of eighty-seven votes on March 14. The second
article stated that from the date of the promulgation of the law the
teaching congregations could not receive new members, and that their
novitiates must be dissolved. This article also--with the exception in
favor of congregations destined for foreign schools--was adopted. It was
decided, moreover, in article fourth, that novitiates for foreign
missions could not maintain any of the dissolved congregations. The law
was carried before the Senate, towards the end of June. It became a law
of the land, with the official signature of M. Loubet, on July 8, 1904.

The triumph of anti-Christianism was thus complete, and the death
sentence had been pronounced against the very existence of the monastic
life in France.

It might be of interest to introduce here some appreciations of the
Premier who had done so much harm to France and who was soon to begin
the first scenes in the last act of our sorrowful drama. M. Emile
Faguet, though not a Catholic, nor inspired by any definite admiration
for Catholic principles, thus characterizes M. Combes in his

     M. Combes, considered unanimously as the protege and
     choice--no one knows with what secret designs of M.
     Waldeck-Rousseau; ... M. Combes taken up--no one knows by
     what weakness--by M. Loubet, who felt for him the very
     contrary of sympathy; M. Combes, a minister who was incapable
     according to the opinion and avowal of everyone, nevertheless
     maintained himself in office as long, and even longer than
     Waldeck-Rousseau, in spite of mistake after mistake, in spite
     of co-laborers as incapable as himself, despite the
     procrastination systematically employed as an instrument of
     his rule, only because he was a determined anti-clerical,
     headstrong and brutal, whom nothing could arrest in the
     pursuit of his design and precisely because, as he had said
     himself, 'he had accepted his office for that alone' and
     because he was absolutely incapable of seeing anything else
     in the government of France and in all modern history.


_L'Echo_, (Lyons), with admirable brevity thus summarizes the salient
points in the character of the Premier and his policy:

     M. Combes is a sectary, a renegade seminarist given over to
     Freemasonry. His policy is the vigorous application of the
     anti-liberal law, the refusal of all authorizations asked by
     the Congregations, and the abrogation of the Falloux law.

M. F. Veuillot, writing in the _Univers_, pays his respects to the
minister in no measured terms. He says M. Combes is "devoid of talent,
virtue, honor--a brute unable to conceive a generous thought, to realize
a great work, to produce anything useful, to show any effort of a
patient and beneficial kind. The brute, however, has formidable fists,
and he strikes out blindly before him. The man is without a breath of
intelligence, a single sentiment of delicacy. He is but a commonplace
mediocrity personified, rancid with hatred and puffed up with pride. As
he cannot leave anything to make him famous, he will be notorious to
posterity for his brutality alone."

Finally, the Abbe Felix Klein, in the North American Review for
February, 1904, remarks:

     M. Combes and his friends, who imagine that they are the
     leaders of all progress, are committing again the errors of
     the Middle Ages. That which Philip II. did in Spain, in his
     making use of the Inquisition; that which Louis XIV. did in
     France, in revoking the Edict of Nantes and in driving out
     the Protestants; that which England did, in her treatment of
     the Pilgrim Fathers, the anti-clericals in France are doing
     today in their hatred of the religions orders. They are
     placing these orders beyond the law; they are preventing
     members of these orders from living as they see fit to live,
     and from earning their daily bread; they are practically
     forcing these members to leave France, all solely because of
     their ideas and innermost convictions. It is the old crime of
     heresy reversed. Since 1789, the French state has professed
     no longer to recognize religious vows, either to protect or
     to attack them; and in this it does well. But how illogical
     it is, then, to deprive certain individuals of their civil
     rights, merely because they take vows which it does not
     recognize! How does it concern the state if young men and
     women take the vow of chastity before God, and lead a life in
     common, devoting themselves to doing good in the manner they
     deem best? Is it not monstrous that, in the beginning of the
     twentieth century, the government of a great country should
     arrogate to itself the right of interfering in a matter of
     this kind, even that it should bring such subjects into the
     scope of its deliberations? Whether this vow be good or bad
     it is a question for one's own conscience. Let those who
     think it bad endeavor to turn others from it by means of
     persuasion; but to try to prevent it by brute force is the
     most retrograde course in the world.

     The measure of true civilization is indicated by the degree
     of respect in which one person holds the rights of another;
     every man and woman, so long as not encroaching on the rights
     of others, is inviolably entitled to act, and, a fortiori, to
     think, to believe, to pray, as he or she wishes. The French
     Government, by preventing certain categories of citizens from
     acting together, solely because their ideas are not its
     ideas, has gone backward several centuries on a capital
     point, and has resurrected one of the most shameful practices
     of the past, the misdemeanor of opinion.


The congregations dissolved and dispersed, nothing now remained but the
final act in that great tragedy which had been progressing for more than
one hundred years. The proposal was in order to lay the axe at the roots
of religious life, and by one fell stroke to extinguish the very
existence of the Catholic Church in France. Years have passed since this
last work was begun; the Church has not been extinguished; she is even
rising to a greater, a more glorious life; the promise of Christ is
showing its realization in the midst of a people who, but yesterday,
were ready to sing the requiem over her ruins.

The project of separating Church and State was no new notion in France;
it was a very old article in the republican programme. Away back in the
days of the Convention, in 1795, it had already been proclaimed and put
into force. Again in 1830 and in 1848 it was put forward by a faction of
the republican party. Under the Empire, especially during the
discussions as to the French occupation of the City of Rome, it was made
a part of the democratic platform. In a session of the Corps Legislatif
on December 3, 1867, Jules Simon made a very bitter speech in favor of
such separation. The following year Henri Brisson advocated much the
same object when denouncing the payment of salary to the clergy.

It was, however, during the period of the Third Republic that the
project began to receive attention in a practical sense, and formed the
ideal towards which policies of Gambetta, Jules Ferry, Paul Bert and
their like aspired. All efforts in this direction had proved abortive,
not that the project was at all displeasing to the anti-clerical
governments, but rather because the people were not "prepared;" and most
of all it was necessary first so to weaken the Church in her functional
life, that when the separation should come, it must mean her

It is pitiful to note the pretexts alleged by Reveillard in his work on
the "Separation," as the causes which called for the final rupture.
Speaking of Gambetta's acts of hostility in 1869 and later, he says: "It
was the time of the great clerical demonstrations, of pilgrimages less
religious than political, to Paray-le-Monial, to Lourdes, to Sainte-Anne
d'Aunay, to the chant of canticles with the refrain: 'Oh, save Rome and
France in the name of the Sacred Heart!'" He calls up also "the triumph
of Marie Alacoque and of Pere Lamerliere" and the "law approving as a
national public benefit the erection of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart
on the heights of Montmartre." These demonstrations of national Catholic
spirit were as so many thorns in the sides of rabid anti-clericalism,
and would suffice in themselves to evoke the sentence of extermination
against the Church that could call them forth. These same complaints are
uttered with no less bitterness by Paul Sabbatier in his work on the
"Disestablishment of the Church in France." In fact the unanimity with
which all anti-clerical writers harp upon these manifestations of
popular fervor make it plain that it was not a desire for political
betterment which inspired the foes of the Church in these oppressive
measures, but a desire carefully nurtured to strike at her very vitality
and life.

[Illustration: CLEMENCEAU.]

It would be useless here to rehearse all the various attempts which were
made in the Legislative Chambers up to 1902 to introduce the final
question in regard to the Separation. On each occasion the discussion
was voted down, always with the understanding that the time was not yet
ripe for the act. Affairs had at length, after the Law of 1901, arrived
at such a pass that the anti-clerical government could afford to set in
motion the wheels of its final policy. Various happenings at the time
served as pretexts for hurrying on its action. Some of these were of
special importance, and deserve to be recorded for the part they played
therein. In 1902 the Government assumed a hostile attitude on the
subject of the nomination of bishops, when it demanded the exclusion
from the Bull of canonical investiture of the term until then in use:
"Nobis nominavit." The Government demanded the suppression of the word
_Nobis_, thus changing the meaning of the phrase. It thus made it appear
that the nomination of a bishop depended upon the Government alone, and
that Rome had no other part in it than merely to register such
nomination as made by the civil power. This question of words thus
became a question of principle. The affair of the _Nobis nominavit_ was
finally arranged at the beginning of 1904. The _Osservatore Romano_, of
January 23, announced the solution officially, adding: "After a lengthy
exchange of ideas, the French government has accepted a solution which
the Holy See had proposed of its own initiative, and which, without in
any way wounding the privilege of nomination conceded to the Government
in virtue of the Concordat, conserves intact and assures for the future
the expression of the canonical and dogmatic doctrine."

This attempt of the Government to stir up a conflict with the Holy See
was further accentuated by the suppression of the salaries of eleven
bishops; and by the reduction, without any reasonable motive, of the
budget of worship in 1904.

Two other cases which, provoked by the Government, served as a pretext
for urgent separation were the affairs of the Bishops of Laval and
Dijon. I prefer to use in its relation the words of M. Faguet as found
in his work "_l'Anticlericalism_." "Two bishops, M. Gay, bishop of
Laval, and M. Le Nordez, bishop of Dijon, were agreeable to the French
Government and suspected, either for their private conduct, or for their
administration, by the Curia. M. Le Nordez was advised by Rome to resign
his functions. The Roman letter was turned over by the bishop to the
French Government, which protested to the Vatican, claiming that,
according to the Concordat, the nominations of French bishops ought to
be made by the French Government, and only the canonical institution of
them was reserved to the Holy See, that their revocations ought to
follow the same law as their nominations, and hence, that the Holy See
had not the right to depose a French bishop. Exactly the same procedure
was followed with regard to M. Gay, and exactly the same protests were
made by the French Government in his case. At the same time the French
Government commanded M. Gay and M. Le Nordez not to quit their posts.
The Roman Under-Secretary of State answered that the deposition of a
bishop was one thing, and the notice given to a bishop that he must
resign temporally his functions in order to go before the Roman Curia to
justify himself, was another; that such notifications belonged of right
to the Holy See to which the bishops by it canonically instituted were

"The French Government was headstrong, rushed blindly into the affair,
recalled its ambassador, and gave his passports to the Nuncio. War was

"The two bishops, who were obliged to choose between their obedience to
the French Government and their loyalty to the Holy See, decided for the
latter. They set out furtively for Rome, submitted to the Curia, and
resigned their French Sees."

"M. Combes saw in all this motives sufficient, not only to break all
relations with the Holy See, but still more to denounce the Concordat
and to pronounce for the separation of Church and State, at the same
time formally casting--as he had done a score of times--all
responsibility for these grave measures upon the Pontifical Government."

The anti-clericals were determined to abuse the patience of the Holy See
until it should finally be driven into an action upon which the French
Government might seize as a final pretext for a rupture. Already Pope
Leo XIII. had pointed out such intentions during his lifetime. In a
Letter to the Clergy and Catholics of France, February 16, 1902, he thus
wrote: "For them, separation signifies the negation of the very
existence of the Church. They make, however, a reservation which might
be formulated thus: 'As soon as the Church, utilizing the resources
which the common law allows to even the least of Frenchmen, will be
able, by redoubling her native activities, to make her labors fruitful,
the State will and must intervene to put the French Catholics outside
the common law itself.' In a word, the ideal of these men is nothing
less than a return to paganism; the State will recognize the Church only
when it wishes to persecute her."

This great Pope had, by the end of his life, exhausted every means of
condescension and delicacy towards the French Government; but his
efforts were doomed to failure before the hatred and bad faith of his
enemies, and he began at length to feel that the time had come when he
should enter a firm and dignified protest.

Pope Pius X. upon his accession was called upon to behold the
accelerated progress of official persecution; he began to recognize the
utter uselessness of even the most legitimate claims, and he hastened to
express his sorrow and indignation for the continuous violation of human
rights. On March 19, 1904, on the occasion of his name-day, he addressed
the Sacred College upon the subject: "We are profoundly saddened," he
said, "by the measures already adopted, and by others on the way to
adoption in the legislative houses against the religious congregations
which form in this country, by their admirable works of Christian
charity and education, a glory not less for the Church than for the
fatherland. They intend to go farther still, when they prevent and
defend a project having for its end the interdiction of all teaching to
the members of religious institutes even authorized, the suppression of
approved institutes and the liquidation of their property. We deplore
and strongly censure such harshness so essentially contrary to liberty
as it is understood, so essentially opposed to the fundamental laws of
the land, to the inherent rights of the Catholic Church, and to the
rules of civilization itself, which forbid the persecution of peaceful
citizens. To this end we cannot dispense Ourselves from expressing Our
sorrow over the measures adopted of deferring to the Council of State,
as abusive, the respectful letters addressed to the first magistrate of
the Republic by many well deserving pastors, among whom are three
members of the Sacred College, the August Senate of the Apostolic See,
as if it could be a crime to address the chief of the State to call his
attention to subjects intimately connected with the most imperious
duties of conscience, and with the common weal."

The solicitude of the Holy Father, however, only served to increase the
venom of his foes. Toward the end of April, 1904, M. Loubet, President
of the French Republic, visited Rome, and contrary to the spirit of the
Concordat and the rules regulating the relations of the Holy See and the
French Government, went immediately to the Quirinal to pay his respects
to the Italian king. The Holy See considered this visit of M. Loubet "as
a very grave offense against its dignity and rights. At the same time,
while uttering in the face of the French Government an energetic and
formal protest against the offense thus suffered, it sent in analogous
terms by means of its foreign representatives, an account of its action
to the governments of all the other States with which the Holy See held
direct relations." The Pontifical note declared that "a head of a
Catholic nation inflicts a grave offense against the Sovereign Pontiff
in coming to give homage at Rome, not to the Pontifical See but to him
who contrary to all right usurps his civil sovereignty." The "note" goes
on to remark that the offense is all the greater coming from the "first
magistrate of the French Republic, presiding over a nation which is
bound by the most intimate traditional relations with the Roman
pontificate, enjoys in virtue of a bilateral contract with the Holy See
certain signal privileges and a large representation in the Sacred
College, and possesses by a singular favor the protectorate of Catholic
interests in the Orient." It goes on, moreover, to state that this visit
of M. Loubet was "sought intentionally by the Italian Government for the
purpose of enfeebling the rights of the Holy See," and it concludes by
declaring that "the Sovereign Pontiff makes these most formal and
explicit protests to the end that so afflicting an action, (as that of
M. Loubet) might not constitute a precedent."

On the receipt of this protest the French Government gave the Holy See
to understand that it rejected the note in its form and in its
substance. The anti-clerical journals went even farther than this,
publishing not only the Pope's answer to French Government, but also the
note which had been sent to the other Catholic Powers. The intention of
such publication being to stir up the rancor of all who were moved by
hostility to the Holy See.

In answer, moreover, to the Pontifical note, the French ministry
demanded that the Holy See give an explanation of its words, and that
within the space of twenty-four hours; then, rushing headlong upon a
solution, as if impatient to hurry on the imminent rupture, it recalled
the French ambassador to the Holy See (May 21, 1904). This action was
approved by the Chamber six days after; it refused, however, by a vote
of 366 to 144 to pronounce for the immediate denunciation of the
Concordat; but that event was now well on the way, and nothing was
needed but to devise the ways and means.

The year 1905 opened with many muttered evidences of the coming storm.
The prime minister, M. Combes, though not defeated in the January
elections, beheld his majority so far reduced because of his rabid
inconsistencies, that although re-elected to his former post he felt it
incumbent to resign immediately. He was succeeded by a creature pledged
to continue his oppressive policy, M. Maurice Rouvier. It may be said,
however, that the spirit of Combes has dominated the French Chambers
ever since. The new cabinet was destined to put the final touches to the
anti-clerical campaign of dissolution.

Various motions having from time to time been introduced before the
Chamber of Deputies tending towards the separation of Church and State,
the Government finally, decided to place all of them for examination
into the hands of a Commission of thirty-three, which was nominated on
June 11, 1903. Out of the deliberations of this body resulted the first
scheme, or project, of the proposed legislation in regard to Separation
of Church and State. The question was formally introduced to the Chamber
of Deputies in the session of March 21, 1905, and was discussed during
forty-eight sessions until July 3 of that year. Its reporter, or
sponsor, was M. Briand.

[Illustration: BRIAND.]

In the first session M. Georges Berry declared "that the question of
separation had not been submitted to the electoral colleges, and that,
moreover, every time that it had been put before legislative elections
the electoral body had answered very unmistakably that it did not desire
separation." In the same session the Abbe Gayraud, representing Catholic
interests, spoke: "The Chamber, considering that diplomatic loyalty, and
public honesty, no less than the interests of public order and of
religious peace, exact that the denunciation of the Concordat, and the
separation of Church and State be accomplished in a friendly manner,
decides to use care in each deliberation upon the project of the law
relative to that subject, and invites the Government to form an extra
parliamentary commission composed of ministers from the different
denominations in concert with the heads of the Churches interested to
prepare an agreement with those Churches as to the conditions of
separation." In his speech upon the above thesis the Abbe Gayraud was
led to speak of the Organic Articles which he characterized as the
"Servitudes of the Gallican Church." The argument which then arose in
the Chamber might well be recorded.

     _M. Gayraud._--The doctrine of the _Syllabus_ is the doctrine
     of the Catholic Church, as well of the Gallican as of the
     Roman Church. And I know very well that no one can draw an
     argument against the Concordat of 1801 from either the
     _Syllabus_ or the dogma of Infallibility. The doctrines of
     these two pontifical documents represent not only the
     doctrine of the Church in 1864, but also that of the Roman
     Church in 1801, and of the Gallican Church as far as the
     _Syllabus_ is concerned. Moreover, another line of complaint
     against the Holy See, upon which M. Briand leans, and to
     which he has today alluded, is the Organic Articles. Very
     good, but the Pope has never recognized the Organic Articles;
     the Catholics of France, precisely because the Pope would not
     recognize them, are unwilling to recognize them either. This
     is one good reason, if you wish to avoid the
     misunderstandings of the past, why it would be well to confer
     with the Pope in regard to the separation which you are
     planning. But, after all, does the fact of not recognizing
     the Organic Articles constitute a violation of the Concordat?
     I am convinced that the real violation consisted in the
     making and promulgating of these famous articles.

     _M. Briand._--And what of that?

     _M. Jaurès._--That only proves that the Concordat was still

     _M. Gayraud._--You know very well, M. Briand, that the
     Organic Articles do not constitute those regulations of
     police supervision provided for in the first article of the

     _M. Feron._--You accept only what is favorable to you.

     _M. Gayraud._--"I have already said in this house: I defy
     any member of this Assembly to show me that in the Organic
     Articles there is any regulation concerning the publicity of
     worship, or to show me a single organic article that has
     anything to do with it. Hence you cannot appeal to Article 1,
     of the Concordat to legitimatize the Organic Articles. Some
     have tried to do this, and why? Because the Holy See would
     not recognize them, and it was necessary to find some means
     of justifying them before the Pope."

It might seem as if the contention of M. Gayraud did not pertain
intimately to the subject in hand. Yet that it was eminently apposite is
evident from the whole course of the subsequent discussions. The
supporters of separation had continually accused the Church of causing
the rupture by her violations of the Concordat. Indeed, one can hardly
restrain his tears as he reads the sorrowful complaints of Combes,
Briand, Clemenceau and the others. The Church was so wicked in the face
of these immaculate champions of civic morality! The facts of the case
are very simple. The Church in France has always stood loyally to the
observance of the Concordat, in spite of its many hampering
restrictions. That she has often acted in disregard of the Organic
Articles cannot be denied, nor does she wish to deny it. The reason for
this is, that the Concordat was a real law; the Organic Articles was
neither a law of the State nor of the Church, nor of both together. If
these Articles had been put forth independently of the Concordat, we
might for the sake of argument, concede that they would have a value.
But they were promulgated as a part of a law enacted mutually by two
parties, when one of the parties was actually ignorant of their
existence until after publication. It is a falsehood thus to assert that
they form a part of the Concordat. And since they do not form a part of
that law, having their value only upon such an assumption, they were no
law at all. In disregarding them, therefore, the Church could not be
accused of violating either an independent law or a part of the

Moreover, the Church could not observe the Concordat without violating
the Organic Articles, and vice versa. To accuse the Church therefore of
precipitating the conflict because she acted within the limit permitted
her by the Concordat, is one of the species of false reasoning which the
anti-clerical party endeavored to force down the throats of all its
hearers. It was well, therefore, that this should be rightly understood
in the very beginning of the discussion.

Among the speeches delivered during the general discussion upon the
Bill, that of M. Ribot deserves to be reproduced in part. It is well,
however, to note in advance that this orator, though a foe to
anti-clericalism, is not, however, a Catholic either in name or


M. Ribot began thus: "Gentlemen, I have already on many occasions
indicated the position I hold with regard to the grave question under
discussion. My friend, M. Barthou, did well, the other day, to recall
some lines of a letter which I wrote a year ago, before the incidents
which led to the rupture with the Holy See and the presentation of this
projected law. I said then that the general movement of modern ideas
would lead sooner or later to a complete separation of Church and State;
I added that, if this separation were accomplished by men who had no
marked hostility to the Catholic Church, and who would be willing to
give it the character of a measure of pacification, of a measure truly
liberal, the Catholic Church herself would comprehend that the
separation could be for her a guarantee of dignity and independence. I
retract none of my words. If you ask me: 'Do you believe that France in
the relations of Church and State has arrived at definitive crisis?' I
must answer: 'I do not believe so.' I have already explained how such a
change, so grave in itself, was particularly difficult in a country like
France where liberty is not even yet solidly established in the laws and
customs, where civil society has always been particularly and jealously
careful not to allow the Church too great an independence, where a
struggle has been going on for a century between the Church and the
enemies of religion, whose desire is not to liberate the Church, but to
attack her from ambush, to weaken her forces, and--perhaps they expect
it, in their illusionment and blindness--to suppress her.

"I have said that the transition might be more or less lengthy, but that
it was indispensable; that we must lead mildly and peacefully that
Catholic clergy whom you have hitherto held under the tutelage of the
State and whom we are about to enfranchise, that we must lead them
mildly and peacefully to the practice of a regime altogether different,
of a regime of liberty and emancipation, and I have explained that, to
my mind, such a transition could not be effected without conferring with
the head of the Catholic Church, with the Holy See.

"One can conceive of a regime of transition during which the Catholic
Church would be allowed more liberty in the choice of bishops, and the
Church itself be organized pacifically in view of the gradual
suppression of the budget of worship. These are my ideas, and I have
given them much reflection. If you are willing to bring about the
separation under these conditions, I am with you; I will aid you to the
best of my power. In that I foresee for the Church more dignity and a
greater independence; in that I foresee for the French State neither a
diminution of security nor a menace to religious peace."

M. Ribot then declared that if the separation were to be effected as an
act of reprisal against the Holy See, "it would be the beginning of a
war more protracted, more bitter, and more violent than any we have seen
for a long time."

"Paul Bert," he said, "remarked to me, when we were together on the
Commission of 1882, and when we were examining just such questions as
these, that he came from a department in which nearly everyone demanded
the separation of Church and State, where a candidate could not be
elected unless he should put that in his platform; but if one should do
so, he was sure that the deputies who should vote for it could not be

     _M. Villejean._--"Times have changed since then."

     _M. Buisson._--"Twenty years after."

     _M. Bienvenu-Martin._--"We have made headway since then."

     _M. Ribot._--"Yes, I understand. Times have changed; we have
     made headway. But are you sure that you have done enough in
     all the regions of this country to prevent a terrible
     misunderstanding following in the wake of the reforms you
     have made imprudently? Are you sure that you will be
     understood by those peasants who perhaps have voted for your
     programme, but who tomorrow will be profoundly troubled in
     their customs and in the customs of their families? Some
     years ago Littré spoke of Catholicism with a view to
     universal suffrage. He showed very clearly that there are
     contradictions in the public spirit, that those very men who
     are anti-religious in politics may be men of religious
     habits, or the heads of families in which such religious
     habits are constantly practised. Faith may be sleeping; but
     it has its sudden awakenings; all habits are living; and, I
     repeat it, habit holds a firmer place in the life of French
     families than politics or electoral programmes ever will

Further on in his speech M. Ribot referred to the relations of M. Combes
with the Holy See on the question of the nomination of bishops, and that
of the suspension of the bishops, Monseigneurs Gay and Le Nordez,
declaring that "all these griefs which you call up were not sufficient
reasons for making such great changes without taking the indispensable

"We are here to make politics," he said, "we are not here for mere
events and secondary incidents. When you set out to hunt up incidents,
when in place of following your own ideas and awaiting the hour fixed by
prudence, and by your knowledge of political affairs, you take up a
pretext for precipitating us into an adventure, you do not act as a
statesman; you act as a man of passion, as a man who is determined to
carry out his own conceptions, and who without asking if he may not
tomorrow be convicted of falsehood by his country, takes upon himself a
heavy responsibility. Is it statesmanship to strike directly at the
secular clergy and to put into their hands a means of agitation far more
dangerous than that which was in the hands of the congregationists?...

"And then, gentlemen, wishing to express myself with great discretion, I
ask: Is this the moment for aggravating the coolness between the
Catholic Church and the republican Government? I do not believe that we
are face to face with imminent perils; no one in Europe assuredly
desires war. But can we help noting that during the past year, while a
great nation, a friend and ally of ours, has met with great
difficulties, there has been something of a change in Europe? The
language we have been hearing for the past year is not altogether in
harmony with that which has reached our ears during the last few days.
Is this not the time when instead of deriding ourselves further, we
ought if possible to bring back union to our country?"

The orator then went on to answer the objection that "the Concordat was
by this time broken, and that the Government had no need to inform the
Holy See of its wish to suppress that contract." M. Ribot replied that
"it would be the greatest mistake we could at this moment commit, to
ignore the Holy See, as if it no longer existed for us."

The speaker then referred to the amicable relations sustained between
the Holy See and schismatical of Protestant nations.

     "Do you not feel that the French activity will be very much
     weakened, not only in Tunis, but in the Extreme Orient, if we
     have no longer any relations with the Holy See? ... in such
     case what will become of our protectorate over the Catholics
     of the East? The Emperor of Germany has gone to Morocco
     during the last few days; some time ago he was at Jerusalem
     and at Constantinople. Are we going to permit Germany, Italy,
     and other nations to divide the debris, the remnants of our

     _A voice._--"Never!"

     _M. Ribot._--"Never? When the mistake is committed it will be
     too late to repair it."

M. Ribot then continued his speech: "After breaking all relations with
Rome, after wounding the Holy See in its pontifical dignity, by refusing
even to confer with it in regard to the denunciation of the Concordat,
by omitting a formality which you would not neglect with anyone in the
world, you are going to give up, carelessly and without a tremor, the
complete direction of the French Church. He can tomorrow--if you invite
it--name the bishops, all the bishops, without leaving to us the right
of presenting to him any suggestion, or of obtaining from him, as
England obtains for Malta, as the United States obtains for the
Philippines, as we have obtained for Tunis, that the religious choice
made by him incline sometimes in the direction of political necessity.
We cannot do more than that, and you who complain of the disquieting
work of ultramontainism in this country, you do not even dream of
effecting a transition which permits us to obtain in that regard some

"I am sure that the Pope will not make any choice in a spirit reprisal,
but that he will consider purely religious interests only. What
consideration ought he to have for you, when you have had none for him?
He will make choices that can embarrass you, against whom you will
protest. Oh! I know you always have a resource at hand after you have
made a bad law; you can make another which will be a law of despotism
and perhaps of tyranny. That is always the poor resource of
short-sighted assemblies. I would prefer to provide for the danger
rather than be obliged to remedy it by such means. I am sure that a
mutual understanding is desirable, that it is necessary. I wish you
could see it, and that if you are determined to proceed resolutely
towards separation, you will do it with that prudence, that method which
I have indicated, and which is the only one that can save you from

M. Ribot proceeds to point out the danger of "repulsing the Holy See
with a violent, almost brutal gesture and of permitting political
associations to enslave the clergy after they have been emancipated from
the State."

     "Gentlemen, you want to be logical, but you are the most
     short-sighted of statesmen. You justify in advance all acts
     of inquietude. My friend, M. Lanessan, who is a devoted
     partisan of the separation of Church and State, published,
     the day before yesterday, in the _Siecle_ a letter from a
     member of the clergy, whom he calls a liberal and republican
     priest, who does not care to see politics mixed with
     religion; and that priest declared that the separation, such
     as you wish to make it, without method, without transition,
     and without an understanding with the Holy See, must have for
     its result a considerable increase in the action of the
     Papacy and the Roman congregations over the French clergy,
     and that the French clergy will not submit, even in spite of
     itself, to a domination which drags it between the militant
     parties of political action."

Later in his speech, M. Ribot contrasts the Government's treatment of
the Catholics with its treatment of other religious denominations. "You
agree that you could not and ought not in making a loyal and liberal
separation, refuse to the Protestant Church its traditional
organization, because in their case the question of temporal
organization is bound by the most intimate ties with the defence of
religious ideas themselves, and with the existence of the dogmas upon
which religion reposes. You have thus given satisfaction to the
Protestants. To the Israelites you have said: 'You may keep your
assemblies of notables, your mode of election, and also the superior
council which establishes equally the unity of your faith.' Now you find
yourselves in the presence of the Catholics. Have they less reason than
the Protestants and Israelites of a visible organ of unity in France,
for the reason that their unity can always be made and is made at Rome?
However, you cannot refuse them the right of recurring to their ancient
practices, those customs followed by the clergy of this country, of
having assemblies of bishops, and also, if they wish it, a general
assembly. But you find yourselves face to face with an organization
altogether different from that of the Protestants or Israelites; and you
have not, I hope, the pretension, under the pretext that it would be an
amelioration, to oblige the Catholics to adopt the organization of the
Protestants or Israelites; you wish to leave them their own

"That organization is known to every one; it is founded upon the
principle of authority. The pastors are not elected, they are appointed
from above; and even for her temporal government, for the administration
of property, the Catholic Church has organized a system of limited
councils, councils de fabrique and others, which proceed from the
bishop; he it is who directs the conduct of all of them by his
authority. Whether this system is good or bad, or whether it is better
than a broader democratic system, are questions which I have no right to
raise, nor you either."

After many discussions and interruptions the orator finally arrived at
his peroration: "You see, M. Briand, the spirit in which we discuss this
law. It is not a spirit of obstruction, nor the attitude of one
influenced by foregone conclusions. I want to be associated with you; I
would do so willingly if you will do what is indispensable, if the
Government acts as it ought to act, as any government would act which
was not pledged beforehand, which was not bound up in some way by the
precautions which preceding ministers have taken to put us in a trap, if
the Government would hold with Rome such an understanding as the
conditions of lofty and perfect dignity require.

"You assert that Rome provoked all this; but you state in your report
that Rome at this very moment is giving the example of forgiveness, of
conciliation in the affair of Dijon, and in the affair of the nomination
of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, wherein the Holy See is proceeding
slowly in order not to make any choice which would injure our influence
in the East.

"You have read the recent allocution of the Pope. It gives you
sufficient guarantees of moderation to enable you to enter into this
conference with full dignity. There is no intention of humiliating
France, or of rehearsing the calamities we have suffered. No! all that
is asked for is that you should confer, negotiate, so that the country
may not experience the saddest and most cruel misfortunes. I hold no
brief for religion, which does not concern me: I am speaking for the
State, for which, in my small way, I am responsible. I am defending the
rights of the State and the cause of religious peace.

"We have had enough of divisions, enough of mortal hatred, enough causes
of enfeeblement! Look back a little. The preceding ministry could see
nothing but a struggle against the congregations. That question covered
the whole horizon. Let your view be larger and broader. Stand for the
interests of France, of religious peace, for the interest of those very
ideas which are so dear to you, the success of that separation upon
which you have entered, and which I would desire like yourselves, if you
would undertake it under conditions that are acceptable and less

"But the separation which you propose I cannot in conscience accept. I
cannot place my responsibility side by side with yours. We have not
approved by vote the policy of the last cabinet. This law, such as you
propose, imports a definitive rupture with the Holy See, and is thus the
consequence and sorrowful crowning of that policy. We cannot approve of
it, but we have a strong hope that the discussion of the various
articles will show you still more the difficulty of their application,
the dangers to which you are exposing yourselves. I desire most
earnestly that, leaving aside all questions of personal ambition which
have been the ruin of assemblies and led them into irreparable mistakes,
leaving aside all conventional phrases, and acting solely in the
interest of our country, you will come back to the true policy of France
and the Republic."


In the meantime, while the debate was in progress the great majority of
Catholics could hardly believe in the possibility of separation. Events,
however, refused to confirm their hopes. The Bill presented by the
Government, confided to a Commission, and modified to the point of
absolute stringency in the discussions, was finally adopted by the
Chamber of Deputies on July 3, 1905. Docile to orders received, the
Senatorial Commission, and afterwards the Senate itself, ratified the
decision of the Chamber. The haste in putting the new law to a decisive
vote was dictated by the fact that a new election was imminent. The law
was accordingly voted definitively on December 6, 1905, and at once
promulgated. The Council of State was allowed three months delay in
order to prepare the details of the rules which should regulate the
execution of the law. That delay would end in April, 1906, just a month
before the ensuing elections. The Separation would thus be an
accomplished fact before the entrance of a new Government.

According to the Law of Separation the State assumes the position of a
Government professing no religion, though it pretends to guarantee
liberty of conscience and the free exercise of religious worship. The
Budget of Worship and all public maintenance of any religious church or
society was suppressed. By this article the Catholic Church in France
was deprived of 37,441,800 francs, or $7,488,360 a year. In order to
make the odious item seem less heavy than it actually was, the law made
provision for certain pensions. Thus ministers of religion who were not
less than sixty years of age at the time the law was passed, and who had
passed thirty years in ecclesiastical service, were to receive a life
pension equivalent to three-fourths of their former salary. Such as were
not less than forty-five years of age at the time, and who had passed
twenty years in the religious service, were to receive a life pension of
one-half of their former salary. To others less than forty-five years of
age it granted pensions extending to from four to eight years, which
allowances are to decrease progressively until at the end of eight years
they shall be completely extinguished. A third article provides for an
inventory of ecclesiastical property by government officials.

The crucial point in the Law of Separation was the attempt of the
Government to place the administration of ecclesiastical property in the
hands of certain organizations termed Associations of Worship. These
associations were to consist of seven persons in a parish of one
thousand people, of fifteen where the population is over twenty
thousand, and of twenty-five where the number is greater. These
associations can consist of lay people at least in the majority. They
can build up a reserve fund, which, however, must be limited. Where the
revenue is 5,000 francs, they can accumulate a sum only equal to three
times their annual expense, and for others the reserve fund should not
be in excess of over six times the annual outlay. The association must,
moreover, accumulate a special fund, which is to be invested, for the
purchase, construction, repair or decoration of the ecclesiastical
property. By this article a large recognition is given to the hierarchy,
since only such religious bodies can be represented as are in communion
with the Church which formerly held the property. But by Article 8 the
State proceeds to place itself as a judge over the bishops in cases
where different religious bodies through their Associations of Worship
lay claim to the property.

The other numerous items in the Law of Separation were merely such as
might be expected in a law so hostile and so aggressive.


Naturally the appearance of the new law caused excitement not in France
alone but throughout the whole Catholic world. The Holy Father, Pope
Pius X., expressed his grief in no uncertain terms. On February 11,
1906, he addressed to the hierarchy and people of France his encyclical
"_Vehementer Nos_." The Holy Father begins, in this letter, by
indicating, one by one, all the measures adopted by the French
Government against the Church, measures which naturally would lead to
that separation which the Holy See has always striven to avoid. He
declares that the doctrine of the separation of Church and State is
false because: 1, it offers violence to God; 2, it is an open negation
of the supernatural order; 3, it overturns the order which God has
wisely established in the world, an order which exacts a harmonious
concurrence between the two societies; 4, it inflicts heavy injuries
upon civil society itself. Moreover, the Popes have always protested
against such a separation.

France is less able than any other nation to enter upon such a
proceeding, for: 1, the bonds which consecrate the union of Church and
State ought to be more inviolable than the pledges of sworn treaties; 2,
it was a bilateral contract which the State abrogated by its own sole
authority; 3, this injury becomes all the greater when one considers
that the State has effected this abrogation of the Concordat without any
preliminary announcement or notification.

Still more, in this separation, the State has not given to the Church
her independence nor permitted her to enjoy, in the liberty which it
pretends to conceive, the peace guaranteed by common right. The evidence
of this is found in the numberless measures of exception which are
inserted in the law. These measures are contrary to the divine
constitution given by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Church, which is a
body ruled by pastors and doctors. In contradiction to these principles,
the law confers the administration and care of public worship, not to
the hierarchy divinely constituted, but to an association of lay
persons. These Associations of Worship shall, moreover, be supervised by
the civil authority in such a manner that the ecclesiastical authority
can no longer have any power over them. They are absolutely opposed to
the liberty of the Church.

Finally, the law violates the property rights of the Church, whether by
usurpation of these Associations of Worship, as also by the suppression
of the budget of worship, which was in itself a partial indemnity.

The Pope continues: "For this reason We reprove and condemn the law,
voted in France for the separation of Church and State, as profoundly
injurious to God Whom it denies officially when it begins the law with a
declaration that the Republic recognizes no creed. We reprove and
condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, the public
fidelity to treaties. We condemn it as contrary to the divine
constitution of the Church, and to its essential rights and liberties.
We condemn it as overturning justice and trampling under feet the
property rights which the Church has acquired on many titles and in
virtue of the Concordat itself. We reprove and condemn it as gravely
offensive to the dignity of the Apostolic See, to Our own person, to the
episcopate, the clergy and the people of France." The Pope then declares
that this law can never be cited against the imprescriptible rights of
the Church.

The Holy Father then addresses himself to the bishops, the clergy and
the faithful of France. He asks the bishops to bring a most perfect
union of heart and will to the projects which they shall form for the
defence of the Church, and he declares that he will address them at
opportune times practical instructions to guide their conduct in the
midst of their great difficulties. The clergy should have in their
hearts the sentiments of the Apostles and rejoice that they are esteemed
worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus. The faithful should remember the
fate which follows those impious sects which permit themselves to be
bound by a yoke, for they have themselves with cynical audacity
proclaimed their motto: "Decatholicise France!" In their resistance they
must be strongly united and possess a large measure of courage and

In the secret consistory, the Holy Father again referred to the
insulting measures of the separation law.

Meanwhile the country began to feel the excitement attendant upon the
various changes in government. On January 17, the French Parliament,
Senators and Deputies, in joint session at Versailles, elected a
President to succeed M. Emile Loubet, whose seven year term of office
was to expire on the 18th of the following month. Their choice fell upon
M. Clement Armand Fallières, President of the Senate. The new President
represented the more radical wing of the republican party, and was a
strong anti-militarist. He had been President of the Senate since 1899,
and was then in his sixty-fifth year.

In March of the same year the ministry of M. Rouvier, which had been in
office for little more than a year, fell, and was succeeded by that of
M. Sarrien. The Combes ministry, it will be remembered, resigned on
January 15, 1905, because of a vote of want of confidence inspired by
the rupture between Church and State. The resignation of M. Rouvier was
also precipitated by the same question though from two opposite points
of view. The Catholic party reproached him for his drastic application
of the congregation law, and the inventories of Church property. The
Socialists, because he had not applied the law as oppressively as they
would wish. The new Cabinet included among its members certain notorious
anti-clericals, among whom were Clemenceau, as Minister of the Interior,
Briand, as Minister of Instruction and Worship, and Doumergue, as
Minister of Commerce.

Again, on Sunday, May 6, took place the election of Deputies. The
Catholics had, indeed, hoped for some recognition from the voters of the
country, but were sadly disappointed when the returns showed a victory
for the Government. The French Socialists were returned with important
majorities, and the Bloc found itself stronger than ever before.

In the meantime the question of the Cultuelle Associations was being
strongly discussed among the Catholics of the land. Many, indeed, either
through ignorance of their real import, or because they hoped through a
compromise to pave the way to greater gains, were in favor of accepting
the conditions offered by the Government in regard to these
associations. The bishops, however, assembled early in the year to
discuss the question. They displayed a resolution and courage worthy of
the best traditions of the Church. They condemned almost unanimously the
Cultuelle Associations as contrary to the constitution of the Church.
Their decision was brought to Rome and submitted to the final judgment
of the Holy See.

The Holy Father replied in the encyclical, "_Gravissimo officii_," of
August 10, 1906, addressed to the Archbishops and Bishops of France, and
containing the instructions promised by the former encyclical,
"_Vehementer Nos_." The Sovereign Pontiff again condemned the law of
separation, and confirmed the almost unanimous decision of the assembly
of the Bishops. He condemned the Cultuelle Associations as imposed by
the law. He added, moreover: "We declare it is not permissible to try
some other sort of Associations at once legal and canonical, and thus to
preserve the Catholics of France from the grave complications that
menace them, so long as it is not established in a sure and legal manner
that, under the divine constitution of the Church, the immutable rights
of the Roman Pontiff, and of the Bishops, their authority over necessary
property of the Church, particularly over the sacred edifices, shall be
irrevocably set in full security above the said Associations. To desire
the contrary is impossible for us. It would be to betray the sanctity of
our office without bringing peace to the Church of France."

The resolute attitude of the Holy Father came as a surprise to the
French Ministry. They had imagined that the Pope would not dare to utter
words of defiance against the fiat of an irreligious Bloc. They began to
fear that any further aggressions must only sting the Catholics to
organized opposition. The Bishops met again in September and issued to
the Catholic people of France a Joint Pastoral letter signed by every
Bishop, announcing their hearty agreement with the instructions of the
Holy Father, and forbidding the establishment of of Cultuelle
Associations. The Catholic body entered into the spirit of the
hierarchy, and only a few unimportant individuals sought to contravene
their authority.

The Government, fearing no doubt the effects of further drastic
measures, began to modify the tenor of the law. The provision which
required that the clergy might not hold religious service in a church
without previously notifying the authorities in each case, was so
changed that one general notice would suffice for the whole year. At the
same time, however, the seminaries were to be closed and become the
property of the Commune, while Bishops and priests might buy back or
rent their own residences. The Holy Father, however, forbade the Bishops
and clergy to furnish the notification about public worship: they were
to continue to minister in their churches after the term of the
notification had expired as if nothing had occurred.

The stand taken by the Holy See was looked upon by the French Government
as a declaration of war, and it accordingly began to exercise newer
methods of retaliation. On December 12, 1906, the Papal Nuncio, Mgr.
Montagnini, who was then in Paris guarding the archives of the Holy See,
was expelled from France, the Nunciature was surrounded, and the papers
found therein were seized. It was in vain that the Vatican protested:
the Government pursued its oppressive policy with all the more vigor. On
December 15, Cardinal Richard was expelled from his archiepiscopal
residence, and later the seminarians were driven from the seminaries.

The position of the Catholics in France was thus rendered humiliating
and desperate. They still continued, as they do at present, to hold
divine service in the churches, but always with the eyes of a hostile
Government fixed upon them, scrutinizing their actions, and criticizing
their words. The clergy, deprived of their usual stipend, are forced to
seek in various kinds of employment the necessary sustentation of life
except when the generosity of the faithful enables them to observe the
discipline of the Church which ordinarily forbids the clergy to seek
their support elsewhere than from the altar.

One of the effects of the separation law was that the Holy Father was
liberated from the vexatious interference of the French Government in
the appointment of Bishops. Accordingly on February 25. 1906, the Holy
Father himself not only appointed fifteen new Bishops but even
consecrated them with his own hands in St. Peter's in Rome. It was the
first time that a Pope consecrated so large a number of prelates at one

The fall of the year 1906 was marked by the creation of a new cabinet of
which M. Georges Clemenceau was Premier. The new cabinet included among
its members anti-clericals of the most aggressive kind, such as Briand,
Doumergue, Picquart, and Viviani. It was this Viviani who, a few years
previously had uttered the notorious boast: "We have at last
extinguished the lights of Heaven."

Georges Clemenceau has been a rabid foe to Religion and to the Church
from the very beginning of his political career. In 1880 he founded for
this purpose a journal, "_La Justice_," and was a powerful advocate of
aggression during the Dreyfus trial. From 1883 to 1893 he was looked
upon as the master of the political situation in France. In 1901 he
founded a weekly paper, "_Le Bloc_." It was this paper which gave the
name to the infamous party which engineered the present anti-Catholic
war in France. He has been identified with all the oppressive measures
by which the French Government has, of late, striven to vex the French
Church. It was only in accordance with his deserts that he himself was
driven in disgrace from his leadership in the fall of 1909, when he was
succeeded by the no less aggressive but more hypocritical M. Briand.

One of the most shameful features in the French Government's war on the
Church was the affair of liquidation. When the Congregations had been
dispersed and their property confiscated, the Government appointed
certain officials, called liquidators, whose office it was to
superintend the sale of Religious property. The first estimates of the
sum which might be realized by the sale of this property placed the
total amount at 1,000,000,000 francs, the sum which, during the last few
years has dwindled down to ridiculously small figures. The recent affair
of M. Duez has brought out the whole official corruption of the scheme.
M. Duez, one of the three original liquidators attached to the Seine
Tribunal, began life as a clerk in a large department store. Afterwards,
as solicitor's clerk, he embezzled 500,000 francs. In spite of this he
was appointed one of the liquidators for the sale of Church property. In
this capacity he handled millions of francs. For a time things went on
well enough until the failures of some of the liquidators to produce
anything but continual expenses began to arouse the suspicions of the
Government. In 1906 the Government was forced to require from the
liquidators an annual report of their proceedings. The report, issued
toward the end of 1907, was a curious document. Finding that their
embezzlements were being exposed, the liquidators began to claim that
their work had been seriously hampered by threats of excommunications
against the buyers of the property, and by the opposition of the
Congregations and others who professed to have claims upon the property.
Moreover, it was said that M. Waldeck-Rousseau's estimate of a milliard
was excessive, for the net result of the liquidation of one hundred and
fifteen Congregations was not more than 189,932 francs. Of these one
hundred and fifteen liquidations, sixty-nine produced absolutely
nothing, yet the liquidators brought in bills amounting to 62,000 francs
besides the 24,000 francs, which were the fees of the lawyers.

Accordingly in the beginning of 1908, M. Combes forced the reluctant
Government to assimilate the position of the liquidators to that of
other functionaries accountable for monies. M. Combes, who had been
appointed Chairman of the Commission, saw in the affair only a way of
injuring his political opponents. In February, 1908, M. Briand, then
Minister of Justice, brought in a measure containing regulations for the
sale of the property, and for the simplifying of the judicial procedures
attendant. While M. Combes would cast the blame on the liquidators, M.
Briand fixed it on the method of liquidation. The Bill of M. Briand had
at least the effect of rendering the supervision more strict than
heretofore. As a consequence suspicions began to be aroused, of late, in
regard to M. Duez, who was the liquidator of several important
Congregations. He was forced to submit his accounts to an official
auditor, and his irregularities were quickly discovered. At first there
was a call for his dismissal, but the Seine Tribunal merely decreed the
acceptance of his resignation, "for reasons of health." He was given
three months to produce a full account of his transactions while in
office. These, however, were not forthcoming. Again and again he was
called upon for a detailed account of his work. So the matter dragged on
till the middle of March, 1910, when the successor of M. Duez became so
"insistent" that the matter could not be kept longer in suspense. M.
Duez was arrested and found upon his own confession to have embezzled
more than a million dollars. The scandal through the Government created
a state of consternation, especially in view of the fact that the
elections were already imminent. But the versatile Briand with a
sympathetic "Bloc" has already thrown dust into eyes of the French
people. One thing at least the liquidation scandal has effected--it has
exposed the frightful corruption of that Government which has
hypocritically insisted, time and again, that its war on the Church was
conducted solely in the interests of humanity, has been actuated by the
principle of what we Americans call by the expressive name of colossal
graft. The French people have permitted themselves to be hoodwinked in
the most outrageous manner. It only remains to be seen how long they
will permit themselves to remain the victims of such official slavery.


It will be remembered that, following on the passage of the Associations
law of 1901, came the actual attack upon the Congregations of France and
the Catholic schools. The Congregations were dispersed generally, their
property confiscated and their schools to the number of 25,000 closed.
It was the day of triumph for M. Combes and the anti-clerical horde that
followed him. It is remarkable that in 1904 when the rigor of the law
was most acutely felt, the chief henchman of Combes was the Minister of
Public Instruction, the notorious Aristide Briand, erstwhile editor of
the infamous Lanterne. The Catholic schools of the Congregations thus
closed, a new regime was inaugurated. Thenceforth there were to be
public schools supported by the State, whilst private, or free schools,
might be tolerated but at private expense In this difficulty Catholic
private schools were established here and there, but as may easily be
imagined, their number could only be insignificant and their pupils few,
since the Catholic people now found themselves obliged to pay for the
support of churches and pastors for whom the State refused any further
maintenance. Thus the great majority of Catholics all over France found
themselves obliged to send their children to the State schools.

This necessity was oppressive and humiliating enough, even though the
law of 1882 had defined that the State schools should be neutral in the
matter of religious teaching. In this assurance of the Government the
parents found some little comfort, and for a time it appeared as if the
law might be observed. But a Government that had frankly declared itself
atheistic, and opposed to all religion, was careful to place in its
schools only such teachers as should reflect the sentiments of their
employers. The French schools became thus the home of teachers not only
without faith, but absolutely seething with open and implacable hatred
of religion. Growing bold under the favor of an anti-clerical
Government, they caused to be introduced into the schools text-books so
worded as to impregnate the pupils' minds with anti-religious
principles. At first the name of God was allowed in the school, though
kept in the background. Soon it was admitted in inverted commas, and
finally it was banished altogether. In January, 1907, eleven parents at
Apremont complained to the Inspector, but no notice was taken. On June
24, 1908, the Bishop of Belley wrote to that official asking him to
withdraw an offensive manual from the schools. Finally the matter was
brought before M. Briand, who under the pretence of satisfying the
Bishop made a few unimportant changes but left the book as atheistic as

Meanwhile the teachers in the State schools increased in boldness and
aggressiveness. All discretion was at length thrown to the winds and
doctrines irreligious and impious began to be taught openly and without
reserve. The doctrines and practices of the Church were made the subject
of ridicule, the name of God was omitted or referred to as a relic of
superstition, morality was decried and patriotism denounced as an abuse
of the Middle Ages. In 1908, when the Government saw that the parents
were in earnest in demanding the observance of the school neutrality, it
caused a certain Radical, M. Doumergue, Minister of Public Instruction,
to introduce two bills. The first of these sought to inflict penalties
upon those parents who shall prevent their children from attending
classes in which books are used which are known to contain teachings
abusive of religion. By the second bill the responsibility of the State
is substituted for that of the teacher, who is thus removed from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and placed under the university
tribunals. As soon as these bills were proposed the Bishops, in a Joint
Pastoral, protested, declaring that the Bills meant nothing less than
the expropriation of the family and the confiscation of its children by
the State.

Meanwhile the Government continued its usual aggressive policy until the
parents uniting together began to demand strongly the observance of
neutrality. Thereupon the Bishops, in September of last year, issued
another Joint Pastoral, in which the rights of parents were set forth
according to the doctrine of the Church, and in which the use of a
number of class-books which dealt abusively with the teaching, practice
and history of the Church, was forbidden to Catholic children. At first
M. Briand sought to discountenance its importance, but when he saw from
the pastorals of individual Bishops that the episcopate were in dead
earnest, and from the action of pastors, parents and children, that the
Bishops' instructions were likely to be carried out, he joined with the
sectaries of the Bloc in denouncing what he hypocritically termed "an
attack on the Republican schools." Meanwhile the teachers and the
writers of the condemned books came together with prosecutions for libel
against some individual Bishops who had signed and published the Joint
Pastoral, and had enforced it by pronouncements of their own.

In the beginning of last year the matter, which had been carried on
without any positive Governmental influence, was now carried into the
Chamber of Deputies. There it was debated hotly on both sides. While
Briand, Doumergue, Besnard, Dessoye and others attacked the Church, the
Vatican and the Bishops, the champions of religious liberty counted such
orators as the Abbe Gayraud, M. Piou, M. Aynard, M. Grousseau, M.
Maurice Barres and several other men of eloquence and information.
Nothing, however, was effected save to fan the flame of anti-clerical
hatred, although M. Briand, when off his guard, pointedly admitted that
the Bishops acted within their right in issuing the Joint Pastoral, that
the parents had a right to associate for the care of their children's
instruction, and that a State monopoly of education would only be a
weapon of conflict and an instrument of tyranny. All of which admissions
the versatile Briand proceeded to falsify almost in the same speech.

The next move was to proceed formally against individual Bishops.
Accordingly, on January 20 Cardinal Lucon, Archbishop of Rheims, was
cited to court by the "Teachers' Friendly Society." His Eminence
appeared in person, and at the sitting of the second day spoke in his
own defence. As he left the court he was loudly cheered. The verdict of
the court imposed upon the Cardinal a fine of 500 francs and costs.
Still later, in March, Mgr. Turinaz, Bishop of Nancy, was haled into
court, but, strange to say, though the evidence was the same as in the
case of Cardinal Lucon, Mgr. Turinaz was acquitted.

The audacious effrontery of the Radical gang now seeks to proceed even
farther. Not content with forcing its impious books into the public
schools, it proposes to lay hands upon private schools as well, and to
so trouble them with surveillance so as to compel their dispersion.
Meanwhile, the affair of M. Duez has arisen like a horrible spectre in
the eyes of the Bloc robbers; the country is aroused at the rottenness
and corruption that is being laid bare; the Bloc is seeking to cover
over the sore spots. There are other matters in hand besides the school



The Troubles in Spain.

Although the Catholic faith has always been deeply rooted in the hearts
of the Spanish people, yet during the nineteenth century the
anti-Christian spirit contrived at times to create disorder and to
introduce persecution. The spirit of the French Revolution made its way
early into the Peninsular.

The reign of the weak king, Carlos IV., who was misled by his shrewd and
unscrupulous minister Godoy aroused dissatisfaction to such an extent
that his own son, the future Ferdinand VII., joined with the malcontents
in a warlike feud. The Kingdom thus distracted by internecine troubles
was an easy prey to the conquering Napoleon. In 1808, Carlos IV., was
forced to abdicate his throne which was thereupon bestowed upon Joseph
Bonaparte. The reign of this usurper, especially his oppressive measures
towards the clergy and Catholic people, stirred up the Spaniards, who
flew to arms. After three years of heroic struggle, aided by the
English, they liberated their country from French rule, and in 1814,
restored the Spanish throne, with Ferdinand VII., as its occupant.


In 1812 the liberal Cortes at Cadiz effected a Constitution inimical to
the interests of the Church. Upon his accession, the king annulled the
constitution, and restored the Church to the position and rights it had
held previous to the advent of the French. The Jesuits were recalled
from banishment, and other religious orders were encouraged to pursue
their works of charity and beneficence. Unfortunately, Ferdinand was
always wanting in firmness and in Catholic principle. Surrounded by
astute and ambitious flatterers, he soon fell into the hands of the
Liberals who induced him to revoke his good resolutions, to violate the
rights of the Church and to re-establish the old despotism.


In 1820 the sentiment of the country was divided between the two
opposing parties, the Apostolicals, who defended the claims of the
Church, and the Liberals, who looked for license under the name of
liberty. The Liberals were soon in the ascendant, and forced the King,
in 1821, to restore the Constitution of 1812. The Apostolical party
bitterly resented the treachery of the King, and after an uprising in
all parts of the country, aided by French intervention, the Liberals
were defeated. Ferdinand, however, was little disposed to follow the
dictates of the victorious party, who in their disgust at his
vacillating policy turned to the King's brother, Don Carlos, whom they
determined to place upon the throne.


The discontent between Ferdinand and the Catholic party grew more acute
from year to year. When, in 1823, the Holy See refused to receive the
Jansenist, Villanueva, as ambassador, the Government at Madrid dismissed
the Papal Nuncio, Guistiniani. Those of the clergy who would not accept
the Constitution were imprisoned, banished, or put to death. Only a few
took the oath imposed on them. In 1829, the King married Maria
Christina of Naples, a woman who was destined to play a notorious part
in Spanish history. Through her influence he abrogated the Salic law,
which excluded females from the throne, and which had been forced upon
Spain by the European powers in the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713. By this
act he hoped to shut out from the succession his brother Don Carlos and
his heirs, in order to place upon the throne his daughter Isabella, who
was born on October 10, 1830. By this act Ferdinand gave to his country
a cause for disorders which remain even to the present day.



Ferdinand VII. died in 1833, and his daughter was proclaimed Queen of
Spain, under the regency of her mother Christina. The country was at
once plunged into the horrors of civil war. Don Carlos, the pretender to
the throne, and his adherents were ordered to leave the country. Aragon
and the Basque Provinces took up arms in his cause, while the Liberals
gathered around the regent. In the conflict the followers of Don Carlos
were called the Carlists or Apostolicals, while the opposing party
received the name of Christinists.


In 1834 the enemies of religion took occasion of the cholera, then
raging in the Peninsular, to incite the populace against the religious
orders whom they accused of having poisoned the wells. They began their
hostilities with the Jesuits who were cut down even at the foot of the
altars. The horrible cry was heard everywhere: "Away with Christ!" On
July 17, a furious mob precipitated itself upon the Jesuit college with
cries of rage, calling out: "Death to the Jesuits!" "Let not a Jesuit
escape!" Fifteen fathers were massacred, and some of them with a
refinement of cruelty that passes description. Similar horrors were
carried out the same day in the various monasteries of Madrid, those of
the Dominicans, the Fathers of the Redemption of Captives, and the
Franciscans. Forty-four of the latter perished, seven Dominicans and
nine of the Order of Mercy. The leader in these atrocities was that
Espartero, who having imbibed in his boyhood a knowledge of the faith,
had learned in South America the awful art of shedding blood for the
sake of personal ambition.


In 1835 the massacres were renewed at Saragossa, Barcelona, Cordova and
many other places. In 1836, a decree ordered the sale of all property
belonging to the religious orders. After the religious--as is always the
case--the secular clergy were attacked, and the churches everywhere
throughout the land. Bishops and priests were banished; ecclesiastical
property was pillaged or sold; the supremacy and rights of the Pope were
set aside; in a word, the Catholic Kingdom saw the beginning of a
national schism.


Pope Gregory XVI., in 1836, protested against these persecutions, and
the Government, awakened to some sense of shame, sent Vilalba to Rome to
effect an agreement with the Holy See. The truce was but of short

In 1840 another revolution broke out, the result of which was the
deposition of Christina, as regent, and the exaltation of the infamous
Espartero in that capacity. The change was the signal for renewed
hostilities against the Church, so that, in 1841, Pope Gregory XVI. was
again moved to utter a vigorous protest. The Government replied by
forbidding the publication of any Papal documents, and by confiscating
what remained of the Church property.

In January 20, 1842, a law was proposed having for its object the entire
separation of the Spanish people from the influence of the Holy See.


The Pope replied to this proposal by a strong encyclical, in which he
said: "In fact, it is determined by this law that no account of the
Apostolic See shall be held by the Spanish nation; that all
communication with it for all manner of graces, indults and concessions
shall be intercepted, and that those who contravene this prescript shall
be severely punished. It is also decreed that letters apostolic and
other rescripts issued by the same Holy See, unless they shall have been
demanded by Spain, shall not only not be kept, and be inefficacious, but
that they shall be denounced to the civil authority in the shortest
interval of time, by those whom they shall reach, that they may be
delivered to the government; and for those who shall violate this
prescript a penalty also is fixed.


"It is moreover ordained that impediments to matrimony shall be subject
to the bishops, until a code of civil laws shall establish a distinction
between the contract and the sacrament of matrimony; that no cause
involving religious matters shall be sent from Spain to Rome; and that
in no time shall a nuncio or legate of the Holy See be there admitted
with the power of granting graces or dispensations, even gratuitously.

"And more! The most sacred right of the Roman Pontiff to confirm or
reject the bishops elected in Spain is clearly excluded; and the
punishment of exile is to be inflicted as well on all priests designated
to any episcopal church, who shall seek confirmation or letters
apostolic from this Holy See, as on all metropolitans who shall demand
the pallium from it.

"After this, it is indeed to be wondered at, that the Roman Pontiff
himself is in that law asserted to be, as it were, the centre of the
Church, since room for communication with him is not left, save by the
license and under the inspection of the government.

"Desiring then to restrain, as much as in us lies, the evils, which in
this great perturbation of the Catholic religion throughout Spain are
growing more heavy; and to give our assistance to those most dear of the
faithful, who, long since, are stretching forth suppliant hands towards
us, we have determined, after the example of our predecessors, to resort
to the prayers of the universal Church, and most studiously to excite
the piety of all Catholics toward that nation.

"Therefore, while we renew and confirm, by these letters apostolic, the
complaints and expostulations published in the allocutions before
mentioned, and abrogate and declare to be of no force all acts hitherto
done by the government of Madrid against the rights and dignity of the
Church and of this most Holy See, we again exhort all ... to implore the
mercy of the omnipotent God for the unhappy Spanish nation."


The government in turn endeavored to suppress the Encyclical, but its
efforts in that direction only resulted in spreading it the more
throughout the land. A veritable awakening followed. Both clergy and
people publicly demonstrated their loyalty to the persecuted Church,
whose defence was ably taken up by such writers and orators as the
celebrated Father James Balmes and Donoso Cortes. In 1843, the young
Isabella, then being thirteen years of age, was declared of age, and
made independent of any regency. The reign of Espartero was, for the
time at least, at an end.

Espartero, during his ascendancy, proved himself a scourge to the
Catholic Church in Spain. When he fell, the Catholics began to breathe
more freely. A stop was put to the sale of ecclesiastical property. In
1845, whatever remained was used to give some little maintenance to the
clergy, but the real and personal estate had already been disposed of in
great part, and could not be recalled. To arrange matters a concordat
was drawn up, and Castillo y Ayensa was sent to Gregory XVI. for that
purpose. But the good will of the government evaporated before anything
definite could be concluded, and the concordat was rejected by the


However, after the Spanish government had aided the Pope in his exile at
Gaeta, and helped to restore him to Rome, more definite proceedings
towards a concordat were begun. The new concordat was concluded on March
16, 1851.

It was just before the conclusion of this concordat that Donoso Cortes
delivered a remarkable address to the Spanish Chamber of Deputies, in
which he said:

     "Do not tell me that in Spain, in Italy, in France and in
     Hungary the Revolution is conquered; that is not true. All
     the social forces united and driven to their utmost have only
     driven the Revolution under cover. The people can no longer
     govern, and the true cause of this is that there is no true
     conception of divine or of human authority. This is the
     disease that is strangling Europe, society and the world.
     This is the reason why the people can no longer govern. When
     Revolution in Europe shall have destroyed the standing
     armies, when Socialism shall have exterminated patriotism,
     when we shall see only two parties, the spoilers and the
     despoiled, then shall Russia quietly send its armies into our
     land, and the world will behold the greatest chastisement
     recorded in history."

The new concordat contained among its articles the following: "The
Catholic, Apostolic, Roman religion, will be as in the past, the
religion of the State, to the exclusion of all others. The Church shall
conserve the rights and prerogatives which belong to her according to
divine law and the sacred canons; in public and private institutions,
education shall be conformable to the Catholic religion; the bishops in
the exercise of their ministry and of their mission shall enjoy that
entire liberty demanded by the sacred canons; the Church shall continue
to possess, and to acquire new properties, under whatsoever legitimate
title; and this her right of possession shall remain inviolable."


The concordat was signed at Rome, by Pope Pius IX., who in the
consistory of September 5, 1851, proclaimed its publication in terms of
the greatest gratification. But the joy of the Catholic people upon this
return to Spain to better sentiments was not long lived. On February 2,
1852, Queen Isabella, as she was speaking on the street with the Papal
Nuncio, was attacked by a ruffian, who attempted to plunge a dagger into
her side. The would-be assassin was arrested and thrown into prison. He
was one of the conspirators under Espartero.

As the unhappy man had once been an ecclesiastic and had apostatized
under the fury of the revolutionary propaganda, the revolutionary
journals made capital of the fact to cast aspersions on the clergy,
declaring that the assassin belonged to the clerical party. The
government comprehended that it was necessary to put a restraint upon
the press, and in consequence, many journals were compelled to stop
publication. At the same time a spirit of conversion began to touch the
hearts of the people. Everywhere the missionaries were active, and out
of the religious houses the words of new life were heard to echo into
the homes, the factories, the army and the navy. The revolutionists
began to be alarmed, and set to work to destroy what the preaching of
Catholic doctrine had effected.

The Liberals, haters of God and of country, commenced a series of
barbarities. With the intention of destroying the monasteries and
convents, they set fire to the Jesuit houses in Valladolid, Huesca,
Barbastro, Saragossa and Valencia. At Valladolid in one day they burned
three convents, and among them the celebrated and magnificent Trinidad.
And these same incendiaries when they came into power in Spain two years
later, dared to cry out against the barbarities of the Catholic Church.


In 1854 the revolution again broke out. Many of Spain's best generals,
among them Leopold O'Donnell, went over to the party of rebellion, whose
object was the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a
republic. The people, misled by a thousand rumors, knew not to whom to
turn, but finally took as their leader that Espartero who had already
proven himself a danger to Spain, hostile to the Church, and a slave to
the secret societies.

On July 18, 1854, the royal palace at Madrid was sacked by the mob,
though the Queen succeeded in escaping to safety. Though the Revolution
called for a republic, with Espartero at its head, yet that general
preferred rather to lead the ministry under royalty, and so contrived to
restore Isabella to her throne. Under this second regime of Espartero
the Church suffered even more cruelly than before. The agents of the
secret societies, which controlled the Cortes, began to demand the
revocation of the concordat, the suppression of the religious orders,
and a general persecution of the Church. The minister Alonzo set the
example by driving out of the Escurial the monks of St. Jerome.


To persecution the anti-Christians added calumny against the bishops and
clergy of Spain, accusing them of desertion in the time of danger, of
abandoning the victims of the cholera. These open falsehoods aided
somewhat in stirring up a spirit of hostility even in places where the
devotion of the clergy was known to be most heroic. Stories then were
circulated of arms hidden in the sanctuary of Loyola; as a consequence,
the Jesuits were driven from this shrine, even though it was well
known that their only occupation at Loyola was the maintenance of a
college for the education of missionaries to Cuba, Porto Rico and the
Philippine Islands.

[Illustration: ISABEL II., QUEEN OF SPAIN.]

At the same time certain deputies in the Chamber complained that the
journal, "The Catholic", had dared to publish the Bull of Pius IX. on
the Immaculate Conception without governmental permission. One of the
ministers, Madoz, proposed restoring the ruined treasury by the sale of
all ecclesiastical property without exception. Another deputy, Escosura,
a furious and fanatic anti-Christian, insulted, in a session of the
Chamber on March 24, 1855, the Bishop of Osma, whom he called a butcher
because of his defence of the church property; the Minister of Grace and
Justice, Aguirre, demanded the punishment of those bishops who dared to
preach religious unity. For this "crime" the Bishop of Osma was exiled
to the Canary Islands. The same Aguirre caused the Bishop of Barcelona
to be exiled to Carthagena.

It was in vain that the Holy See strove to compose matters. Appeals to
the ancient piety of Spain, and to the well known virtue of the nation
were alike unheeded. It was not the nation that ruled, but a clique who
had gained control by force of arms, and it was this clique that sent
back the appeals of the Holy Father with contempt and derision. The
Cortes was filled with irreligious enemies of the Catholic name; it was
these who set aside the concordat, from its first article to the last.
It was these who forbade bishops to ordain priests, who forbade
monasteries of nuns to receive new novices; and who converted to State
use all chapels and religious schools. In the deliberations of the
Cortes, on January 12, 1855, it was determined that the seminaries might
no longer teach philosophy and theology, and that all ordinations of the
clergy should be suspended.


The Holy Father in the consistory of July 6, 1855, protested vigorously
against the evils and spoliation of the Church in Spain. His words were
useless, since Espartero and his followers continued in their way
despite all claims of reason and right. They had driven the Bishop of
Osma into exile, they had closed the Seminary of Toledo, they had
forbidden the priests of Saragossa to leave the limits of their parish
without governmental permission, they had dispersed the Society of St.
Vincent de Paul, they had prevented the bishops from uniting in council,
the Bishop of Urgel was exiled as a Carlist, the Bishop of Plasenza was
persecuted because he had refused to give an inventory of church
property, the Bishop of Avila would have been imprisoned but for fear of
the people who threatened to intervene.

The persecutions became so rabid and frequent that Monsignor Franchi,
the Papal Nuncio, left Madrid, and diplomatic relations were severed
with the Holy See. Moreover, Zavala, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
dared to write to the various governments that the concordat was being
faithfully executed, that the contract made with the Holy See was
observed, and that the government was religious and pious. The
Pontifical Allocution unmasked the falsehood, but did not change the
condition of affairs.


The government of Espartero, capable of every evil, incapable of good,
finally fell into odium with the people. In 1856 Spain shook off the
yoke imposed upon her by the rebels, who had enslaved the Queen and
fettered the Church. On September 15, the country returned to its
former government, and restored the Constitution of 1845. The new
Minister of Grace and Justice recognized the necessity of restoring to
honor a clergy vilified by the passions and impetuous discords of the
times. The elections to churches were made according to the customs of
Catholic Spain, and peace began to smile again upon the religious
institutions of the land.

The appointment in October 1856, of Marshal Narvaez, to the presidency
of the Council, was an act that promised the restoration of law and
order. Narvaez, the Duke of Valencia, was one who knew the meaning of
conspiracy, civil war, and revolution. He had seen with his own eyes the
sad results of them, and how they impoverished, weakened, and strangled
the State. A man of character and firm will, he knew how to form a a
cabinet in harmony with his own ideas, and with them he set to work to
re-establish order.

The Jesuits, expelled in 1854, were permitted to return; the concordat
was again put into execution; all orders and decrees contrary to it were
annulled, and on October 15, De Seijas Lozano, Minister of Justice,
represented to the Queen that it was time to render to the bishops full
liberty to confer sacred orders. In his brief he spoke in the highest
terms of the Spanish episcopate, and of the piety and heroic devotion of
the priesthood. It was a new note in contrast to the chorus of infamy
that had been heard for the last two years. The end of the year 1856
beheld a serene heaven brooding over Spain, and a people who sighed with
relief as they thought of the nights of horror and iniquity through
which they had so lately passed.


For a decade at least the Church in Spain enjoyed comparative peace. The
war then broke out again and continued with new vigor. The masonic
General Prim, returning from Mexico disappointed because he had failed
to create a position for himself, brought back to Spain a new batch of
conspiracies. In 1867 the Moderates were in control with Narvaez at
their head. They were not altogether unjust, and were somewhat friendly
to the Church and the Catholic Party, which was then represented in the
Cortes by Candido Nocidal and other illustrious men of Spain. At the
same time the Cortes numbered among its members the Progressists, who
were hostile to the Church and to the Queen, and who united in many
measures with the Socialists, a party which was most dangerous and most
opposed to the nature and to the traditions of the Spanish people.
General Prim was the recognized leader of this union. He was a man of
most extravagant ambition, who in the hope of becoming President of a
future Iberian republic, or first minister of the Queen, gathered
together all the forces of disorder which had lain dormant since the
last revolution.

[Illustration: ESPARTERO.]

Prim first addressed himself to the King of Portugal, proposing to unite
that country with Spain under the crown of Portugal. Being refused, he
turned to the Duke of Montpensier, who rejected his proposals in the
conviction that the time was not ripe for a revolution. He was not,
however, disconcerted, and in union with O'Donnell, gave himself up to
the problem of betraying his country to some foreign ruler. The first
skirmishes of the followers of Prim were abortive owing to the vigilance
of Narvaez, and many of the conspirators were driven out of the country.


Narvaez, however, died in 1868, and was succeeded as President of the
Council, by Gonzalis Bravo. The policy of the latter was built upon an
imprudent confidence in the friendship of the French Emperor, Napoleon
III. Trusting to the promises of that crafty prince, both Bravo and the
Queen remained inactive, while the forces of the enemy under General
Serrano pushed forward.

[Illustration: LEOPOLD O'DONNELL, Duke of Tetuan.]

Bravo in turn relinquished the government to Joseph Concha, an old
conspirator, in whose heart the hatred toward the Church had never
completely died out. In the meantime the rebels forced their way
through the country, and gained as they went forward the favor of a
populace whose spirits were inflamed by the lust of bloodshed and
plunder. With a nondescript army Serrano took possession of Madrid in
September, 1868.

The Queen, despairing of her own safety, fled into France, and left the
entire country in the hands of the revolutionists. On September 30, she
protested against the treachery of Napoleon III., but no one would or
could listen to her. It was only another of the unholy acts of the
French Sovereign who had thrown ruin into various countries of Europe.
Rome had seen the Holy Father betrayed by him; Florence, Naples, Parma,
and Modena fell under his treachery; the Emperor of Austria had trusted
him and found him wanting; he had cajoled the folly of Maximilian in
that unfortunate prince's adventure into Mexico; and now he had betrayed
Spain. One more piece of treachery remained in his conduct toward the
Holy See--then came the reward of his double-dealing in the
Franco-Prussian war, when he was himself cast down from his throne and
driven into disgraceful exile.


General Prim, whose usual tactics were to raise a great cry, stir up
revolt, and then when the danger came, to disappear, had been missing
through all the fighting. Now that the danger was over he suddenly
re-appeared. But both he and the Duke of Montpensier came too late.
Serrano was in control with a mob of irreligious ruffians gathered
together from Paris and Brussels and filled with a mortal hatred of the
Catholic religion. The proofs of this spirit were not long in coming.
The Jesuits were the first to be hunted down, and after them the other
religious; and while the revolutionists were raising the cry of "freedom
of worship for all," they sacked and profaned monasteries and churches.
Dioceses were reduced in number; cathedral chapters, abbacies, and
prebenderies were suppressed; the fees to the nuncio and to the
seminaries were discontinued. Ecclesiastical property was offered for
sale, and a thousand iniquities of one kind or another were brought
forward to enslave and impoverish the Church.

In the meantime the question of the form of government to be adopted
occupied the minds of all. Some called for a republic, some for a
monarchy under the regency of Montpensier or of Serrano; others wished
for a union with Portugal. Still others proposed a stranger king, Prince
Napoleon, Duke of Genoa, a friend of General Prim.

During the first three months the government remained in the hands of
three worthies, Serrano, Prim and Topete. The usual hypocrisy of all
anti-Catholic governments betrayed itself immediately. There were
outcries, mobs, rumors everywhere; but Catholic processions were
forbidden. A crowd of corrupt apostates could travel from one end of
Spain to the other preaching impiety, under the name of the "pure
gospel," while they dispersed the conferences of St. Vincent de Paul and
drove from their houses the defenceless nuns only to gather them
together in places where they were delivered to the insults of the mob
and every degrading humiliation. Books, newspapers filled with obscene
pictures were spread gratuitously among the populace as a proof of the
new civilization.


Religious and Catholic writings were held up as barbarisms and inimical
to the interests of the country. Schools for the teaching of falsehood
and iniquity were free and untrammelled, while the seminaries and
Catholic schools were closed at Madrid, Seville and other places.
Churches were destroyed and chapels burned to the ground without
hindrance or protest. Catholics looked on in horror, but had to be
silent while the terrors of an infidel government hung around them. The
government itself encouraged its partisans to gather the spoils of
victory, to satisfy their old punishments with terrible vengeance. To
pay the national debt of forty millions of francs the property of the
Church was again seized and sold. When the Revolution began, the motto
of the rebels was "Spain and Honor;" now it had become a cry of
irreligion and destruction.

At Antequera the sectaries attacked a convent of nuns, sacked it and
burned it to the ground. Through the streets of Madrid mobs of vile
assassins rushed wildly, calling out "Down with the Concordat! Down with
the tyrants of Rome!" The anti-Catholic press hurled maledictions upon
the Catholic faith. The Espana declared that it would have no Catholic
sovereign; the Nacion proposed Alfred of England because he was a
Protestant. At Seville the Church of the Capuchins was turned into a
powder magazine.

The old revolutionary Aguirre abolished the religious communities,
declaring that they were an integral and principal part of the shameful
and oppressive regime which the nation had at last gloriously
overturned. Bishops were ordered to leave their dioceses, and to cease
all pastoral visits. At the same time, while Catholic churches were
closed and religious communities dispersed, synagogues were inaugurated
and Protestant temples opened.

In the meantime the politicians had been busy seeking a head for the
government. The hopes of Montpensier were easily shattered, and the King
of Portugal had refused to unite the Spanish crown with his own.
Invitations were then sent to princes in Germany and Italy, especially
to the Duke of Aosta. Some looked to Don Carlos, who was then known as
the Duke of Madrid, and who would like to be king under the name of
Carlos VII. He had many partisans in Navarre, in the Basque Provinces,
and in Catalonia. In his manifesto of June 30, 1869, he wrote: "Spain
does not care to see the religion of our fathers outraged and insulted;
and possessing in Catholicity the real truth, she wishes to see that
religion free to exercise her divine mission. Spain is determined to
preserve at any cost that Catholic faith and unity, which are the symbol
of our glories, the spirit of our laws, the bond of our people, and the
blessing of our country. In Spain through the tempest of the revolution
many sad things have happened. But there are concordats which must be
respected and faithfully executed." Carlos VII. presented himself in the
name of God and of justice; but Napoleon III. plotted secretly against
him; the Masonic bodies of Europe fought him; the Catholic powers
abandoned him; and the revolutionaries in control of Spain refused him;
so that all his efforts were in vain.


The next six years found unhappy Spain delivered up to every excess of
demagogy and disorder. On February 22, 1869, the Cortes met at Madrid
for the purpose of drawing up a Constitution, which was finally
completed and published on June 6 of the same year. General Serrano was
made Regent, while the government remained under the Presidency of
General Prim. On November 16, 1870, the Cortes elected as king of
Spain, Amadeus of Savoy, Duke of Aosta, son of the King of Italy.
Amadeus took possession of the throne in January, 1871, but the
rivalries of the various parties in the country, and the weak
disposition of the King made his reign one of perpetual strife. The
Carlists under Don Carlos VII. took up arms and brought about a civil
war in 1872. Finally, in 1873 Amadeus, wearied out with a charge that
was difficult principally because he permitted himself to be made the
tool of the secret societies, renounced the crown on February 11, 1873.

[Illustration: AMADEUS OF SAVOY. Duke of Aosta, King of Spain.]


For two years the country suffered under what purported to be a
republican form of government. Serrano and Prim again came into
prominence with their old hatred of religion and good order; but they
were obliged to yield to the new dictators, Salmeron, Margal, and

The new government elected a new Cortes, and to that body the popular
suffrage sent a man who was destined to aid the struggling Church and
bring back a semblance of peace to Spain. This was Don Antonio Canovas
de Castillo, an old statesman who had served already in the battles of
his country.


It was in the midst of these disorders, in the face of adventurers ready
to offend all the great principles of social life, liberty, property and
religion, and all natural and constitutional rights, that Canovas found
a role worthy of his character. He grew powerful in that struggle for
the defence of Christian society. He stood almost alone in the
opposition; but his energy was indomitable, and his courage almost
amounted to rashness as he set out to give battle to the secret
societies, to Masonry and to the International whose titled members
filled the Parliament.

As he ascended the tribune he heard the murmurs around him telling him
that he was already hated. But his courage gave him words. He was called
a doctrinaire. "A doctrinaire!" he said. "But who is not a doctrinaire?
Is there anyone who does not profess some doctrine, either good or evil?
As for myself, I know that my doctrine is good; it is the Christian
doctrine, and I am proud to declare that I put aside the enjoyments of
life as an end of existence, holding for certain that a Supreme Justice
awaits all men at the doors of death. The individual who faces the
inevitable afflictions of life, its maladies and its miseries, if you
limit his aspirations to the times in which he lives, he becomes a foe
of discipline; he carries his negations, not to Heaven, which does not
exist for him, but to everything which proves an obstacle to his
ambitions, to country, family, and society, to destroy them. He becomes
an international.

"Reactionary you call me! There is no one who in these days of trouble
ought to bear that name better than I. I have heard that the Senors,
Margal and Castellar, were reactionaries; and the successor of Proudhon,
who has written his diabolical gospel, Chaudrey himself, he was shot as
a reactionary by the Commune of Paris. You are preaching social and
economical emancipation to the masses; but what obstacle has the workman
from performing his labors freely? You promise social liquidation, the
revision of property and of public fortune and their better division.
What good reasons, political, historical or philosophical do you bring
to support these theories? Are you bound to accept as Gospel truth,
every idea that rises in the minds of men? Must you take every man as a
Messiah who proclaims himself an apostle or a prophet? If you do so,
you will rob the State of all security, society of all stability,
history of all solidity; and if you are indifferent, the philosophic
theorizers will soon plunge the land into a torrent of blood."

[Illustration: ANTONIO CANOVAS DEL CASTILLO. Conservative Prime

Canovas was listened to in silence, and his auditors uttered no protest;
but they remained unchanged. Four years of republican rule ruined the
country; liberty was betrayed by a license which permitted everyone to
live according to his own caprice. Religion, buffeted and persecuted,
its temples and property confiscated, its ministers proscribed, the
public safety destroyed, with pillage unpunished in the cities
conflagrations started in the country places, were the fruits of the new
ideas which reigned in the high places of the state. Valencia, Grenada,
and Seville became principalities, created Parliaments, frontiers,
custom houses, coined monies, and levied taxes; it was a form of
anarchy. Carlism took up arms again; Cuba revolted; and the government
found itself powerless to bring matters to a peaceful condition.

In its anxiety the country looked to Canovas de Castillo. To those who
spoke of insurrection he answered: "Let us wait; there is no need of
bloodshed." On December 28, 1874, he appeared at the head of the troops
at Sagonta, and proclaimed Alphonso XII. as King. The news spread
quickly, and was accepted as a signal of deliverance. There was no
resistance; the old government was gone; and the Cortes was dispersed.


Canovas was at once recognized as the representative of the absent King,
and the country was ready to obey his directions. Armed with this power,
he set to work to put the country in order. He exiled Zorilla, the
chief of the demagogues, he banished the revolutionaries and expelled
the teachers of disorder, who had the impudence to call themselves "the
Intellectuals." As the Constitution was but the legalization of tyranny,
he drew up another, in which Catholic principles were respected.

The moment had come for inaugurating an era of peace. His ministry again
declared that "the Catholic religion is the religion of the State,"
though it professed a tolerance for dissident sects. The monastic orders
were received back into the land; churches were restored, the clergy
received as much of the ecclesiastical property as had not been
absolutely alienated. The Carlists were pacified, and the whole country
once more brought within the bonds of patriotic union.

It was unfortunate that this great statesman, who had placed Alphonso
XII. upon the throne, and watched over the first years of the present
King Alphonso XIII., was assassinated by an anarchist, August 8, 1897.


During the regency of Maria Christina, and the reign of her son,
Alphonso XIII., the Church was not at first openly attacked, although
various legislative measures have been proposed to cripple the religious
orders and deprive the clergy of all authority in matters of education.

[Illustration: ALFONSO XII., KING OF SPAIN.]

There were difficulties in recent years, but while the Conservatives
ruled under Senor Maura, or even the Liberals under Sagasta, the danger
of any serious conflict was not imminent. But when the Liberals in 1905
were led by Moret, the rights of the Church began to feel the first
signs of disrespect. The difficulties aroused by the new government
concerned chiefly civil marriages, cemeteries, the toleration of
non-Catholics, and the religious orders. Previously civil marriages were
recognized as valid only between such persons as would make a
declaration that they were not Catholics. Count Romanones, the Minister
of Justice, caused the suppression of such declaration, thus introducing
civil marriages even between careless Catholics. The Bishops protested,
but in vain; and the Bishop of Tuy was even cited to court for the
openness of his language.


After the fall of Moret, his successor, Canalejas, hastened to urge
oppressive measures against the Church. Senor Canalejas was well known
ever since 1887 for his anti-clerical tendencies, and had more than one
conflict with the Vatican apropos of the dispersion of the religious
orders. When he succeeded to the post of Premier, it began to be evident
that he would forthwith proceed to laicise Spain according to his old

It had always been the policy of Canalejas to settle old scores with the
Holy See, and in doing so he descended to many of the brutalities that
characterized Bonaparte in his dealings with Pius VII. King Alphonso
proved a docile tool, and offered no resistance when ordered to sign any
decree, however adverse to Catholic interests.

The first object of the Canalejas ministry was to be the revision of the
Concordat. The Ambassador to the Vatican, Senor Ojeda of Perpinan, was
charged to place before His Eminence Cardinal Merry del Val, the
Secretary of State of His Holiness, the desire of the Spanish Government
to treat the question. The Holy See replied that it was ready to enter
on the matter, as it had done with preceding Cabinets. Hence, to make a
practical beginning, it offered on its own initiative, the four
concessions agreed to in 1904, but which were not ratified by the
Spanish Cortes, owing to the fall of the Maura Ministry.

[Illustration: CANALEJAS.]

These concessions were as follows: The suppression of all religious
houses in which the community did not number twelve, with the exception
of a few agreed upon with the Government; the authorization of the
Government was to be obtained before a new religious house could be
founded; strangers wishing to establish religious institutions in the
country should first become naturalized as Spanish citizens; finally,
the religious should be subject to the impost duties in accordance with
the fiscal laws, like all other citizens.

The Spanish Government was not satisfied with these concessions, and
expressed a desire for still others. The Holy See yielded even then,
and set to work to examine the situation and to study all possible

While matters thus stood in abeyance, the Spanish Government suddenly,
without warning or intimation, proceeded to settle the questions without
the concurrence of the Holy See. A Royal Decree was issued with the
intention of enforcing the Royal Order of 1902, whereby religious
communities would be obliged to fulfil certain formalities before they
could obtain legal existence and recognition. This Royal Order had never
been enforced because it had not been agreed upon by both parties.

The Holy See protested in an official note to the Government of Madrid,
and requested that the matter be suspended pending the negotiations
already going on between the Vatican and Spain. The answer of the
Government, only a few days later, was the passing of a new decree
giving free practice to alien religions. As this was also one of the
subjects under discussion, the Holy See again protested. The Government,
however, was not yet satisfied, and accordingly in the following Speech
from the Throne, uttered many anti-clerical notes, especially its
determination to put forward the projected law against the religious
orders. The Holy See, in the face of these violations of diplomatic
procedure, declared that if the Government continued to carry on its
unilateral measures, it would be useless and impossible to proceed with
the negotiations. But the Spanish Government only replied that it could
not recall the measures it had already passed.

By this trick Canalejas hoped to extend the rule of the civil power over
a matter which pertains to mixed questions, and this in open contempt of
the Concordat and the most elementary laws of diplomacy. It hoped to
create the impression that the Holy See yields nothing, and in that way
place it in the unfavorable light of being blindly obstinate. Moreover,
it strove to place the Holy See in a position so humiliating that it
would be obliged to reject its own overtures and accept whatever the
opposition might grant. He hoped to discourage the protests of Catholic
Spain by rendering the attitude of the Vatican ridiculous.

Canalejas prided himself upon being the champion of freedom of
conscience. It was a play to the gallery in the hope of gaining popular
encouragement from abroad. It was an effort to stir up antipathy to the
Holy See and embittering public opinion against it.

The game of the Premier was detected, and he at once began to complain
of the intransigent attitude of the Holy See, and accused the Holy
Father of an intention to threaten. He spoke of "justice" and the
"defence of the rights of Spain." He deprecated any idea of violating
the Concordat or of wishing to break with the Vatican. His whole policy
in fact was but a miserable attempt to hoodwink the Spanish people.

The Vatican, in the meantime, demanded a withdrawal of the obnoxious
laws until the negotiations already begun should be terminated. The
Government in answer played the role of offended innocence, spoke of the
tyranny of Rome, and lauded the "heroes" who were fighting for a liberal
and independent regime. Hence the interviews with paid newspaper
correspondents who could place the position of the Ministry in a
favorable light before the world.

The Spanish nation, however, could not be brought to see any truth in
the statements of Canalejas, or any sincerity in his intentions, as was
evident from the universal demonstrations.

In the meantime the Holy Father's demand that the obnoxious laws be
suspended until the consultation in regard to the Concordat should be
ended, was received as an ultimatum at Madrid. In answer thereto,
Canalejas determined to recall the Ambassador accredited to the Holy
See. In consequence he directed a telegram to that effect to Senor
Ojeda, who at once set out from the Eternal City without fixing any day
for his return, leaving the First Secretary of the Embassy as his
representative. The Papal Secretary of State was informed that "The
Ambassador had been recalled to Madrid to receive directions."

This event, however, did not cause any great surprise in Catholic
circles. It was well known that the mere recall of an ambassador does
not in itself always signify a definite rupture, although in this case
it constituted at least a very serious step.


For a long time Spain, like Portugal, had been made the camping ground
of so-called "progressives," men and women who set out with the theory
that the world was wrong and they, the prophets appointed by "destiny"
to set it right. Among these self-constituted prophets of a new order
was a certain Francisco Ferrer of Guardia, the son of a Catalonian
farmer, who had acquired some wealth and influence by means that were
shown to be disreputable. Fired with an unholy hatred of country and
Church, his whole history is one of conspiracy and revolution. He had
been actively connected with every effort to overturn established
government since 1883. On every occasion he was known to be in active
correspondence with the leaders of those revolutions, and was connected
with everything they did. 1885, 1892, 1895, 1898 were years that stand
out clearly marked in his career of disorder, down to the time when the
anarchist Morral attempted to assassinate King Alphonsus XIII.

After the movement of 1885 he fled to Paris where he chose for his
friends men like the Jew, Nacquet, who has the unsavory honor of
introducing divorce into the French code. An enemy to the sacred
institution of marriage, he soon abandoned his wife and three children,
and shortly after sealed his desertion by a divorce. To support himself
he devoted his time to the teaching of Spanish, in which occupation he
made the acquaintance of a middle-aged spinster named Meunier. Out of
this friendship Ferrer gained some pecuniary profit, for this woman on
her deathbed left him a fortune amounting to $150,000.

With this fortune, after he had become affiliated with the Grand Orient
of Paris, Ferrer returned to Barcelona. It was here, in 1901, that he
inaugurated his notorious scheme of "the Modern School," while at the
same time he increased his fortune by gambling, and lived in a
scandalous companionship with a woman of ill fame.

In his "Modern School" Ferrer advocated every doctrine of disorder and
insurrection. He chose for his teachers men well known for their
anarchistic ideas. His object was to eliminate from the minds of the
children every idea of religion, patriotism, and morality. It was not
Catholicity alone that he assailed, but everything that society stands
for: the flag, country, marriage, property, family, and State. His
school-books contained such teachings as these: "The flag is nothing but
three yards of cloth stitched upon a pole;" or "The family is one of the
principal obstacles to the enlightenment of men." Other doctrines
contained in his teaching are too indecent for reproduction. His
principal of the girls' school was Madame Jacquinet, an anarchist who
had been driven out of Egypt, and who described herself as "an atheist,
a scientific materialist, an anti-militarist, and an anarchist." Another
of his professors was that Mateo Morral who attempted to kill the King
on his wedding day. Another was Leon Fabre, one of the leaders in the
Barcelona riots.

The schools of Ferrer increased in various districts of Catalonia, until
about 1906, nearly 2000 children were receiving his instructions. In the
spring of 1909, he went to London, where he lived in company with the
ex-school mistress. It was while in England that the first signs of
discontent in Catalonia began to manifest themselves. The war in Morocco
demanded soldiers for its prosecution, and on hearing that the
Government was about to make a requisition in Catalonia, Ferrer, on June
11, suddenly left England and hurried back to Barcelona. There he again
entered upon his campaign of revolutionary teaching, inflaming the minds
of the people against the Government which had the hardihood to ask
soldiers for a foreign war.

His teaching had its effect. On July 26, Barcelona broke out into open
revolt. There were only 1600 soldiers in the town to meet the assaults
of the rioters. The general strike ordered by the workingmen's
associations crippled all means of trade and commerce. The mobs first
assailed the banks and stores, but finding them too strongly guarded
turned their attention elsewhere. The city was placed under martial law,
and the small detachment of troops were divided where the danger seemed
most imminent. There was no thought of the churches, convents, and
religious houses.

Mr. Andrew Shipman, in his exposé of the case for McClure's Magazine,
describes the horrors of the few days that followed. "The day of July 27
was a ghastly one, filled with smoke, murder, and terror. The kerosene
can was used after looting had secured every valuable article, and
before midnight the mob had attacked and burned some twenty-two
institutions in the newer and outer part of Barcelona. The police
pursued them as best they could; but the revolutionists were divided by
their leaders into sections, attacking churches, schools, and houses
simultaneously at remote distances from one another. During the night
the King and ministry, who were communicated with by cable--for all
telegraph lines were cut--suspended the constitutional guarantees,
leaving the city and province in an actual state of war.

"All day on the 28th the burning, looting, and destruction of churches,
convents and schools went on; but by nightfall the troops had broken
some of the barricades, and began to subdue some sections of the
rioters. On Thursday, the 29th, they had the rioting under control, and
the revolt was crushed. On Friday the roving bands of anarchists,
rioters, and idlers were entirely stopped, and the next day street
traffic began again.

"It is sickening to tell of the savagery of the mob. Even the dead nuns
were dragged from their coffins and paraded with revolting and obscene
orgies, and then thrown into the gutters. Clerical teachers in the
schools were stripped, tortured and shot. Even little children were not
spared. Churches that had stood as monuments from the days of the
Crusades were destroyed; while everything valuable was plundered from
them, and from the schools and religious houses. They even stole the
clothes and petty jewelry of the girls in the boarding schools."

Immediately after the cessation of hostilities the arrest and punishment
of the ring leaders were begun. Among those arrested was Francisco
Ferrer, who was tried by a court-martial, found guilty of rebellion and
treason, and, on October 13, 1909, was executed.

Although the trial was fair, and has been officially declared such by
Canalejas, a man who holds no friendship for the causes of Catholicity
and Spanish right, nevertheless the news of Ferrer's execution raised a
commotion throughout the world. Strangely enough the odium of the act
was saddled directly upon the Catholic Church, against which the secular
press delivered itself of diatribes full of bitterness. The fact seemed
to be forgotten, or concealed, that the Church had no more to do with
the execution than an infant just born. In fact the Holy Father himself
had written in terms of clemency; but his advices were disregarded. The
matter was purely a political one, the case of a convicted
revolutionist, found guilty by one of the fairest courts in the world,
and upon the most disinterested testimony. Happily the better instincts
of civilization soon awoke to the real character of the whole
proceeding, and the Church was exonerated among good men from any
complicity, however just, in the death of the traitor.


The Crisis in Portugal.

Portugal has never yet recovered from the disasters which crushed it at
the end of the sixteenth century. At the end of the eighteenth it was
already in a state of decadence, which followed principally on the ruin
of the marvelous empire of the Indies, won by Vasco de Gama,
Albuquerque, and Juan de Castro, the subjection of Portugal to England
by the Treaty of Methuen, and finally in a moral abasement such as the
times were then producing in France and all countries affected by the
French Revolution. This decadence was easily favorable to the reign of
the sophists, the encyclopaedists and other open or secret enemies of

It was in Portugal that the notorious Pombal exercised his power by a
brutal expulsion of the Jesuits, who had brought so much glory to their
fatherland by their missionary successes in Brazil, Paraguay and India.
Pombal had misused the resources of Portugal, leaving that little nation
a prey to a profound demoralization, which betrayed itself especially in
the higher classes of society.

When the French Revolution broke out, Portugal was weakened by its
economic dependence on England, a country which took away the wines and
olives, and flooded the land with its own industrial products. In this
way the triumphal progress of the French armies placed Portugal in a
very delicate position. It became a question of following England, and
inviting the wrath of the French, or of yielding to Napoleon with the
consequent certainty of invasion and ruin.

[Illustration: MANUEL II.]

The Prince Regent of Portugal at the time was John VI. of Braganza, who
was enjoined by Napoleon to close his ports to the English, and to expel
all English persons residing in the country. Upon the refusal of the
Regent, Napoleon sent General Junot with an army against Portugal, and
John VI. in his terror embarked with his Court for Brazil.

The fortunes of the Portuguese throne were diversified from that time
until the present. After the flight of the Regent, John VI., the country
was governed some years by the brother of Napoleon, King Joseph
Bonaparte. When the French were driven out by Wellington and Moore, the
throne reverted to the house of Braganza, but remained under the control
of the English Lord Beresford, governing in the name of the absent
Regent, then exiled in Brazil. In 1816, the Regent, upon the death of
his imbecile mother, Maria I., succeeded to the throne. In 1820 the
Cortes adopted a Constitution, and the King, John VI., returning from
Brazil in 1821, swore to observe it, accepting it for Portugal and

In 1826 John VI. died, and the Portuguese crown should descend in the
regular line to his eldest son, Dom Pedro, then reigning in Brazil. As
Emperor of the latter country, he could not at the same time be king of
Portugal. Hence, in 1826, he renounced his claim to the Portuguese
throne in favor of his daughter, Maria da Gloria, a child of seven
years. The regency for the child was conferred upon the brother of Dom
Pedro, the exiled Dom Miguel, who returned upon invitation for that
purpose. The latter, however, recalling the laws which prohibited
succession to the throne to the female children, while a brother of the
preceding monarch or a son remained, contrived to place himself upon the
throne. Dom Pedro, in anger at the event, returned to Portugal in 1831,
after abdicating the Brazilian Empire in favor of his son, Dom Pedro
II., and began a war with his brother, in favor of the deposed Maria da
Gloria. In 1834, Dom Miguel was defeated and forced to leave Portugal.
Thenceforth, the Portuguese crown descended by succession to Dom Pedro
V., who succeeded his mother, Maria da Gloria in 1853 and reigned until
1861; Louis I., from 1861 to 1889; Carlos I., from 1889 to 1908, when he
was assassinated. He was then succeeded by Manuel II., the present
unhappy victim of the Revolution of 1910.

[Illustration: TEOFILE BRAGA, Provisional President of the Portuguese

The Revolution of 1833 was especially marked for its violence. Bishops
and priests were imprisoned, and men of very questionable virtue were
put in their places. Ecclesiastical property was confiscated, for which
indemnity was promised, but never accorded. Convents were suppressed and
the religious persecuted. The sacred rites in the administration of the
sacraments were regulated by the civil procedure. Only the death of the
tyrant, Maria da Gloria, brought some relief to the Church.

The history of Portugal for many years has been a story of gradual
decadence. The secret societies aided by English encouragement have
honeycombed the country until the terror of the lodges invaded every
institution and home in the land. A dynasty represented by a king like
Carlos I., who showed himself utterly incapable of manly feelings or
kingly instincts, gave color to the evil machinations of the
hypocritical crew who love to feast upon the decay of ancient glory.


On the first day of February, 1908, a terrible event horrified the
world. In the afternoon of that day Carlos I., the King of Portugal, and
his son Luis, the heir apparent, were assassinated, as they were
returning with their family to the royal palace at Lisbon. The
conspirators had shot their victims. Queen Amelia courageously shielded
her loved ones with her own body, but in vain. If she herself was spared
it was not through any pity on the part of the regicides, who would have
stricken her as fiercely, if they had not believed they had extinguished
the royal line in the blood of the King and his children. For the time
being, however, the hopes of the revolutionists were not realized, and
the monarchy yet lived in the person of the younger son.

The blood of the victims, in fact, seemed to have infused new virtue
into the Portuguese people, who in the horror of the royal tragedy, and
the pity aroused for the remainder of the family, tried to forget the
past with its faults, and sustained the crown.

The younger son, Dom Manuel, a young man of eighteen, was proclaimed
king, in the gloomy afternoon of that sad day, with the title of Manuel
II. His proclamation to the people made mention of the "abominable
crime," declared his adhesion to the Constitution, and promised his
every effort for the welfare of his country and the affection of his

Manuel was not educated for the throne, and now under the horror of the
awful murder, and with the heavy burden of an unexpected royalty, he
made every sacrifice to bring about a thorough pacification.

In the two years of his reign Manuel appeared to be, but was not, the
ruler. Seven ministries succeeded one to another in the government, all
of them under the influence of one determination: to hush up as far as
possible the assassination of the former king. It would not do to
divulge the mysterious connection between the revolutionary regicides
and the secret societies.

The first ministry was conservative, but it was quickly driven out of
power, to be succeeded by the party of the Left. The door was thus
opened to the Republicans. Already in secret they had manifested their
power; they had organized plots against individuals, conspiracies
against the monarchy, and violent measures against the Church and

Manuel II., as yet too young to give a strong impress to his regime,
made close relations with England and France. At home, unhappily, he
fell under the secret and malign influence of the very men who had
assassinated his father. In the Speech from the Throne, delivered on
September 23, 1910, at the opening of the Cortes, he betrayed his
subjection to the sectaries who surrounded his throne. The Minister
Teixeira de Sousa deceived the King in the anti-clerical struggle
against the religious orders. His promises were only a sop thrown to the
revolutionaries to calm their anger, but they signified that the last
blow was being prepared to destroy the monarchy, since the Catholic
people showed themselves friendly to it inasmuch as it held out the only
guarantee of peace and security.


In the meantime the Republicans were active, building up their forces,
and gaining over the army and navy by their promises and insinuations.

Portugal had forgotten the old traditions which inspired Camoens, the
greatest of her poets, to sing the memory of those kings who made the
name of Portugal glorious in far-off lands. The modern muse of
Portuguese song is represented by a renegade, Guerra Junqueiro, who
reviled the ancient glories of his country, and now a demoralized sense
sees only the glory of the regicide and the license of anarchy.

The proclamation of the new Republic in Portugal followed a military
pronunciamento of the type that obtained formerly in uncivilized
countries, a manifesto of the army and navy rather than of the people.

The new political institution with a poet for its President is the fruit
of the revolt of insubordinate officials armed for the assassination of
their superiors, and of all who would dare to remain faithful to their
oath and to their flag. The horde of pretorians, janizaries, and other
instruments of tyranny, meant only the momentary preponderance of
military power, the followers of a few agitators, the illuminati who
relied more on the sharpness of the bayonets than on the justice of any
reasons they might adduce.

The European and often the American press viewed the whole disgraceful
affair with favor. The daily reviews of the situation spoke in glowing
terms of the "pacific and honest" event at Lisbon, while breaking into
tirades against the wickedness of the religious.

[Illustration: COSTA.]

Certain it is that on the night of October 4, 1910, while the King was
at Lisbon for the purpose of receiving with due honor the new President
of Brazil, Marshal Hermes de Fonseca, then visiting Portugal, the
Republican conspirators decided to anticipate the stroke of revolt by
imprisoning the King and preventing him from flying to the Northern
provinces. The Vice-Admiral, Candido Reis, awaited with his squadron in
the Bay of Lisbon, and gave the signal to turn the fire of the cannon
upon the Royal Palace. On land the Sixteenth Regiment of infantry killed
the royal officials, joined with the revolutionary mob, took possession
of the Arsenal in order to arm the rebels, and launched the war against
their sovereign and the throne.

Manuel, taken unawares, found himself practically alone. While his
uncle, the Duke of Porto, attempted a desperate defence by placing
himself at the head of the mountain artillery, and was constrained to
retreat, the young King, abandoned by his councillors and his courtiers,
the friends of his brief day of power, determined to shed no unnecessary
blood and took refuge in exile.


There was indeed a moment when the tide of revolution seemed forced back
towards failure, and in that moment Candido Reis, the principal
instigator of the revolution, committed suicide. The news only aroused
the mob to increased fury, and sent them burning with anti-clerical
hatred against the helpless religious. The horrors and the excesses of
that oppression have been demonstrated by the numberless murders and by
the horrible cruelties practised upon the defenceless victims of

It is probable that the complete story of the persecution inflicted upon
the religious of Portugal will never be known. Some of the victims have
disappeared as completely as if the earth had swallowed them. But the
history of the survivors is full enough in its appalling details to give
an idea of the utter barbarity of the oppressors and the ignorance which
impelled them to action.

Against the Jesuits the Portuguese secret societies have entertained an
abiding hatred ever since the days of the infamous Pombal. Long before
the late Revolution the writer visited the ancient church of the Jesuits
in Ponte Delgado in the Azores Islands, and there beheld the evidences
of vandalism perpetrated years before upon altars and shrines that have
not their equal in the world. Naturally the fury of the mob, in the
recent upheaval, sought out these Fathers as a worthy object of
brutality, and inflicted upon them indignities with a savagery worthy of
the inhabitants of the Fiji Islands.

Three of the great Jesuit institutions met with especial attention,
those of Quelhas, Barro and Campolide. When the revolutionists stormed
the first of these establishments, they reported a story that the
priests had fired bombs upon the soldiers, and then retreated into
underground passages to hide. The facts of the case, as it later
developed, showed that the house at Quelhas had actually been shut by
the Government and deserted by the Jesuits. Nevertheless the story of
the bombs and the underground passages went the round of the press of
the world. These underground passages, by the way, were shown to be
little sewer conduits about eight or ten inches in diameter, so that it
would be extremely difficult for even the most ascetic Jesuit Father to
enter, much less to live in them.

The College at Barro was one of the finest in Portugal, and it is a
noteworthy fact in connection with it, that on the very last day of his
reign the young King had signed a decree closing that Novitiate. In the
house on the day of its attack there were eighty-six priests, brothers,
novices and students, all members or intending to be members of the
Society of Jesus. It is well known that the lower class of the
Portuguese who fell under secret society influence were superstitious to
an incredible degree. Hence, when it became noised abroad that there
were strange apparatus in the college, such things as microscopes,
X-rays, radium, and electrical appliances, the excited mob held up its
hands in holy horror. The Jesuits who had such things, and talked in
such learned language could surely be nothing less than hobgoblins,
unnatural sprites and wicked spirits. The sentiment was fostered and
encouraged in them by the unscrupulous spirits of discontent, who knew
that anarchy could never prosper while learning and virtue remained

On October 5, the college was sacked, and its inmates marched out. After
a humiliating journey on the railroad, they were finally imprisoned in
the fortress of Caxeas. Father Torrent, a learned scientist of the band,
was in a few days liberated as a French citizen.

The college at Campolide, the glory of Portuguese educational
institutions, shared the same fate. Its Fathers were arrested and led
away to swell the number of prisoners at Caxeas. The collection of
laboratory apparatus, one of the finest in Europe, was delivered up to
the fury of a mob, who could no more appreciate their worth than the
savages of Africa. The magnificent library of 25,000 volumes contained
rare works that can never be duplicated.

The wave of indignation and contempt that followed in the whole world
when the true nature and character of the revolutionists began to be
known, has urged the Portuguese controllers to excuse and palliate their
acts. When the nuns were driven from their convents they were led to the
vile quarters of the arsenal where their humiliations were continued. It
was said that this was done to protect them from the mob; yet it is now
known that the mob had no intention of sacking the convents; this work
was done almost altogether by the soldiers and sailors. In fact when a
few soldiers guarded the Irish convent at Belim, the Dominican convent
at Benfrica, and the Irish Dominican monastery at Corpo Santo, the mob
had nothing to do, and these convents remained untouched.

When the nuns were taken from their convents they were piled like
criminals into any handy vehicle, and then driven in the midst of a
shouting, hooting mob along the streets. The soldiers who marched with
them, as is shown in the many photographs taken of the event, laughed
with idiotic bravado, and assumed as much importance as if their
delicate, helpless charges were so many fierce warrior captives taken on
the field of battle. In the Arsenal several hundreds of them were
huddled together in one large room. Here they were visited by Senhor
Affonso Costa, the Minister of Justice, who swaggered about among the
gentle-minded ladies, roared at them, and glared with his magnetic eye.
For three hours he questioned and insulted them, while a score of
attendant press agents took down his magnificent bravadoes to be
embellished for the press of the day. Except for the misery of the poor
Sisters, the whole scene was worthy of one of Sullivan's comic operas,
calling for laughter where it did not inspire contempt.

This is the Portuguese Republic, the government to which the people of
Portugal have been consigned. Its direction is plainly indicated from
the fact that one of its first proposed laws is that which permits of
free divorce. The Republic of Portugal has one rival on earth, that of
the West Indies, to which people, laughing, give the name of Hayti.

It would be well in speaking of these events to reproduce the letter
written by the Rev. Provincial of the Portuguese Jesuits, and addressed
to his fellow countrymen. The letter was suppressed in Portugal, but was
published later in England. It is as follows:

To My Countrymen: The prolonged period of distress which elapsed while
the Fathers and Brothers of the Society of Jesus were quitting Portugal
to take the road of exile, being driven from their beloved native land
on the charge of abominable crimes, whereas their life had been wholly
spent in self-sacrifice on behalf of others, whilst I was moreover
occupied with the care of my spiritual children, having to determine for
each a new scene for the exercise of his zeal--all this, I say, occupied
me to such an extent that hitherto I have been unable to find time to
address this protest to my countrymen, which, however, is demanded of me
as a relief for my own grief and by my duty as a Christian and a
religious whose office lays upon him this responsibility.

In this, my protestation and complaint, I shall speak only of those
religious who, as members of the Society of Jesus, were subject to my
jurisdiction, since for them alone was I responsible. I must, however,
begin by saluting the glorious children of all religious orders whom we
cherish and reverence as ennobled by their sufferings and their
participation in the cross through insults, bondage, and even death
itself, some of them having sealed a life of saintliness and
self-devotedness with the testimony of their blood.

But in thus solemnly addressing my country, I must, as a father, speak
of my own well-beloved sons, expressing my grief on beholding what they
suffer, and protesting their innocence of the charges brought against

In this free country men who extol the spirit of liberty, and claim to
be leaders of the principle of universal equality, have on the instant
expelled from Portuguese territory more than three hundred of their
fellow citizens, spread amongst some score of houses in the Motherland
and colonies beyond the seas in Asia, Africa and Oceania.

This cruel act was executed without the victims being permitted to speak
one word in their defence, no time being allowed them to carry away a
stitch of clothing, their books or their papers, though these contained
the fruit of active studies pursued for years.


In the name of liberty they have taken from us all that we possess, have
seized our property and our houses, built with what by dint of careful
economy has been saved out of the pensions of our pupils, or has been
assigned by individuals and legally invested for the purpose in their
own names.

The College of Campolide was established in 1858 by three English
subjects in order to assist Father Rademaker in the development of
education and material progress in Portugal. The College of Campolide
was accordingly for a long period English property and flew the British
flag. Later, after the death of these persons, the trust was dissolved,
and Campolide, with all its belongings, was acquired by other
individuals, Portuguese or foreign. One of these, Father Bramley, now in
India, has, of course, claimed his share. I do not know why the
Portuguese partner cannot do the same, there being a fundamental law
which absolutely prohibits the confiscation in all cases of property
belonging to private citizens. Since 1834, when the possession of
property in Portugal was forbidden to religious orders, it has been the
rule, as in England, that individuals alone could buy, sell or own such
properties as were assigned by their legal owners to the use of Jesuits
or others.

Along with buildings and land was seized, likewise the furniture of our
houses, comprising first-rate scientific collections in the museums,
scientific institutes and laboratories of the colleges at Campolide and
S. Fiel, where for more than half a century, by means of the monthly
pensions of our boys, and the generosity of friends inspired by esteem
and devotion, the intelligent and disinterested labors of our fathers
and brothers had succeeded in accumulating valuable materials for study,
which by every right were ours, and ours alone.

Our libraries disappeared in like manner during the same period, the
store where our linen was kept, the private rooms themselves, in each of
which could be found, besides a washstand and bed, only a writing table
and a modest bookstand with a few books, the companions of our
solitude--all were suddenly declared to be the property of the State.

We ourselves, thus summarily and arbitrarily despoiled of everything,
and turned out of our own doors, were led to prison by a throng of armed
soldiers and civilians, amidst the insults and jeers of a mob long
excited against us by the calumnies of a ribald press.

Those who, forewarned of these outrages, succeeded in making their
escape, were hunted like wild beasts through fields and streets, some of
them--as I know certainly in the case of six--were pursued with gun
shots--in some instances their assailants spat in their faces.


Yet these were men who had never made any appearance in politics,
criminals of a novel species, who had renounced and sacrificed all that
is attractive in human life to devote themselves, without thought of
worldly recompense, to the education of youth in our schools, to preach
the gospel to the heathen in our transmarine colonies, or to exercise
every kind of priestly ministry, however hard and unattractive. Against
these men a disreputable press, which in any other country would be
sternly repressed, though spreading vague and blustering charges, could
not in any single instance succeed in proving, I will not say a solitary
crime, but even a misdemeanor.

Yet such were the men who were clapped into gaols and dungeons as
notorious criminals, exposed to barbarous sufferings, and for several
days not even permitted any intercourse with one another. Let it not be
said that all this is but exaggeration prompted by my grief. What has
been endured by our exiles and captives went far beyond my simple

[Illustration: ARRESTING A PRIEST.]

In my own case--of which I may be allowed to speak--to say nothing of
what the Society of Jesus has legitimately obtained through its work and
administration, I had at least a right to what I duly inherited from my
parents, with which I had acquired personal and landed estates, all
registered in my name; yet I was forced to leave Portugal without
anything but the clothes on my back, and even these I owed to a friend,
for I possessed no secular dress in which to make my escape. I had,
moreover, no money in my pocket, save what was sent me by a stranger who
knew me only by name and sight, and to whom in my exile I desire to
testify my gratitude.


As to the sufferings of my beloved brethren I will only say that in the
artillery barrack, which was under the control not of the military, but
of the dregs of the populace, not even a spoon was given to the
prisoners wherewith to eat their mess of food, that they were allowed to
withdraw privately but once in eight hours, and poor invalids to whom
such tyranny might prove fatal, were told that they only sought a
pretext for retirement.

At night the guards threatened to shoot anyone who attempted to get up.
Finally, these warders had the brutality to bring in abandoned women,
but these were compelled to retreat before the calm and dignified
bearing of my worthy brethren.

As to their furniture, I will only say that afterwards when, being
transferred to Caxeas, they were there provided with a mattress laid on
the ground, a hard bolster, and a single blanket, they thought
themselves in comfort, by comparison.

In a dungeon of the Town Hall, before their removal to the central
prison of Limovro, some of the captives were still worse treated, being
crammed together, to the number of twenty-three, where there was scarce
room for three or four, and they had for five days to breathe foul air,
not being suffered to leave the chamber, and there being no ventilation
save through one small aperture.

I am well aware that many officers and soldiers, coming to know the
captives, manifested towards them not only sympathy but respect. These
kindly feelings, however, for which we all desire to record our
heartfelt gratitude, did not hinder the sufferings endured during five
whole weeks.


Nor is this all. When after all these hardships and torments the
Provisional Government set about executing the sentence of exile and
outlawry against these Portuguese subjects in whose breasts there dwelt
and still dwells the most ardent affection for their beloved country,
these men who had bereft us of everything, who had taken possession of
our goods and land, did not hesitate to require that they who, by a
special decree, were to be driven from Portugal should pay for their own
transport; and when one of our Fathers ventured to tell one of the
officers who was more exigent in this exaction, that we had no means of
doing so, he was answered: "Well, we shall see; when we squeeze you a
bit, and you begin to fester, you'll find a way."

Money was soon forthcoming, for Portugal is not yet entirely in the
hands of a crew whose passions are aroused against persecuted innocence.
Many families contributed to supply funds for the journey, plentiful
stores of provisions and clothing were furnished, and I was deeply moved
to see many of my spiritual children reach foreign lands in the attire
supplied by our well-loved scholars of Campolide during their frequent
visits to their persecuted masters. In spirit I salute these
benefactors, and I shall never forget these young men who, without a
hint from us, came to the succor of these poor sons of the society. But
ere they took the road of exile there was reserved for them yet one more
cruel humiliation.

Venerable elders, distinguished men of science, held in repute at home
and abroad, religious venerated for their virtue, youths still almost
boys, with innocence stamped on their features--all had to go to an
anthropometric station and to be treated like notorious criminals, being
described, photographed and measured in every detail, down to the joints
of their fingers. The photographs then appeared in the newspapers, with
the number assigned to each as to a convict. I cannot refrain from
special protest against a proceeding so incredibly vexatious.

One circumstance in the persecution yet remains to be exhibited. A
decree with the force of law published by the Provisional Government on
October 10 revokes all exceptional legislation, and in its first
article, No. 2, it assigns as the motive of such revocation that "there
are now no permanent penalties of unlimited duration in the Portuguese
Republic." But, strange to say, the law fulminated against the Society
of Jesus is in flat contradiction to this declaration. Against us has
been issued an exceptional law, so odious that one is astounded to think
that in the twentieth century it has been possible to institute in full
vigor such draconian legislation, and to claim for it the attribute of
most absolute despotism. As though it were not enough to show its
palpable opposition to the liberal profession of the new republic, the
sentence which condemns us to exile and deprives us of the rights of
Portuguese subjects is a permanent one, solemnly promulgated with the
ruthless formula "for ever."

Such is the slight sketch of the tyrannies of which we have been the
victims in the name of liberty.


It will naturally be asked, what were our crimes?

In the first place, it is passing strange that to this moment not a
single offense has been alleged against us.

The law of October 8 assigns none, but appeals to the ancient obsolete
legislation of Pombal (1758) and Aguiar (1834) it revokes Hintese
Ribeiro's decree, and promulgates antiquated vexations by which to
victimize us.

On the other hand, public opinion--so-called--misled by the wild
declamations of an irreconcilable press, never succeeded in formulating
against us more than the vague charges devised by Jacobin novelists. In
spite of all researches in the columns of anti-Jesuit journalism, or
amongst the legends which circulate amongst the most credulous of my
compatriots, I can find no accusation that does not fall under one of
these six heads:

1. Armaments and subterranean galleries.

2. Wealth and fraudulent acquisition of inheritances.

3. Inveigling youths to become Jesuits.

4. Secret associations.

5. Political and anti-republican activity.

6. Reactionary influence.

In this dark hour, when with sad hearts we are all compelled to quit our
beloved Portugal, I owe to my country a categorical reply to these
accusations of our persecutors.


The answer is simple. We had no armaments whatever, nor in any of our
houses were there subterranean passages by which to escape or
communicate with others.

[Illustration: ARRESTING A NUN.]

And yet, had it been otherwise, had we possessed such covered ways--what
then? Had we not a right in view of what had occurred? Our conduct,
though less frank and open, would have been at least more business-like,
as was said a few weeks ago in the Spanish Parliament, by the Premier
Canalejas, in regard of defensive works said to exist in some religious
houses. How then, what happened at Campolide, where the mob broke in,
flooding corridors and private rooms, bursting open everything, throwing
about books and papers, and threatening to shoot the unfortunate
inmates? Does not all this show that it would have been highly
advantageous to have had some means of hindering the sack of the college
until the public force could come to the rescue? In reality, however,
there was nothing of the sort.

In the whole building of Campolide were only a couple of guns for
purposes of sport, when our professors went for a fortnight's holiday to
a country house at Val de Royal. Moreover, these guns were not employed
when the assault took place.

What, then, of the shots fired from our residence at Quelhas? These
shots were the occasion for bitter calumnies against us, in an official
note which has as yet not been contradicted by the Provisional

The general himself commanding at Lisbon, who was appointed by the
republic, acknowledged to the representative of the Paris Illustration
that, as was clearly proved, none of us had any hand in anything so
done. Who it was that fired the shots, some being dressed in costumes
found in our rooms, can easily be understood, especially when we know
what occurred at Campolide, where one of these pseudo-Jesuits who fell
to the shot of one of his comrades, was found under his cassock to be
wearing his military uniform, betraying his true character.

It is certain, moreover, that two days prior to the assault on the
Quelhas residence, all the fathers there had been arrested and
imprisoned. As to the secret underground passages and communications by
which these mythical Jesuit riflemen made their escape, no one ever saw
them to this moment.

Moreover, the general in command has likewise declared that there are no
such subterranean works excepting narrow sewers.

So much for Quelhas. As to Campolide, I may add that beneath the surface
were cut various water channels, amongst them a fine cistern constructed
by one of my predecessors as director of the college. But although these
channels had been inspected and their real character understood, the
anti-clerical press did not hesitate to produce a sketch of one of them
and to style it "entrance to a subterranean."

I confess that I had never thought I should one day be called upon to
defend myself against the charge of such arsenals and ambushes. Such
Arabian Night tales, so frequent in the Jacobin press, had often amused
my brothers and myself, and when about a twelvemonth since terrible
stories about an arsenal at Campolide were being circulated, and a
friend of mine who had recently been a Minister of the Crown, warned me
that we should at last be obliged to provide against an assault I
answered plainly that we would rather have our lives taken than take the
lives of others.

_2. WEALTH._

The belief in Jesuit wealth was so deeply rooted in Portugal as to be
entertained not only by our enemies but even by our best friends.

Supposing this belief to be well-grounded, why should it make us
criminals? It would be a strange measure to expel a man from his country
merely because he possessed a large sum of money. But our reputed
wealth was purely fabulous, without any foundation in fact. Would that
the society had actually in Portugal abundant material resources, we
should have no lack of good works on which to expend them for the good
of our country.

But we had no such resources. Frequently after my appointment as
superior I had a hard struggle against grievous difficulties to find
means of supporting my subjects.

So many are the misconceptions regarding Jesuit property that with a
view of dispelling them I long projected the course of lectures on the
subject. I was, however, prevented from doing as I wished by the
incognito in which I was placed by Hintese Ribeiro's decree. God knows
what a mortification it was to me to have to assume a disguise imposed
by law, but wholly repugnant to my own straightforwardness and natural
ideas concerning truth as well as to the heartfelt love and admiration
which I entertained for the Society of Jesus.

This matter will require but a few words.

If the government of the society is strictly monarchial, its
administration is, on the contrary, extremely decentralized. Each house
is separately administered, and nothing can be more imaginary than the
bottomless common purse which has inspired so many falsehoods.

As a fact, if in Portugal, thanks to the careful administration of their
superiors, the Jesuit houses have been free from debt, they have usually
possessed few comforts, and have sometimes endured great hardships.

Residences subsisted merely upon stipends for masses and preaching, or
alms spontaneously offered. In the colleges the great expenses required
to provide our boys with board and lodging, with the comforts and
amusements they enjoyed, and still more with what was required to keep
abreast of modern educational developments. All this, I say, obliged us
to interrupt our building works till the number of pupils should be much

It is remarkable that while by universal consent Campolide ranked first
in respect to board, tuition and hygiene as well as physical training,
and while other colleges charged £5 or £6 per month, Campolide never
charged more than £4. In the provinces, at Beira, S. Fiel, giving the
same education, long exacted only £1 10s.--only recently was the monthly
fee raised to £2. Among the recreations provided for our boys must not
be forgotten the scientific excursions initiated at Campolide two years
ago by myself along with Father Luisier, for the benefit of the elder
students who were about to finish their school course and proceed to the
university, and were thus introduced to all branches of natural history.
The public schools which adopted the same plan later on did but imitate
us, and not so thoroughly.

The anti-religious movement of 1901 having alarmed many families, so
that the number of scholars decreased, it was found necessary to suspend
operations. At a later period, when I myself was made rector of the
college, I contrived to make considerable additions, but the troubles
stirred up by the revolutionary press checked the work, which has been
at a standstill for two years. Such is the truth of our wealth in

What am I to say of our seminary fund, that, I mean, which is devoted to
the education of young men in the society? How many of our opponents
have expended their eloquence in vigorous denunciation of our wealth,
without reflecting on the circumstances under which our recruits are
enrolled and trained! The training in the society is very slow; one who
goes through the entire course is occupied in it for fifteen or even
seventeen years. There are included the ascetical training of the
Novitiate, then the literary and philosophical and the theological, and
as a rule there is introduced one of practical pedagogy for those who
are to teach in the colleges.

On the other hand, the great majority of vocations to the order were
from the middle or lower classes, and the subjects had but little to
obtain from their parents.

[Illustration: NUNS ARRESTED.]

It thus resulted that for the heavy expenses necessary for this lengthy
training of some two hundred priests and scholastics, about a hundred of
whom were engaged in study at home or abroad, the sole resource was the
fund established by some of our own members who had devoted their own
fortunes to this very purpose. I can here testify that the vast majority
of ours in Portugal never gave aught to the society, either because they
had nothing to give or because superiors would not permit them, on
account of the poverty of their relatives. Hence it resulted that the
funds destined for the training and instruction of our young men were
wholly inadequate, and opulent benefactors whose generosity might supply
the deficit were but rare in our country, where wealthy Catholics are
few, and the fixed idea of Jesuit wealth hinders even our best friends
from allowing us to benefit even by the large sums spent upon charitable

What, then, about our methods of acquiring inheritances? Against this
slander I protest with all my energy. The fantastic pictures, frequently
drawn in lurid colors by our enemies, are mere repetitions of the time
worn fables invented by pamphleteers. Seldom indeed have legacies been
bequeathed to us in Portugal, and in two cases alone were they at all
considerable. Had they been more frequent we should have notably
extended our propaganda, religious, educational, literary and likewise
patriotic--both in our own country and its dominions over sea. How often
in conversation with my brethren, when speaking of generous bequests
made to the Misericordias, and especially to that of O'Porto, have I not
remarked on the terrible outcry which would be aroused were any portion
of such wealth to be assigned to works of the Society of Jesus.


Never has it been thought blame-worthy for anyone to invite others, by
word or writing, to join the association which he himself esteems, and
whose prosperity he accordingly desires; a religious man has a right to
recommend any who possess the requisite qualities to join his order, and
serve God therein. I must, however, make an exception in the case of our
society, which will doubtless astonish many.

We have a special rule forbidding us to advise anyone definitely to join
the society, or to do more than further what we believe to be a genuine
vocation from God, without any particular determination.

Such I know was the conduct of all my brethren, and had they done
otherwise they would not only have transgressed their rule, but,
moreover, have acted foolishly. In fact, the first question put to a
candidate for admission is whether he has been influenced by anyone in
this way, it being certain that a youth so attracted would not
persevere. In truth, life in the society demands such self-sacrifice,
and obedience so perfect, that nothing but a genuine call from God can
insure fidelity, no human influence will avail for perseverance.

The long training, too, prior to the taking of final vows, affords such
a guarantee of human liberty as there is in no other state of life, for
during all this period--extending, as I have said, to fifteen or
seventeen years--each of us may be released from the society, as he
surely will be if he have not a real vocation.

As a matter of fact, our enemies in Portugal provided us with abundant
arguments to refute this charge. For some weeks before the republic was
proclaimed the revolutionary newspapers published various letters of one
of our fathers to a young man who had intended for some time to join the
society. These letters are models of prudence, moderation and spiritual
honor, and whoever without prejudice or heed of the malicious comments
in which they were embedded, will but study these harmless epistles, so
worthy of a good religious, will find in them a conclusive answer to the
slander against us.


If there were any such amongst us would it not be somewhat curious to
find that those who prosecute us on this account are amongst the most
influential patrons of secret societies? However this may be, there is
no accusation more utterly false than this. The institute and rules of
the society are today--more than ever--open to all the world in every
public library. It is true that since 1901 the society has assumed a
kind of pseudo character in the eyes of the public and the law. But this
was imposed upon us by statesmen who, though at the head of a Catholic
government, did not dare to grant to a religious order approved by the
Holy See that liberty given us even in Protestant countries which have a
true notion of freedom.

We had therefore to assume the pseudonym of "Association for Faith and
Fatherland" ("Associao Fe e Patria"). I must acknowledge that,
threatened as we were with dispersion and banishment, we were but too
glad to obtain this simulacrum of liberty, and to avail ourselves of any
title under which we might devote ourselves to the utmost for the
benefit of religion and of Portugal. But, I repeat, it was unwillingly
that we adopted this incognito, which moreover hoodwinked nobody.

The actual Republican Government took possession of our own official
catalogues, in which were recorded all our names and occupations. They
may thus see that we never thought there was any reason to make a
mystery of our existence or to shrink from letting it be known to the
full that we bear a title which esteem next to that of Christian, namely
of religious of the Society of Jesus.


Opinions expressed in certain articles of the Mensageiro whispers of
later years concerning our share in the polemics of the newspaper named
Portugal, and innumerable fictions about the Jesuits, on occasions of
the late elections; such were the causes of the accusation that we
meddled with politics.

As for the Mensageiro, its articles are open to all who choose to read
them, and the doctrines there expressed as to the responsibility of the
electorate in regard of legislation and its execution, as to the
solidarity of the members of our party, its traditions, programme and
political life, are after all only those which are common amongst every
people with whom the principles of civic culture and the social
obligations of Catholics have not been so lamentably forgotten as with
us. Only those who realize how utterly all is ignored which has been
ventilated in these subjects outside Portugal, by episcopal pastorals,
ecclesiastical instructions, and the zealous propaganda of the press,
can explain the astonishment of many Portuguese, to whom conclusions
concerning morals and conduct which elsewhere were familiar to all
seemed altogether novel.

But however we may differ in regard of such matters, what kind of
liberty would a country enjoy in which a theologian or moralist was not
permitted to express the doctrines in which he believed or to write in
periodicals on subjects of his special study?

As to the journal Portugal, a letter from its editor-in-chief published
a few days ago may take the place of a reply. In it he declares that
during the latest phase of the paper, precisely that in which it was
most fiercely attacked for its polemical attitude, the society had no
share whatever.

In saying this I have no desire to shirk responsibility, or to express
disapproval of the energy displayed by the Catholic press. Far from it.
Truth must be vigorously championed, and the more so in proportion as
the enemies of religion claim for themselves unrestrained license of
language and calumny. They cannot indeed be fought with their own
weapons, which honor and Christian charity forbid us to use, but at
least they must be encountered with unflinching courage and resolute

A revolutionary journal lately published a letter of mine in which I
asked a correspondent to interest himself in obtaining support for those
responsible for the "Portugal." I say nothing of the surreptitious
publication of a private letter, nor of the insidious comments by which
it was accompanied. I would only observe that the interest which I
exhibited in this undertaking shows no more than that its general drift
was in accord with my own views. Is there any offense in this?--even
were it a fact that the articles written during the last stage of this
newspaper were in reality ours.

Finally, as regards the last election, I must absolutely deny the fables
circulated concerning my brethren by an unscrupulous press. I say
nothing of the silly tales of Jesuits, crucifix in hand, threatening all
who voted for the government with everlasting damnation. Such nonsense
proves only how little those who spread these stories know about us.
More than this, not one of my brethren took part in any electoral
propaganda. Some Catholics even will be surprised to learn that very
few of us recorded our votes, this abstention being justified in most
cases for serious reasons, by which alone can it be justified in such

As to advice given by us when privately consulted, and in matters of
conscience, I should not say anything, but for the factitious
indignation exhibited by the hostile press, and its misrepresentation of
facts divorced from their circumstances.

The last government of the monarchy from its commencement not only
showed itself distinctly anti-clerical, but after variously infringing
the rights of the Church, began a persecution of religious orders,
affording clear evidence to all who did not choose to shut their eyes
that their purpose in regard of these was no other than that exhibited
in the last decrees issued in the king's name the day previous to his
deposition, and exaltingly proclaimed in the public press immediately
after the revolution. Now, I would ask, what Catholic priest wishing to
do his duty in face of such a state of things would not uplift his voice
against so manifest a danger and with the Baptist denounce what he holds
to be unlawful?

On this particular question of politics, as on many others, I was
honored with gratuitous slander by the enemies of the society, who
attributed to my government of the province a new direction given to the
society in Portugal. The truth is that neither as superior nor as
counsellor had I ever to interfere, as these insidious writers
pretended, with the conduct of ours.

The policy of the Society of Jesus at the present day, as it has ever
been, is that expressed in the Lord's Prayer, "Thy kingdom come, Thy
will be done on earth as it is in heaven." The enemies of God and His
Church cannot forgive our combat for this ideal and our constant
endeavor for its realization.

Hence the implacable hostility wherewith we have ever been assailed,
with charges the most diverse which in various times and circumstances
have been found serviceable against us. In every case our adversaries
have proved to be those of God and the Catholic Church.

What is now in progress proves the truth of what I say. It is alleged
that we Jesuits are the worst enemies of the republic, and must
accordingly be treated with exceptional severity. This is a mere
pretence. The society has nothing to do with Republican institutions as
such. When absolute monarchies were the rule throughout the civilized
world, the foremost Jesuit writers already taught, on grounds of
philosophy and divinity, the fundamental principles of democracy, and at
the present day none of our provinces are more prosperous or enjoy
greater liberty than those established under republics; it will be
sufficient to name that of the United States.

There is, therefore, no such opposition as is pretended between Jesuits
and republics.

It will, however, be objected that in Portugal at least we are

But, in the first place, wherever it is situated, the society, like the
Catholic Church, inculcates loyalty to whatever form of government is
duly established. And Portugal was a monarchy.

A still more powerful reason precluded our sympathy with the Republican
movement in Portugal, namely, that the republic as exhibited in our
national history was not the republic imagined by speculative
sociologists. It is Republicans who make a republic, and who were these
in Portugal? With few very rare exceptions they were the declared
enemies of religion, either avowed unbelievers, or at best wholly
indifferent to all beyond politics. Could we, without being false to our
most cherished principles, affect sympathy with such a party?

They themselves undertook to show by their actions that we were not
wrong; just as the last government under the monarchy clearly showed by
its action that we were not mistaken in its regard.

I must, however, acknowledge that for all my dread of the revolutionary
intolerance of these advocates of liberty, my simplicity was at fault,
since I never dreamed of what we are witnessing today.


As it seems to me, I have replied to all the pretexts alleged to justify
all the arbitrary tyranny, the spoliations and outrages against liberty
of which my religious brethren and myself have been the victims. It
remains only to speak of what is proclaimed as the final motive of the
laws enacted against us, that our influence is reactionary.

Well! our enemies are right! If this reactionary spirit signifies
fidelity and love for the Catholic Church, self-renunciation for
Christ's sake, earnest endeavor that no jot or tittle of His law be
neglected; if it means that we have striven to produce in Portugal a
body of active and fearless Catholics, who will not confine themselves
to prayers, but will labor by word and deed to renew all things in
Christ; that to this end we employ every means within our reach, the
pulpit, the confessional, lectureships, the press, in order thus to
promote the glory of God and salvation of souls--then in truth we are
reactionaries, and guilty of the offense laid to our charge.

Strange offense indeed, in a country where on every hand we hear our
enemies proclaiming liberty of conscience, of speech, of the press!
Strange offense of which to be accused by men who denounced the monarchy
for suppressing freedom, while in the columns of their newspapers and
the rhetoric of their meetings they were violently attacking authority
and its representatives; an offense to be punished by those who were
never weary of declaring that every man must be allowed to propagate and
fight for his own ideas. Yet what else did we do? Were we ever known to
enforce the agreement of others or to avenge ourselves for their
disagreement by inflicting upon them what we have ourselves
endured--arrest, imprisonment, confiscation, banishment? No, it cannot
be said that such conduct was ever ours; it is peculiar to those false
prophets of liberty who, instead of responding with reason and argument,
seek to reduce us forcibly to silence, or to crush us with insult and

       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's Notes:

Punctuation and spelling errors repaired.

P. xvi, "transcendental and the empiric" original reads "empyric."

P. 6, "Abbe St. Cyran" original reads "Abbie."

P. 85-86, original shows block quote as one continuing paragraph, not
breaking for each article; retained.

P. 116, "Pius VII. embarked" original reads "Pius VI. embarked."

P. 148, "J. ARCHEVEQUE de CORINTHE," original reads "d CORINTHE."

P. 269-270, No "Art. 4" in the original.

P. 363 "three months relay" changed to "three months delay."

Five cases of Buonaparte (p. vi, 106, 114[2], 120) changed to more
frequent Bonaparte (50).

P. 415, "Shipman, in his exposé" original reads "expose."

P. 438, "obsolete legislation of Pombal" original reads "Pomal."

The following variant spellings were standardized: Abbè, abbé and abbie
to abbe; Emigre, emigrè, and emigré to émigré; Florèal and Floreal to
Floréal; Jaures to Jaurès; protegé to protege; Anti-christian(ism) to
anti-Christian(ism); Anticlerical/ to anti-clerical/, Leipsic and
Leipsig to Leipzig, licence to license, offence to offense, Salzbourg to
Salzburg, saviour to savior, Texeira to Teixeira, Souza to Sousa,
Tolentino to Tollentino, tranquillity to tranquility, ultra-montainism
to ultramontainism, defense to defence (except where "Defense" occurred
in the title of a referenced document), rouès to roués, despatch to

Both advisers and advisors, monarchial and monarchical, Monsignor and
Monseigneurs, Savoy and Savoie (an area within Savoy), Braunsberg and
Brauensberg, czar and tzar were used in this text.

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The War Upon Religion - Being an Account of the Rise and Progress of Anti-christianism in Europe" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.