Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/221

 FRANCE

179

FRANCE

This letter, published for the first time at the end of the year 1905, in the " White Book" of the Holy See, places in clear relief the relations existing between the Church and the Republic four years after the Ency- clical of February, 1892, and three months before the formation of the M^line Ministry, which was to lead the Republic towards even greater moderation. The Meline Ministry (1896-98) secured for Catholics for two years a certain amelioration of their lot. But the division among Catholics persisted, and this division, which arose from their indocility to Leo XIII, w.as the principal cause of their defeat in the elections of 1S9S, when the Meline Ministry came to an end. The old Anticlerical Republican party came once more into power; the Dreyfus affair, a purely judicial matter around which political factions grew up, was made the pretext on the morrow of the death of President Faure (10 February, 1899) for beginning a formidable anti-militarist, and anticlerical agitation which \ed to the formation of the Waldeck-Rousseau and the Combes Ministries.

The Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry (1899-1902) passed fresh legislation against the congregations (it will be found in detail at the end of this article) and brought France to the verge of a breach with Rome over the question of the Nobis nominavit. These two words, which occurred in episcopal Bulls, signified that the priest chosen by the State to fill a bishopric had been designated and presented to the Holy See. On 13 June, 1901, when BuUs were required for the bishops of Carcassonne and Annecy, the Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry proposed that the word \obis should be omitted, in oriler to affirm more clearly the State's right of nomination. The Combes Ministry (1902-05) continued the dispute over this matter, and on 22 November, 190.S, the Holy See, to avoid a breach with France, agreed to omit the obnoxious word, on con- dition that in future the President of the Republic should demand the canonical institution of bishops by letters patent containing the words, Tl'e name liirn, and present him to Your Holiness. In spite of this concession by the Holy See, M. Combes set himself the task of planning the separation of Church and State. He felt that public opinion was not yet quite ripe for this stroke, and all his efforts were directed to making separation inevitable. The laicization of the naval and military hospitals (190.3-04), the order prohibiting soldiers to frequent Catholic clubs (9 February, 1904), the vote of the Chamber (14 February, 1904), in favour of the motion to repeal the Falloux Law were episodes less serious than the succession of calculated acts by which the breach with Rome was being approached.

Three quarrels succeeded one another. (1 ) In regard to vacant sees, Conibes's policy was to demand canoni- cal institution for the candidate of his choice without previously consulting Rome. The Holy See refused its consent in the cases of the Bishoprics of Maurienne, Bayonne, .\jaccio, and Vannes, and accepted M. Corabes's candidate for that of Ne vers. " All or none ", replied M. Combes, on the 19 March, 1904, to the nuncio, Mgr Lorenzelli; and all the sees remained vacant. (2) On 25 March, 1904, the Chamber agreed, by 502 votes against 12, to allocate a sum of money to defray the expenses of a visit by M. Loubet, President of the Republic, to Rome. M. Loubet was thus the first head of a Catholic State to pay a visit to the King of Italy in Rome. A note from Cardinal Hampolla to M. Nisard, the French Ambassador, dated 1 June, 190.3, and a dispatch from the cardinal to the nimcio, Lorenzelli, dated 8 June, had explained the reasons why such a visit would be considered a grave affront to the Holy See. On 28 .\pril, 1904, Cardinal Merry del Val sent a protest to M. Nisard against M. Loubet 's visit to Rome. On May, M. Nisard handed to Cardinal Merry del Val a diplo- matic note in which the French Government objected to the reasons given by the Holy See and to the

manner in which they were presented. At the same time, to prevent the heads of other Catholic countries from following President Loubet's example, the Holy See sent a diplomatic note to all the powers in which it was explained that if, in spite of this visit, the nuncio to France had not been recalled, it was only for very grave reasons of an order and nature altogether special. By an indiscretion, which has been attri- buted to the Government of the Principality of Monaco, "L'Humanite", a newspaper belonging to the Socialist deputy, Jaures, published this note on 17 May. On 20 May, M. Nisard sought an explanation from Cardinal Merry del Val; on 21 May was granted leave of absence by his Government; and on 28 May, in the Chamber, the Government gave it to be understood that M. Nisard's departure from Rome had a significance much more serious than that of a simple leave of absence. (3) Having learned of a letter from Cardinal Serafino Vannutelli (17 May, 1904) inviting Monsignor Geay, Bishop of Laval, in the name of the Holy Office, to resign his see, and of a letter in which Monsignor Lorenzelli, the papal nun- cio, requested Monsignor Le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon, to desist from holding ordinations until further orders, the French Government caused its charge d'aftaires at Rome, M. Robert de Courcel, to inquire into the matter. When, on 9 July, 1904, Cardinal Merry del Val cited Mgr Le Nordez to appear at Rome within fifteen days, under pain of suspension, M. Robert de Courcel announced to the canlinal that, unless this letter to Mgr Le Nordez was withdrawn, diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See would cease; and, on 30 Jul}% 1904, a note handed by M. Robert de Courcel to Cardinal Merry del Val an- nounced that France had decided to put an end to these relations.

In this wa}- the breach was effected without any formal denunciation of the Concordat. On 10 Febru- ary, 1905, the Chamber declared that " the attitude of the Vatican" had rendered the separation of Church and State inevitable. The "Osservatore Romano" replied that this was an "historical lie". The discus- sions in the Chamber lasted from 21 March to 3 July, and in the Senate from 9 November to 6 December, and on 11 December, 1905, the Separation Law was gazetted in the "Journal Officiel".

Laios Affecting the Congregations. — The Monarchy had taken fiscal measures against property- held in mortmain ("the dead hand"), but the first rigorous enactments against rehgious congregations date from the Revolution. The Law of 13 February, 1790, de- clared that monastic vows were no longer recognized, and that the orders and congregations in which such vows wore made were forever suppressed. The Con- cordat itself was silent as to congregations; but the eleventh of the Organic .\rticles implicitly prohibited them, declaring tliat all ecclesiastical establishments except chapters and seminaries were suppressed. Two years later, a decree, dated 3 Messidor, Year XII, suppressing certain congregations which had come into existence in spite of the law, added a provision that the civil authority could, by decree, formally authorize such associations after having taken cog- nizance of their statutes. The Lazarists, the Missions Etrangeres, the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, .<)nd the Sulpicians were, in virtue of this law, authorized by decree in 1804 ; the Brothers of the Christian Schools, in 1808. Under the Restoration, the Chamber of Peers refused the king the right of creating congrega- tions by royal warrant (par orclonnnnee), asserting that for each particular re-establishment of a congregation a law was necessary.

Such wa.s the principle which ruled until the year 1901 ; but the applications of that principle varied with the changes of government. ITnder the Second Empire it was admitted in practice that a simple ad- ministrative authorization was sufficient to legalize a