The Fruit of Church and State Union
By L. A. S.
SOME “reasons” in favor of a union of church and state in the French republic, appear in a recent issue of the Catholic Mirror. The basis of what the Mirror says is an article by a French writer, M. Hubert-Valleroux, published in a French journal, showing to the satisfaction of the Catholic mind that the threatened disruption of the relations between the church and the state in France would be unfortunate for the people and the cause of religion in that country. What the article really does show in a most striking way, though seemingly unconsciously to the writer, is the utter worthlessness of the papal religion, judged by the fruit it has produced at the end of a long period of uninterrupted supremacy. The article really amounts to an unsparing arraignment of that religion by one of its adherents, and as such it is worthy of note. We quote some of the statements made which show what the union of France with the papacy has done for the French people:— Without the permission of the civil authorities, and particularly without official encouragement, they are slow to embark in any new undertaking. Even in matters affecting their temporal interests, they show great apathy. As to ecclesiastical affairs, they are the concern of bishops and priests. It has never occurred to the people that they should be one day called on to provide for religious worship. Their church is the property of government. Why it is so they know not, nor do they care to inquire. Their priest is paid by the government—in their eyes he is a government servant. Their bishop is paid by the government—he is also a government functionary. These simple folk never ask themselves whether such a system is good or bad, whether there is not a better one; in fact, they hardly think the question worth a thought. If the Concordat, or agreement which unites church and state in France, were dissolved, and the people were called upon to support the clergy by voluntary contributions, “they would tell you,” this authority says, “that it was none of their business to provide for church or cure—that was the affair of the government. And thus in many parishes public worship would cease, as the peasants would make no attempt whatever to meet the necessities of the occasion.” As it is, there is no little murmuring in many places against even the payment for seats in the church, although the charge is but a trifle, people objecting (of course erroneously) that everything is amply provided for by the government. Something like a surgical operation would be necessary to get it into the heads of the French peasantry that they are under any obligation to pay dues to their pastor. In considering this question of the maintenance of the clergy, M. Hubert-Valleroux has omitted any reference to a most important circumstance—he does not take into account the profound and widespread religious indifference that prevails among his countrymen, an indifference which the events of the past year or two have forcibly brought home to us all. If the faith of the so-called Catholics of France were genuine and profound, there would be small difficulty in procuring ample means for the carrying on of public worship, but, as we know, multitudes of Frenchmen are simply hostile to religion, while to the great majority anything and everything pertaining to divine worship are matters of absolute indifference. From such people no sacrifices may be expected for the maintenance of religion. And since all this is so,—since under the union of the French government with the papacy the people have been brought to a state of utter religious indifference, so that they have no concern whether their religious system is good or bad, regarding that as a question for the priests and the government alone; and since they feel no personal interest for the support of religion, and since “multitudes of Frenchmen are simply hostile to religion, while to the great majority anything and everything pertaining to divine worship are matters of absolute indifference,”—since the union of church and state in France has borne such fruit as this, therefore the writer gravely argues that such a system ought to be continued! Surely the mind must be strangely affected which from such premises can arrive at such a conclusion. The tree is known by its fruit. And such fruit as that described by this Catholic writer affords conclusive evidence that the tree which bears it is not of divine planting.