Catholic Church Property in France and America

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 11, 1906

Catholic Church Property in France and America

CERTAIN Catholic journals of this country have taken strong exception to the suggestion that the conditions the pope is fighting so strenuously in France are the conditions under which the church operates in this country. Those journals have had much to say about the possibility of French church property being administered by men who were members of secret societies inimical to the welfare of the Catholic Church, if the regulations of the French law should be followed. They have also used strong language in condemning the “ignorance” of Protestant editors for suggesting that the conditions would be fully similar in the two countries if the French law were complied with.

As a matter of fact the plan by which the French bishops proposed to organize under the new laws was very similar to that which obtains in this country. The bishops proposed that the board holding the church property should be nominated by the pastor in charge and be appointed by the bishop. They must be of legal age, communicants of the church, contributing to its support, submissive to the teachings of the church and to its ecclesiastical authorities. They must agree to abstain from joining any secret societies, to give Christian education to their children, to accept Christian marriage for themselves and their children, and religious rites for their dead. In drawing a comparison between what the French bishops proposed under the French law and the regulations under which Catholic church property is administered in this country, the New York Independent says:—

These are very nearly the same restrictions as are laid down by the plenary council of Baltimore [concerning the qualifications of those composing the board holding the church property] which says (Sections 285 and 287) that no layman can have any part in the management of the secular affairs of the Catholic churches in this country as a matter of right, but solely as a matter of privilege, and that they are appointed by authority of the bishop and removable at his will. The conditions are that they must (1) be communicants; (2) must have a regular seat in the church and pay church dues; (3) must have their children taught in Catholic schools; and (4) must not be members of any secret or other forbidden society. The French bishops refer to this American rule, and seem to have copied it.

This, then, puts the control of the church properties under the direct hand of the bishops, and yet would have been permissible under the French law. It is the condition which prevails in this country, and is in harmony with the law here. It does not seem to have wrecked the Catholic Church in this country, nor to have incurred the pope’s special ill will. It is difficult to make out why the pope should set the whole machinery of the hierarchy against the French government in the one case, and pronounce his blessing upon the United States in the other. Why should the pope call the French law an “iniquitous law” when under it his bishops can legally organize a system of operation practically identical with that which obtains in this country, and which he has never condemned.

Many of the French Catholics, recognizing the inconsistency of the position taken, have written a strong letter of protest to the pope. They openly assert that he has listened to the advice of German Italian, and Spanish prelates, and rejected the advice of the French episcopate. They point out the danger, and strongly advise him to withdraw his action. The outcome of the matter is still an unsolved problem. It is hardly supposable that the “vicar of Christ” will bring his acts into harmony with an “iniquitous law.”