France and the Vatican by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Sep 20, 1906

France and the Vatican

By C. M. S.

FOR several weeks the periodicals of the world have been giving a great amount of space to the discussion of the papacy’s attitude toward the French government. The publication of the recent encyclical of Pope Pius X seems to have set the machinery of the Catholic Church against the French law governing the holding of church property. The encyclical has greatly intensified the feeling stirred up by the law of July 1, 1901, known as the law of associations, which required all religious establishments to be authorized by the state. Rather than comply with that law, more than three hundred monastic associations dissolved, and in July and August, 1902, alone, 2,737 establishments were closed by the government. There was an extensive migration of members of these orders to other countries. The storm stirred up by this law had not died down when, on Dec. 9, 1905, the law was enacted against which the encyclical of August 14 is aimed. By that law the churches are separated from the state, and all religious bodies are authorized to form associations for public worship. It is the design of the law makers that these associations shall hold all church properties in the country. As the associations must be composed of lay members instead of priests and bishops, the officials of the Roman hierarchy took exception to the law as soon as it was advocated. It was enacted by a majority sufficiently large to indicate that the government’s support in the matter was beyond question. This surprised not only the Catholic Church in France, but Christendom generally. It seemed that France, the oldest daughter as well as the pampered child of the Church of Rome, was bent on severing the closest ties that bound her to her spiritual sponsor on the Tiber.

The pope says nothing causes him greater agony than this rapidly developing unfriendly attitude of the French government toward the church, and his encyclical has greatly intensified the bitterness of both parties. Some have even

predicted civil war as the outgrowth of the apparently unyielding attitude of the two powers. The pope denies the right of the state—of any state—to say in what manner the “sacred edifices” shall be held; but in view of the fact that these edifices were erected largely from public funds, and the ecclesiastics who officiated therein were paid from the public treasury, it should not surprise the church that the state now assumes the right to dictate in the matter of ownership, and carry out its will by physical force.

The attitude of the encyclical may be judged from the following excerpt:—

We deferred our decision owing to the importance of this grave question, and particularly through a charitable feeling for the great services your nation has rendered to the church. Having heretofore condemned this iniquitous law, we examined with the greatest care its articles to see if they permitted the organization of religious life in France without jeopardizing the sacred principles of the church. . . .

Therefore, concerning cultural associations such as the law prescribes, we decree absolutely that they can not be formed without a violation of the sacred rights which are the life itself of the church. Putting aside, therefore, these associations which our conscience forbids us to approve, it is opportune to examine if some other kind of organization, both legal and canonical, can avert the threatened dangers to the church. . . .

We declare it not permissible to try this other kind of associations so long as they do not establish in the most legal and most positive way that the divine constitution of the church, the immutable rights of the Roman pontiff and the bishops, and their authority over the temporal affairs of the church, particularly the sacred edifices, will be irrevocably protected by such associations. We can not wish otherwise without betraying our sacred charge, and producing the ruin of the church in France.

Many feel that this apparently uncompromising attitude of the two powers will not prevent a settlement of the difficulty; but how the matter will be adjusted none are able to forecast. So far the government has shown no signs of yielding; and whether the Vatican will submit after characterizing the law as an “iniquitous” measure, “jeopardizing the sacred principles of the church,” is a serious question. The Roman Church holds that the pontiff and the bishops have the divine and immutable right to exercise authority over the temporal affairs of the church, and these it can not relinquish without betraying its sacred trust. He even goes so far as to declare that oppression, and not separation, is the object of the French law, and that atrocious war is being made against religion. He counsels against seditious action by Catholics against the French government, but nevertheless urges them to unite and stand firmly against the law. Next December the law is to go into effect. If the church officials are obdurate, and the government maintains its present unyielding attitude, we may expect to see more riotous scenes in France than those which accompanied the taking of church inventories during the past year.

A movement very similar to that in France is developing in Spain, both founded on clerical influence in politics and the growth of “liberalism.” One writer, favorable to the Catholic Church, declares that out of all these changes in the European field “the Roman Catholic Church as a religious institution will lose absolutely nothing, but on the contrary will gain in influence and service.”

He who is unfamiliar with the Revelator’s setting forth of Rome’s career might look upon the present agitation as a sure indication of a decaying power, as he sees privilege after privilege stripped from her. He might declare that the consummation of her widowhood and overthrow was fast approaching. But that we may not be deceived by the events we see, the Word points out a time when she will declare, “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” That time is near; and out of these adverse circumstances which we see to-day Rome will yet work out those conditions which will inspire that declaration. When Nebuchadnezzar declared, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have builded?” in that moment heaven’s judgments fell upon him. So when spiritual Babylon makes that predicted declaration extolling her greatness and denying her widowhood, that is the signal for her judgments to fall upon her. Rev. 18:7, 8. That time is approaching; that judgment hour is drawing near. C. M. S.