OUR EUROPEAN LETTER by Jean Vuilleumier

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Nov 15, 1905

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 31, No. 46.

OUR EUROPEAN LETTER.

By Jean Vuilleumier

THE French bill providing for the separation of the church from the state has successfully passed through the Chamber. It will now soon be passing through the Senate, which is said to be quite inclined on the whole to sanction the work done in the Lower House.

Before I come to report on this event, I would like to keep my promise to give the readers of the SIGNS some of the gems gleaned from the discussion of the bill before the Chamber of Deputies.

Before the discussion of the articles opened, a multitude of amendments on almost every article had been proposed, and they kept coming in during the whole debate. No exception was taken by any one, however, to the first part of the first article, which reads as follows: "The Republic protects liberty of conscience and guarantees the free exercise of worship."

No one, certainly, could decently object to such a declaration. Catholic deputies, on the contrary, were eager to get all that this article implied, and to point out features in the bill which seemed to them to contradict it. One of them quoted an article of the Declaration of Rights of 1789, which says: "Liberty consists in doing all that does not injure your fellow-man. Law can only forbid actions harmful to society." And also the Declaration of 1793, which says: "Liberty is man's power to do whatever does not infringe upon the rights of others. Nature is its principle, justice its law," etc.

But the end of Article I. was not thought so safe by the same side of the House. It reads as follows: "The only restrictions (to freedom of worship) being those mentioned hereafter, in the interest of public order."

M. Benoist, a Catholic, quoted the following from an Englishmen, Bentham, to show that the expression "public order" was loose enough to cover a great deal of intolerance: "What is it to disturb public order? In the days of Louis XIV., public

order consisted in allowing no other than the Catholic religion. Therefore, the publication of any writing in favor of the doctrines of Luther or Calvin must have disturbed public order established by law."

Such a quotation, on the lips of a Roman Catholic, seemed like a bit of impertinence. The reply was given by M. Briand, who said with delicate irony that "he had not seen without astonishment and also without a bit of pleasure, the honorable speaker, as a passionate Catholic, burning so much incense upon the altar of Liberty that the whole House was perfumed with it."

Another speaker made the valuable statement that "the three fundamental principles of public law recognized by all civilized nations, are as follows: (1) The guarantee and respect due to liberty of conscience and worship; (2) The respect due to equality among citizens; (3) The respect due to property." This high recognition and honor given by a devout Catholic to liberty of conscience might have led one to ask him how he reconciled this with the Syllabus of Pius IX. which anathematized all modern liberties, but especially liberty of conscience.

This very question was put on another occasion by M. Jaurès to Abbot Lemire who was clever enough to dodge it. The same point, however, was made by some one who reminded the House of how Abbott Gayraud, one of the members, had said: "We want religious liberty in the Catholic sense," meaning by that evidently, that he wanted a liberty mainly for the Catholic clergy to the extent of enforcing upon unbelievers the respect and even the practise of its dogmas, while refusing the same to other denominations."

These bold declarations in favor of liberty, called out another taunt on the part of the liberals: "Why then, do you fight our bill?" they asked. And the reply was always painfully round about and hesitating, the only clear conclusion being the money side of the question. This gave the speakers on the other side a sad chance to rail over religion in general or to speak of the decrepitude of Catholicism.

"The reason why you do not want the separation," said Protestant Réveilland, "is because Catholicism is afraid of liberty, because it needs to be supported by the state in order to live." To which Catholic Lerolle replied: "No, no, we are not afraid of liberty. Look how our church is flourishing in the United States. But the situation there is not the same as here. We are not accustomed to liberty as they are in the United States. The United States has a government which—tho it supports no church—is essentially Christian (?) which dares to speak of God and to show its religious colors."

Again, the state was made responsible for the prosperity of the church. Again, God was left out of the question. Abbott Lemire betrayed the same lack of faith when he said, "I know the Catholic priests in England and in America. They are good priests, but they have more money than we have here."

At this point, an infidel, M. Allard, gave vent to his impious scorn: "God will provide," he said. "Catholics are too apt to leave God out of this matter. He who feeds the little birds and all nature will certainly not forget His ministers and leave them to starve to death (after the State ceases to feed them). It would not be like Him. Then I would say: Leave them all in God's hands (instead of keeping up their allowances for several years yet after the separation)."

With solemn melancholy, M. Briand summed up the whole situation amid a storm of applause and protests: "Everybody must recognize that the best interest of both state and church would be to live separately. But your church, gentlemen, the church which you have made, lives principally on the help given it by the state. There used to be a church who asked for no other birthright but her God; a church who remained aloof from all political agitations and party competitions; a church whose only desire was to grow and develop along spiritual lines. But, gentlemen, that church has ceased to exist, it is dead. It has ceased to exist, and I can well see that no one here thinks of raising it up, for no one has spoken in her name."

Does not this sad note kindle in every Christian heart a fond hope that the true Gospel church may soon again exert its blessed and growing influence on the soil of France, thus fulfilling the words of M. Lasies the Catholic leader, who replied: "Let me tell you, M. Briand, that these words which you intended as an epitaph on the grave of religious faith, may become words of resurrection. You may have caused this awakening, and religious faith may arise more enthusiastic than ever from under the funeral pall in which you thought it dead, and in which it was only asleep."

JEAN VUILLEUMIER. Gland, Switzerland.