[Concluded from page 167.]
This laconic answer produced on Napoleon an extraordinary effect. He
started, and fixed on the Cardinal a long and searching look. The man of
iron will felt that he had to deal with another will, which, while it
matched his own for firmness, surpassed it in the power that ever
springs from self-control. Taking advantage of the Consul's surprise,
Consalvi went on to say that he could not exceed his powers, nor could
he agree to terms in opposition to the principles of the Holy See; that
it was not possible in ecclesiastical matters to act as freely as was
allowable in urgent cases wherein only temporal matters were concerned.
Besides, in fairness the rupture could not be laid to the Pope's charge,
seeing that his minister had agreed to all the articles with one single
exception, and that even this one had not been definitely rejected, but
merely referred to the judgment of his Holiness.
Somewhat calmed, the Consul interrupted, saying that he did not wish to
leave after him unfinished works; he would have all or none. The
Cardinal having replied that he had no power to negotiate on the article
in question as long as it remained in its present shape, Napoleon's
former excitement flashed out once more as he repeated with fire his
resolution to insist on it just as it was, without a syllable more or
less. "Then I will never sign it", replied the Cardinal, "for I have no
power to do so". "And that is the very reason", cried the other, "why I
say that you wished to break off the negotiations, and that I look on
the business as settled, and that Rome shall open her eyes, and shall
shed tears of blood for this rupture". Then almost rudely pushing his
way through the company, he went about in every direction, declaring
that he would change the religion of Europe; that no power could resist
him; that he would not be alone in getting rid of the Pope, but would
throw the whole of Europe into confusion: it was all the Pope's fault,
and the Pope should pay the penalty.
The Austrian minister, the Count de Cobenzel, full of consternation at
the scene, ran at once towards the Cardinal, and with warm entreaty,
implored of him to find some means of averting so dreadful a calamity.
Once more had the Cardinal to hear from lips to which fear lent most
earnest eloquence, the harrowing description of the evils in store for
religion and for Europe. "But what can be done", he replied, "in the
face of the obstinate determination of the First Consul, to resist all
change in the form of the article?" The conversation was here
interrupted by the summons to dinner. The meal was short, and was the
most bitter the Cardinal had ever tasted in his life. When they returned
to the saloon, the Count resumed his expostulations. Bonaparte seeing
them in conversation, came up to the Count, and said that it was a loss
of time to try to overcome the obstinacy of the Pope's minister; and
then, with his usual vivacity and energy, he repeated his former
threats. The Count respectfully answered that, on the contrary, he found
the Pope's minister sincerely anxious to come to terms, and full of
regret at the rupture; no one but the First Consul himself could lead
the way to a reconciliation. "In what manner?" asked Bonaparte, with
great interest. "By authorising the commissioners to hold another
sitting", replied the Count, "and to endeavour to introduce some such
modification of the contested point as might satisfy both parties".
These and other remarks of the Count were urged with such tact and
grace, that after some resistance, Napoleon at last yielded. "Well,
then", cried he, "to prove to you that it is not I who seek to quarrel,
I consent that the commissioners shall meet on to-morrow for the last
time. Let them see if there be any possibility of an agreement; but, if
they separate without coming to terms, the rupture may be looked on as
final, and the Cardinal may go. I declare, likewise, that I insist on
this article just as it stands, and I will allow no change to be made in
it". And so saying, he abruptly turned his back on the two ministers.
These words, ungracious and contradictory as they were, nevertheless
contained the promise of a respite. It was resolved at once to hold a
sitting the next day at noon in the usual place, in the hope that,
having come to some agreement between themselves, they might win the
First Consul's consent, through the influence of his brother Joseph, who
had a great regard for De Cobenzel, and who was desirous of peace.
That night, following a day of such anxiety, and preceding a day of
dreadful struggle, brought but little repose to Cardinal Consalvi. But
when the morning came, a circumstance occurred which filled to
overflowing the cup of bitterness he had been condemned to drain. At an
early hour Mgr. Spina came into his room with sorrow and embarrassment
in his countenance, to report that the theologian, P. Caselli, had just
left him, after having announced that he had spent the night in
reflecting on the incalculable mischief likely to follow from such a
rupture; that its consequences would be most fatal to religion, and, as
the case of England proved, without a remedy; that, seeing the First
Consul inflexibly bent on refusing any modification of the disputed
article, he had come to the determination of signing it as it stood;
that in his opinion, it did not touch doctrine, and the unparalleled
character of the circumstances would justify the Pope's condescendence
in such a case. Mgr. Spina added that since this was the opinion of P.
Caselli, who was so much better a theologian than he himself, he had not
courage enough to assume the responsibility of consequences so fatal to
religion, and that he, too, had made up his mind to receive the article
and sign it as it was. In case the Cardinal believed that it was not
competent for them to sign without him, they would be under the
necessity of protesting their acceptation of the article, thereby to
save themselves from being responsible for the consequences of the
rupture.
This declaration, coupled with the thought that he was now alone in the
conflict, deeply affected the Cardinal. But it did not shake his
resolution nor take away his courage. He set himself to the task of
persuading his two friends of their mistake, but his endeavours were in
vain. Perceiving that all his arguments were counterbalanced by the
dread entertained of the consequences, he ended by saying that he was by
no means convinced by their reasons, and even single-handed he was
resolved to persevere in the conflict. He therefore requested them to
defer the announcement of their having accepted the article until the
conference was at an end, if it should be necessary to break off
negotiations. They willingly assented, and promised to give their
support to his arguments in the course of the debate, although they were
resolved not to go as far as a rupture.
Precisely at noon the sitting was opened at the residence of Joseph
Bonaparte. It lasted twelve hours, the clock having struck midnight as
they arose from the table. Eleven hours were devoted to the discussion
of the article of the Concordat which had been the cause of so many
disputes. It is now time to redeem our promise to enter somewhat into
detail concerning this famous question.
At Rome two things were considered as absolutely essential to the
Concordat, of which they were declared to be conditions _sine quibus
non_. One of these was the free exercise of the Catholic religion; the
other, that this exercise of religion should be public. The Head of the
Church felt it indispensable that these two points should be proclaimed
in the Concordat, not only because it was necessary to secure for
religion some solid advantage which might justify the extraordinary
concessions made by the Holy See, but also because the spirit of the
secular governments both before, and much more after, the French
Revolution, ever tended to enslave and fetter the Church. Besides, it
had become quite evident in the earlier stage of the negotiations, that
the government of France was obstinately opposed to the recognition of
the Catholic religion as the religion of the State. That government had
ever met the exertions made by Rome to gain this point by reciting the
fundamental principle of the constitution, which asserted the complete
equality of rights, of persons, of religions, and of everything else.
Hence it was looked upon as a great victory, and one for which Cardinal
Consalvi deserved high praise, when he succeeded in extorting the
admission that stands at the head of the Concordat, to the effect that
the Catholic religion in France was the religion of the majority of the
citizens. Another reason there was to insist upon these two points. That
universal toleration, which is one of the leading principles of the _jus
novum_, had long been proved by experience to mean toleration for all
sects, but not for the true Church. The Cardinal had not much difficulty
in obtaining the recognition of the free exercise of the Catholic
religion. Perhaps the government already had thought of the famous
organic laws which it afterwards published, and which effectually
neutralised all its concessions on this point. But a whole host of
invincible difficulties was marshalled against the demand made for
public exercise of the Catholic worship. It was urged with some reason,
and no doubt in a good measure with sincerity, that circumstances had
made it impossible to carry out in public with safety to the general
peace, all the ceremonies of religion, especially in places where the
Catholics were outnumbered by infidels and non-catholics. These latter
would be sure to insult and disturb the processions and other public
functions performed outside the churches; and it was not to be expected
that the Catholics would bear these outrages with patience. Hence, not
being willing to sanction an indefinite right of publicity, the
government expressed its views in these terms:[1] "The Roman Catholic
Apostolic Religion shall be freely exercised in France: _its worship
shall be public, regard being had, however, to police regulations_".
This is the article the discussion of which had occasioned so much
labour and anxiety.
Cardinal Consalvi discovered in the article thus worded two fatal
defects: firstly, it tended to enslave the Church by placing her at the
mercy of the civil power; and secondly, it implied on the part of the
Church a sanction of the principle which would serve to legalise such
enslavement. For many years, court lawyers had spoken but too plainly
concerning the supposed right of the crown to regulate external worship;
and so far had this right been extended in practice, that the Church
found herself almost, or even altogether, the slave of the civil power.
"I had good reason, therefore", says the Cardinal, "to entertain a
sovereign dread of that indefinite and elastic phrase 'regard being had
to' (_en se conformant_)". Besides, many things pointed to the
probability that in virtue of such a convention signed by the Holy See,
the police, or rather the government, would interfere in everything, and
submit everything to its own will and pleasure, without the Church being
able to object, her liberty being tied up by the expression in the
treaty. No doubt the Church frequently finds herself in such
circumstances, as lead her to tolerate _de facto_ violations of her
rights and laws, such toleration being recommended either by prudence,
or by charity, or by lack of power, or by other just motives. But she
never can authorize by a solemn engagement the principle from which such
violations spring.
Whilst fully decided never to accept at any risk an article so fraught
with mischief to the Church, Consalvi was too loyal and too honest to
deny the force of some of the arguments brought into the field by the
French commissioners. Hence he proposed various expedients by help of
which the dreaded dangers to the public peace might be turned away. One
of these expedients was a Papal Bull to the French clergy, commanding
them to abstain for some time from certain public ceremonies in places
where those hostile to Catholicism were numerous or intolerant; another
was, to insert an additional article limiting the duration of the
proposed exception, and determining the cases in which the police might
interfere: but all was in vain; the government obstinately clung to its
idea. The Cardinal tells us that he would have preferred to omit all
mention of the right to publicity of worship, and thus cut the knot it
was so troublesome to unravel; but his orders from Rome to include that
point were too decided, and he was not allowed to send a courier to
solicit fresh instructions from the Holy Father on the subject. He felt,
therefore, that, even at the cost of a rupture between the two
contending parties, he was bound by his most solemn and sacred duty to
refuse his sanction to the obnoxious proposition.
With these convictions Consalvi took his place at the meeting, on the
result of which hung the spiritual interests of so many millions of
souls. We shall not follow out in detail the shifting phases of the
negotiation, but we will come at once to its closing passage. The French
commissioners declared that the state had no wish to enslave the Church;
that the word _police_ did not mean the government, but simply that
department of the executive charged with the maintenance of public
order, which order was as much desired by the Church as by the state.
Now it was absolutely necessary to preserve public order, and no law
could stand in the way of such a result. _Salus populi suprema lex._ It
was impossible, they said, for public order to last throughout parts of
France, if unrestricted publicity were once permitted in religious
ceremonies; and as no other power save the government could judge where
such publicity might be safe and where dangerous, it should be left to
the discretion of the government to impose, for the sake of peace, such
restrictions as the general good required. The Cardinal admitted that
public tranquillity was by all means to be preserved, but he contended
that the article did not restrict, either in point of object or of time,
the power it assigned to the government; that such unrestricted power
was dangerous to the Church; and therefore some clause should be added
to determine more plainly the precise nature and bearing of the
authority to be given to the police to regulate public worship. At
length he urged a dilemma which completely vanquished the commissioners.
"I objected", says he, "thus: either the government is in good faith
when it declares the motive which forces it to subject religious worship
to police regulations to be the necessary maintenance of public
tranquillity, and in that case it cannot and ought not refuse to assert
so much in the article itself; or the government refuses to insert such
an explanation; and then it is not in good faith, and clearly reveals
that its object in imposing this restriction on religion is to enslave
the Church".
Caught between the horns of this dilemma, the commissioners could only
say that the explanation required was already contained in the word
_police_, police regulations being in their very nature regulations
directed to secure public order. "I replied", continues the Cardinal,
"that this was not true, at least in every language; but even supposing
it to be true", said I, "where is the harm in explaining it more
clearly, so as to remove any mistaken interpretation which may be
prejudicial to the liberty of the Church? If you are in good faith, you
can have no difficulty about this; if you have difficulty, it is a sign
you are not in good faith". Pressed more and more by the force of this
dilemma, and unable to extricate themselves, they asked me "what
advantage do you find in this repetition you propose?" (for they
continued to hold that the word _police_ expressed it sufficiently). "I
find in it a very signal advantage", replied I; "for by the very fact of
restricting in clear and express terms the obligation of making public
worship conform to the police regulation, we exclude restriction in
every other ease, for _inclusio unius est exclusio alterius_. Thus the
Church is not made the slave of the lay power, and no principle is
sacrificed by the Pope, who in that case sanctions only what cannot be
helped, for _necessitas non habet legem_".
This reasoning overcame the commissioners, who had no further answer to
make. It was resolved to add to the article an explanatory phrase, which
should narrow its meaning, and preclude the possibility of unfair
interpretations in after days. The amended article read as follows: "The
Roman Catholic Apostolic religion shall be freely exercised in France:
its worship shall be public, regard being had, however, to such police
arrangements _as the government shall judge necessary for the
preservation of the public peace_" (quas gubernium pro publica
tranquillitate necessarias existimabit). The Concordat was thus finally
agreed to by the commissioners of the two contracting parties; and
although Bonaparte had declared himself determined to allow no change to
be made, his representatives resolved to sign the document, modified as
it was. To this step they were strongly urged by Joseph Bonaparte, who,
with keen insight into his brother's character, declared, that if before
signing they should again consult Napoleon, he would refuse to accept
the amendment, whereas, if the Concordat were brought to him already
completed, he would be reluctant to undo what had been done. Joseph
charged himself with the task of endeavouring to secure the First
Consul's consent. On the stroke of midnight the six commissioners placed
their signatures to the important document. Not a word was said about
any other articles save those contained in the Concordat itself.
Another anxious night followed. In the morning Cardinal Consalvi learned
from Joseph Bonaparte that the First Consul had been at first extremely
indignant at the change which had been made, and had refused for a long
time to approve of it; but that at length, thanks to his brother's
entreaties and reasons, after protracted meditation and a long silence,
which later events sufficiently explained, he had accepted the
Concordat, and ordered that the Pope's minister should be at once
informed of his consent.
Universal joy followed the announcement of the signing of the Concordat.
The foreign ambassadors, and especially the Count de Cobenzel, came to
congratulate the Cardinal, and offer their thanks, as for a service
rendered to their respective countries. On the following day Bonaparte
received the six commissioners with marked courtesy. Ever true to his
duty, the Cardinal took care, on this occasion, to make Napoleon observe
that the Holy See had not uttered a single word about its temporal
concerns throughout the whole course of the negotiations. "His Holiness
has wished to prove to France, and to the world, that it is a calumny to
accuse the Holy See of being influenced by temporal motives". He also
announced his own speedy departure within a few days.
Next day he was suddenly summoned to an audience of the First Consul.
For some time he could not detect the object Napoleon had in view in
engaging him in conversation, but at length he was able to perceive that
it was the Consul's intention to appoint some of the constitutional
bishops to the new sees. With much difficulty the Cardinal convinced him
that the appointments of these men would never receive the sanction of
the Holy See, unless they made a formal declaration of having accepted
the Pontifical decision on the civil constitution of the clergy.
During the ensuing three or four days the Cardinal had no private
audience. On the eve of his departure from Paris he saw Napoleon at a
review at which he and the rest of the diplomatic body assisted
according to custom.
It was his intention to address, by way of leave taking, a few words to
the First Consul before they left the saloon; but when that personage
proceeded to make the round of the room, and began by conversing with
the members of the diplomatic body, at the head of which stood Consalvi,
he looked for a moment fixedly at this latter, and passed on without
taking the slightest notice of him, or sending a word of acknowledgment
to the Holy Father. It was probably his intention to show by this public
slight how little he cared for a Cardinal and for the Holy See, now that
he had obtained all he required from them, and to make this insult the
more remarkable, he delayed for a considerable time to converse on
indifferent topics with the Count de Cobenzel, who came next after
Cardinal Consalvi, and then with the other ambassadors in turn. The
Cardinal retired without awaiting his return from the review. When he
had just finished his preparations for his departure, which had been
fixed for that evening, the Abbe Bernier made his appearance at the
hotel to announce that it was the will of the First Consul that between
them they should come to some understanding about the Bull which,
according to custom, was to accompany the treaty. It was in vain to
refuse, and this new labour imposed on the Cardinal another sitting of
eight hours. He rose from the table to enter his carriage, and after
travelling day and night he reached the Eternal City on the 6th August,
more dead than alive, overcome by fatigue, and with his legs so swollen
that they were unable to support him. The Pope received him with
indescribable tenderness, and expressed his perfect satisfaction with
all that had been done. A special consistory of all the Cardinals in
Rome approved of the Concordat, which was solemnly ratified thirty-five
days after it had been signed at Paris.
Thus was completed the great act which has been fruitful of so many
blessings to Europe, and for which, under God, the Church is indebted to
the wisdom of Pius VII. and the firmness of Cardinal Consalvi.
It was long before the Concordat was published at Paris, and when at
length it did appear, what was the pain of the Holy Father to find,
together with the treaty and under the same date, a compilation of the
so-called _organic laws_ which were put forth as forming part of the
Concordat, and included in the approbation of the Holy See! Of the
organic laws it is enough to say, that they almost entirely overthrew
the new edifice which Cardinal Consalvi had found so difficult to erect.
In spite of the solemn protestations of the Popes these laws still
remain, but they remain as a standing proof of the dishonesty which
Cardinal Consalvi has shown to have marked the entire conduct of
Napoleon Bonaparte in the negotiations for the Concordat.