ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IN EUROPE.
Never will manners be perfectly gentle without the existence of public
beneficence; so that gentleness of manners and beneficence, although
distinct, are sisters. Public beneficence, properly so called, was
unknown among the ancients. Individuals might be beneficent there,
but society was without compassion. Thus, the foundation of public
establishments of beneficence formed no part of the system of
administration among ancient nations. What, then, did they do with
the unfortunate? We will answer with the author of the _Génie de
Christianisme_, that they had no resources but infanticide and slavery.
Christianity having become predominant everywhere, we see the authority
of the Church employed in destroying the remains of cruel customs. In
the year 442, the Council of Vaison, establishing a regulation for the
legitimate possession of foundlings, decrees ecclesiastical censure
against those who disturb by importunate reproaches charitable persons
who have received children. The Council adopts this measure with the
view of protecting a beneficent custom; for, adds the canon, _these
children were exposed to be eaten by dogs_. There were still found
fathers unnatural enough to kill their children. The Council of Lerida,
held in 546, imposes seven years of penance on those who commit such
a crime; and that of Toledo, held in 589, forbids, in the 17th canon,
parents to commit this crime. Still, the difficulty did not consist in
correcting these excesses; crimes thus opposed to the first notions of
morality--so much in contradiction to the feelings of nature--tended
to their own extirpation. The difficulty consisted in finding proper
means to organize a vast system of beneficence, to provide constant
succor, not only for children, but for old men, for the sick, for the
poor incapable of living by their own labor; in a word, for all the
necessitous. Familiarized as we are with such a system universally
established, we see nothing in it but what is simple and natural; we
can hardly find any merit in it. But let us suppose for a moment that
such institutions do not exist; let us transport ourselves to the times
when there was not even the first idea of them, what continued efforts
would there not be required to establish and organize them!
It is clear that by the mere extension of Christian charity in the
world the various wants of humanity must have been more frequently
succored, and with more efficacy, than they were before; and this
even if we suppose that the exercise of charity was limited to purely
individual means. Assuredly, there would always have been a great
number of the faithful who would have remembered the doctrines and
example of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour did not content Himself with
teaching us by his discourses the obligation of loving our neighbor
as ourselves, nor with a barren affection, but by giving food to
the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked; by visiting
the sick and prisoners. He showed us in his own conduct a model of
the practice of charity. He could have shown in a thousand ways the
power which belonged to Him in heaven and on earth; his voice could
have controlled all the elements, stopped the motions of the stars,
and suspended all the laws of nature; but He delighted above all in
displaying his beneficence; He only attested his divinity by miracles
which healed or consoled the unfortunate. His whole life is summed
up in the sublime simplicity of these two words of the sacred text:
_pertransiit benefaciendo; He went about doing good_.
Whatever good might be expected from Christian charity when left to
its own inspiration, and acting in a sphere purely individual, it
was not desirable to leave it in this state. It was necessary to
realize it in permanent institutions, and not to leave the consolation
of the unfortunate to the mercy of man and passing circumstances;
this is the reason why there was so much wisdom and foresight in the
idea of founding establishments of beneficence. It was the Church
that conceived and executed this idea. Therein she only applied to a
particular case her general rule of conduct; which is, never to leave
to the will of individuals what can be connected with an institution:
and observe, that this is one of the causes of the strength inherent
in all that belongs to Catholicity. As the principle of authority
in matters of faith preserves to her unity and constancy therein,
so the rule of intrusting every thing to institutions secures the
solidity and duration of all her works. These two principles have an
intimate connection; for if you examine them attentively, the one
supposes that she distrusts the intellect of man, the other, that she
distrusts his individual will and capacity. The one supposes that man
is not sufficient of himself to attain to, and preserve the knowledge
of, certain truths; the other, that he is so feeble and capricious,
that it is unwise to leave to his weakness and inconstancy the care
of doing good. Now, neither one nor the other is injurious to man;
neither one nor the other lowers his proper dignity. The Church only
tells him, that he is, in reality, subject to error, inclined to
evil, inconstant in his designs, and very miserable in his resources.
These are melancholy truths; but the experience of every day attests
them, and the Christian religion explains them, by establishing, as a
fundamental dogma, the fall of man in the person of our first parent.
Protestantism, following principles diametrically opposite, applies the
same spirit of individuality to the will as to the intelligence; it
is even the natural enemy of institutions. Without going further than
our present subject, we see that its first step, on its appearance,
was to destroy what existed, without in any way replacing it. Will
it be believed that Montesquieu went so far as to applaud this work
of destruction? This is another proof of the fatal influence exerted
over minds by the pestilential atmosphere of the last century: "Henri
VIII.," says Montesquieu, "voulant réformer l'église d'Angleterre,
détruisit les moines: nation paresseuse elle-même, et qui entretenait
la paresse des autres, parceque, practiquant l'hospitalité, une
infinité de gens oisifs, gentilhommes et bourgeois, passoient leur vie
à courir de couvent en couvent. _Il ôta encore les hôpitaux, où le bas
peuple trouvait sa subsistence_, comme les gentilhommes trouvaient la
leur dans les monastères. Depuis ce changement, l'esprit de commerce
et d'industrie s'établit en Angleterre." (_De l'Esprit des Lois_, liv.
xxiii. chap. 19.) That Montesquieu should praise this conduct of Henry
VIII., and the destruction of monasteries, for the miserable reason,
that it was good to deprive the idle of the hospitality of the monks,
is a notion which ought not to astonish us, as such vulgar ideas were
in accordance with the taste of the philosophy which had then begun to
prevail. It attempted to find profound economical and political reasons
for all that was in opposition to the institutions of Catholicity; and
this was not difficult, for a prejudiced mind always finds in books,
as well as in facts, what it seeks. We might inquire of Montesquieu,
however, what is become of the property of the monasteries? As these
rich spoils were in great part given to the same nobles who found
hospitality with the monks, we might observe to him, that it was a
singular way of diminishing the idleness of people, to give them as
their own the property which they had previously enjoyed as guests.
It cannot be denied, that to take to the houses of the nobles the
property which had supported the hospitality which the monks showed
them, was certainly to save them the trouble of _running from monastery
to monastery_. But what we cannot tolerate is, to hear vaunted as a
political _chef-d'œuvre_, the _suppression of the hospitals where the
poor people found their subsistence_. What! are these your lofty views,
and is your philosophy so devoid of compassion, that you think the
destruction of the asylums of misfortune proper means for encouraging
industry and commerce? The worst of it is, that Montesquieu, seduced by
the desire of offering new and piquant observations, goes so far as
to deny the utility of hospitals, pretending that, in Rome, they make
all live in comfort except those who labor. He does not wish to have
them in rich nations or in poor ones. He supports this cruel paradox by
a reason stated in the following words: "Quand la nation est pauvre,"
says he, "la pauvreté particulière dérive de la misère générale, et
elle est, pour ainsi dire, la misère générale. Tous les hôpitaux du
monde ne sauraient guérir cette pauvreté particulière; _au contraire
l'esprit de paresse qu'ils inspirent augmente la pauvreté générale,
et par conséquent la particulière_." Thus, hospitals are represented
as dangerous to poor nations, and consequently condemned. Let us now
listen to what is said of rich ones: "J'ai dit que les nations riches
avaient besoin d'hôpitaux, parceque la fortune y était sujette a mille
accidents; mais _on sent que les recours passagers vaudraient bien
mieux que les établissements perpétuels_. Le mal est momentané; il faut
donc des secours de même nature, et qui soient applicables à l'accident
particulier." (_De l'Esprit des Lois_, liv. xxiii. chap. 19.) It is
difficult to find any thing more empty or more false. Undoubtedly, if
we were to judge, by these passages, of the _Esprit des Lois_, the
merit of which has been so much exaggerated, we should be compelled to
condemn it in terms more severe than those employed by M. de Bonald,
when he called it "the most profound of superficial works." Happily for
the poor, and for the good order of society, Europe in general has not
adopted these maxims; and on this point, as on many others, prejudices
against Catholicity have been laid aside, in order to continue, with
more or less modification, the system which she taught. We find in
England herself a considerable number of establishments of beneficence;
and it is not believed in that country that it is necessary, in order
to excite the activity of the poor, to expose them to the danger
of dying of hunger. We should always remember that the system of
public establishments for beneficence, now general in Europe, would
not have existed without Catholicity; indeed, we may rest assured,
that if the religious schism had taken place before the foundation
and organization of this system, European society would not now have
enjoyed these establishments which do it so much honor, and are so
precious an element of good government and public tranquillity. It is
one thing to found and maintain an establishment of this kind, when a
great number of similar ones already exist,--when governments possess
immense resources, and strength sufficient to protect all interests;
but it is a very different thing to establish a multitude of them in
all places, when there is no model to be copied, when it is necessary
to _improvise_ in a thousand ways the indispensable resources,--when
public authority has no _prestige_ or force to control the violent
passions that struggle to gain every thing that they can feed on. Now,
in modern times, since the existence of Protestantism, the first only
of these things has been done; the second was accomplished centuries
before by the Catholic Church; and let it be observed, that what has
been done in Protestant countries in favor of public beneficence, has
been done by administrative acts of the government, acts which were
necessarily inspired by the view of the happy results already obtained
from similar institutions. But Protestantism, by itself, considered as
a separate Church, has done nothing, and it could do nothing; for in
all places where it preserves any thing of hierarchical organization,
it is the mere instrument of the civil power; consequently it
cannot there act by its own inspirations. Such is the vice of its
constitution. Its prejudice against the religious institutions, both
of men and women, make it sterile in this respect. Thus, indeed,
it is deprived of one of the most powerful elements possessed by
Catholicity to accomplish the most arduous and laborious works of
charity. For the great works of charity, it is necessary to be free
from worldly attachments and self-love; and these qualities are found
in an eminent degree in persons who are devoted to charity in religious
institutions. There they commence with that freedom which is the root
of all the rest--the absence of self-love. The Catholic Church has
not been instigated to this by the civil power; she has considered
it as one of her own peculiar duties to provide for the unfortunate.
Her bishops have always been looked upon as the protectors and the
natural inspectors of beneficent establishments. Therefore there was
a law which placed hospitals under the charge of the bishops; and
thence it comes that that class of charitable institutions has always
occupied a distinguished place in canonical legislation. The Church,
from remote times, has made laws concerning hospitals. Thus, we see
the Council of Chalcedon place under the authority of the bishop the
clergy residing in Ptochüs,--that is, as explained by Zonarus, in the
establishments destined to support and provide for the poor: "Such,"
he says, "as those where orphans and the old and infirm are received
and cared for." The Council makes use of this expression, _according to
the tradition of the holy Fathers_; thereby indicating that regulations
had been made of old by the Church concerning establishments of this
kind. The learned also know what the ancient _diaconies_ were,--places
of charity, where poor widows, orphans, old men, and other unfortunate
persons, were received.
When the irruption of the barbarians had introduced everywhere the
reign of force, the possessions which hospitals already had, and those
which they afterwards gained, were exposed to unbounded rapacity. The
Church did all she could to protect them. It was forbidden to take
them, under the severest penalties; those who made the attempt were
punished as murderers of the poor. The Council of Orleans, held in
549, forbids, in its 13th canon, taking the property of hospitals; the
15th canon of the same Council confirms the foundation of a hospital
at Lyons, a foundation due to the charity of King Childebert and
Queen Ultrogotha. The Council takes measures to secure the safety and
good management of the funds of that hospital; all violating these
regulations are anathematized as guilty of homicide of the poor.
We find, with respect to the poor, in very ancient Councils,
regulations of charity and police at the same time, quite similar
to measures now adopted in certain countries. For example, parishes
are enjoined to make a list of their poor, to maintain them, &c. The
Council of Tours, held in 566 or 567, by its 5th canon orders every
town to maintain its poor; and the priests in the country, as well as
the faithful, to maintain their own, in order to prevent mendicants
from wandering about the towns and provinces. With respect to lepers,
the 21st canon of the Council of Orleans, before quoted, prescribes
to bishops to take particular care of these unfortunate beings in all
dioceses, and to furnish them with food and clothing out of the Church
funds; the Council of Lyons, held in 583, in its 6th canon ordains
that the lepers of every town and territory shall be supported at the
expense of the Church under the care of the bishop. The Church had
a register of the poor, intended to regulate the distribution which
was made to them of a portion of the ecclesiastical property; it
was expressly forbidden to demand any thing from the poor for being
inscribed in this book of charity. The Council of Rheims, held in
874, in the second of its five articles forbids receiving any thing
from the poor thus inscribed, and that under pain of deposition. Zeal
for improving the condition of prisoners, a kind of charity which has
been so much displayed in modern times, is extremely ancient in the
Church. We must observe that in the sixth century there was already
an inspector of prisons; the archdeacon or the provost of the church
was obliged to visit prisoners on all Sundays; no class of criminals
was excluded from the benefit of this solicitude. The archdeacon was
bound to learn their wants, and to furnish them, by means of a person
recommended by the bishop, with food and all they stood in need of.
This was ordered by the 20th canon of the Council of Orleans, held
in 549. It would be too long to enumerate even a small part of the
ordinances which attest the zeal of the Church for the comfort and
consolation of the unfortunate; besides, it would be beyond my purpose,
for I have only undertaken to compare the spirit of Protestantism
with that of Catholicity with respect to works of charity. Yet, and as
the development of this question has naturally led me to state several
historical facts, I shall allude to the 141st canon of the Council of
Aix-la-Chapelle, enjoining upon prelates to found, according to the
example of their predecessors, a hospital to receive all the poor that
the revenues of the Church were able to support. Prebendaries were
bound to give to the hospital the tenth of their fruits; one of them
was appointed to receive the poor and strangers, and to watch over the
administration of the hospital. Such was the rule of prebendaries.
In the rule destined for the canonesses, the same Council ordains
that a hospital shall be established close to the house, and that it
shall itself contain a place reserved for poor women. Therefore, were
there seen, many centuries later, in various places, hospitals near
to prebendal churches. As we approach our own times, we everywhere
see innumerable institutions founded for charity. Ought we not to
admire the fruitfulness with which there arise, on all sides, as many
resources as are necessary to succour all the unfortunate? We cannot
calculate with precision what would have happened if Protestantism had
not appeared, but at least there is a conjecture authorized by reasons
of analogy. If the development of European civilization had been fully
carried out under the principle of religious unity, if the so-called
Reformation had not plunged Europe into continual revolutions and
reactions, there would certainly have been produced in the bosom of the
Catholic Church some general system of beneficence, which, organized
on a grand scale and in conformity with the new progress of society,
would have been able to prevent or effectually to remedy the sore of
pauperism, that cancer of modern nations. What was not to be expected
from all the intelligence and all the resources of Europe, working in
concert to obtain this great result? Unhappily, the unity of faith was
broken; authority, the proper centre, past, present, and future, was
rejected. From that time Europe, which was destined to become a nation
of brothers, was changed into a most fiercely-contested battle-field.
Hatred, engendered by religious differences, prevented any united
efforts for new arrangements; and the necessities which arose out of
the bosom of the social and political organization, which was for
Europe the fruit of so many centuries of labor, could not be provided
for. Bitter disputes, rebellions, and wars were acclimatized among us.
Let us remember that the Protestant schism not only prevented the
union of all the efforts of Europe to attain the end in question, but,
moreover, it has been the reason why Catholicism has not been able to
act in a regular manner even in those countries where it has preserved
its complete empire, or a decided predominance. In these countries it
has been compelled to hold itself in an attitude of defence; it has
been obliged, by the attacks of its enemies, to employ a great part of
its resources in defending its own existence: it is very probably for
this reason that the state of things in Europe is entirely different
from what it would have been on a contrary supposition; and perhaps
in the latter case there would not have existed the sad necessity of
exhausting itself in impotent efforts against an evil, which, according
to all appearances, and unless hitherto unknown means can be devised,
appears without remedy. I shall be told that the Church in this case
would have had an excessive authority over all that relates to charity,
and would have unjustly usurped the civil power. This is a mistake;
the Church has never claimed any thing that is not quite conformable
to her indelible character of protector of all the unfortunate. During
some centuries, it is true, we hardly hear any other voice or perceive
any other action than hers, in all that relates to beneficence;
but we must observe that the civil power during that time was very
far from possessing a regular and vigorous administration, capable
of doing without the aid of the Church. The latter was so far from
being actuated by any motives of ambition, that her double charge of
spiritual and temporal things imposed on her all sorts of sacrifices.
Three centuries have passed away since the event of which we now
lament the fatal results. Europe during this period has been submitted
in great part to the influence of Protestantism, but it has made no
progress thereby. I cannot believe that these three centuries would
have passed away under the exclusive influence of Catholicity, without
producing in the bosom of Europe a degree of charity sufficient
to raise the system of beneficence to the height demanded by the
difficulties and new interests of society. If we look at the different
systems which ferment in minds devoted to the study of this grave
question, we shall always find there _association_ under one form or
another. Now association has been at all times one of the favorite
principles of Catholicity, which, by proclaiming unity in faith,
proclaims it also in all things; but there is this difference, that
a great number of associations which are conceived and established
in our days are nothing but an agglomeration of interests; they want
unity of will and of aim, conditions which can be obtained only by
means of Christian charity. Yet these two conditions are indispensably
necessary to accomplish great works of beneficence, if any thing else
is required than a mere measure of public administration. As to the
administration itself, it is of little avail when it is not vigorous;
and unfortunately, in acquiring the necessary vigor, its action becomes
somewhat stiff and harsh. Therefore it is that Christian charity is
required, which, penetrating on all sides like a balsam, softens all
that is harsh in human action. I pity the unfortunate who in their
necessities find only the succor of the civil authorities, without the
intervention of Christian charity. In reports presented to the public,
philanthropy may and will exaggerate the care which it lavishes on the
unfortunate, but things will not be so in reality. The love of our
brethren, when it is not founded on religious principle, is as fruitful
in words as it is barren in deeds. The sight of the poor, of the sick,
of impotent old age, is too disagreeable for us long to bear it, unless
we are urged to it by very powerful motives. Even much less can we hope
that a vague feeling of humanity will suffice to make us encounter, as
we should, the constant cares required to console these unfortunate
beings. When Christian charity is wanting, a good administration will
no doubt enforce punctuality and exactitude--all that can be demanded
of men who receive a salary for their services: but one thing will be
wanting, which nothing can replace and money cannot buy, viz. love.
But it will be asked, have you no faith in philanthropy? No; for as M.
de Chateaubriand says, philanthropy is only the false coin of charity.
It was then perfectly reasonable that the Church should have a direct
influence in all branches of beneficence, for she knew better than any
others how to make Christian charity active, by applying it to all
kinds of necessities and miseries. Therein she did not gratify her
ambition, but found food for her zeal; she did not claim a privilege,
but exerted a right. In fine, if you will persevere in calling such a
desire ambition, you cannot deny at least that it was ambition of a
new kind. An ambition truly worthy of glory and reward, is that which
claims the right of succoring and consoling the unfortunate.[23]