I am given to understand, from unquestionable authority, that there
are at this moment, and have been for the last four years, no less
than from thirty-five to forty thousand churches where divine service
has been regularly performed throughout the different departments of
the Republic. It is therefore a gross error to suppose that the
christian religion was extinguished in France. The recent
arrangements made between the French government and the See of Rome
will consolidate that religion, which was, in a great measure,
re-established long before his Holiness occupied the papal chair. I
shall illustrate this truth by a summary of the proceedings of the
constitutional clergy.
The last general assembly of the clergy of France, held in 1789, the
account of which has never been printed, already presented facts
which announced that the necessity of reforming abuses was felt, and
the epoch when that reform would take place was foreseen. In this
assembly several bishops spoke with much force on the subject.
The disastrous state of the finances, brought about by the shameful
dilapidations of the court, occasioned a deficit which it was
necessary to make good. This consideration, joined to the spirit of
cupidity, jealous of the estates of the clergy, immediately caused
every eye to turn towards that mortmain property, in order to employ
it in the liquidation of the national debt.
In the _Moniteur_, and other journals of the time, may be seen what
successive steps gradually led to the abolition of tythes, and the
decision which placed the estates of the clergy at the disposal of
the nation.
The civil constitution of the clergy was a severe check given to the
many existing abuses. It really brought back the Gallican church to
the discipline of the first ages. It snatched from the Pope the power
of giving the canonical institution to bishops. Those who have
thought proper to tax with novelty this constitution, have only to
look into history. They will see that, during twelve hundred years,
bishops received the canonical institution from the metropolitans,
and not from the Pope. Thus to tax with intrusion the constitutional
bishops, and condemn them because they have received that institution
from the metropolitans, is to condemn the first twelve centuries of
christianity.
This civil constitution served as a pretext to the dignified clergy,
irritated at the loss of their estates, for concerting a combined
resistance to the new laws, in the hope that this resistance would
lead to a subversion which would restore to them their riches. Thence
the refusal of the oath "to be faithful to the nation, to the law,
and to the king, to guide faithfully the flock intrusted to their
care, and to maintain with all their power the constitution decreed
by the assembly, and sanctioned by the king." Thence the line of
division between the clergy who had taken the oath and those who had
not.
The Constituent Assembly, who had decreed the above oath, declared,
that the refusal of giving this pledge of fidelity should be
considered as a voluntary resignation. The royal sanction had
rendered the above decree a law of the State. Almost the whole of the
bishops, a great number of rectors, and other ecclesiastics, refused
to take this oath, already taken by several among them who were
deputies to the assembly.
They were, in consequence, declared to have resigned; and measures
were taken for supplying their place. The people proceeded to effect
this by electors authorized by law. A respectable number of
ecclesiastics, who had already submitted to the law, accepted the
elections. These priests thought that obedience to the national
authority which respected and protected religion, was a catholic
dogma. What resistance could be made to legitimate power, which
neither attacked the dogma, nor morality, nor the interior and
essential discipline of the church? It was, say they, resisting God
himself. They thought that the pastor was chosen, and sent solely for
the care of the flock intrusted to him; that, when difficult
circumstances, flight, for instance, voluntary or forced, the
prohibition from all functions, pronounced by the civil power,
rendered the holy ministry impossible, or that the pastor could not
exericise it, without declaring himself in open insurrection, the
pretended unremoveable rights then ceased with the sacred duties
which they could not discharge, without being accused of rebellion.
The dissentient bishops drew many priests into their party. Most of
them spread themselves over Europe, where they calumniated at their
ease the patriotic clergy. Those of their adherents who had remained
in the interior of this country, kindled a civil war, tormented
people's consciences, and disturbed the peace of families, &c. This
conduct, which engendered the horrible scenes in La Vendée, provoked
repressive measures, emanated from legislative authority.
Enemies without and within, say the constitutional clergy, wished to
create a disgust to liberty, by substituting to it licentiousness.
And, indeed, the partisans of the dissentient clergy were seen to
coalesce with the unbelievers, in order to produce the sacrilegious
disorders which broke out every where in the year 1793.
The clergy who had taken the oath had organized the dioceses; the
bishops, in general, had bestowed great pains in spreading in every
parish the word of the gospel; for they preached themselves, and this
was more than was done by their predecessors, who, engaged only in
spending, frequently in a shameful manner, immense revenues, seldom
or never visited their dioceses. The constitutional clergy followed a
plan more conformable to the gospel, which gained them the affection
of the well-disposed part of the nation.
These priests were of opinion that the storm which threatened
religion, required imperiously the immediate presence of the pastor,
and that, in the day of battle, it was necessary to be in person at
the breach. They were of opinion that the omission or impossibility
of fulfilling minute and empty formalities, imposed by a Concordat,
rejected from the beginning by all the public bodies and the church
of France, and annihilated at the moment by the will of the
representatives of the nation, sanctioned by royal authority, could
not exempt them from accepting holy functions presented by all the
constituted authorities, and on which evidently depended the
preservation of religion, the salvation of the faithful, and the
peace of the State.
But, when persecution manifested itself, the clergy who had taken the
oath, became equally the victims of persecuting rage. Some failed in
this conjuncture; but the greater number remained intrepid in their
principles. Accordingly several constitutional bishops and priests
were dragged to the scaffold. If, on the one hand, the dastardly
GOBEL was guillotined, the same fate attended the respectable
EXPILLY, bishop of Quimper, AMOURETTE, bishop of Lyons, and GOUTTES,
bishop of Autun, &c.
The dissentient clergy reproach some constitutional priests with
having married, and even with having apostatized; but they say not
that, among the dissentient, there are some who; have done the same.
If the number of the latter is smaller, it is because the greater
part of them were out of France; but what would they have done, if,
like the constitutional clergy, they had either had the axe suspended
over their head, or the guillotine accompanying all their steps?
In England, where the French priests were not thus exposed, there are
some who have likewise married, and even some who have apostatized.
It is well known that, amidst the terrors of impiety, GRÉGOIRE,
bishop of Blois, declared that he braved them, and remained attached
to his principles and duties, as a christian and bishop. He firmly
believed that, in doing so, he was pronouncing his sentence of death,
and, for eighteen months, he was in expectation of ascending the
scaffold. The same courage animated the majority of the
constitutional bishops and priests. They exercised secretly their
ministry, and consoled the faithful. As soon as the rage for
persecution began to abate, GRÉGOIRE and some other bishops, who had
kept up a private correspondence with the clergy of various dioceses
for the purpose of encouraging them, concerted together in order to
reorganize worship. In Nivôse year III (January 1795), GRÉGOIRE
demanded this liberty of worship of the National Convention. He was
very sure of meeting with outrages, and he experienced some; but to
speak in the tribune, was speaking to France and to all Europe, and,
in the then state of things, he was almost certain of staggering
public opinion, which would force the Convention to grant the free
exercise of religion. Accordingly, some time after having refused the
liberty of worship on the demand of GRÉGOIRE, that assembly granted
it, though with evident reluctance, on a Report of BOISSY D'ANGLAS,
which insulted every species of worship.
The constitutional bishops had already anticipated this moment by
their writings and their pastoral letters, &c. They then compiled two
works, entitled _Lettres Encycliques_, to which the bishops and
priests of the various dioceses adhered. The object of these works,
which are monuments of wisdom, piety, and courage, was to reorganize
public worship in all the dioceses, according to the principles of
the primitive church. They pronounced a formal exclusion from
ecclesiastical functions against all prevaricating priests or married
ones, as well as all those who had the cowardice to deliver up their
authority for preaching, and abdicate their functions. Some
interested persons thought this too severe. Those bishops persisted
in their decision, and, by way of answer, they reprinted a
translation of the celebrated treatise of St. Cyprian de Lapsis. On
all sides, they reanimated religions zeal, caused pastors for the
various sees to be elected by the people, and consecrated by the
metropolitan bishops. They held synods, the arts of which form a
valuable collection, equally honourable to their zeal and knowledge.
They did more.
For a long time past the custom of holding councils had fallen into
disuse. They convoked a national council, notwithstanding the
unfavourableness of a silent persecution; and, in spite of the penury
which afflicted the pastors, the latter had the courage to expose
themselves in order to concur in it. This council was opened with the
greatest solemnity on the 15th of August, 1797, the day of the
Assumption of the Virgin. It sat for three months. The canons and
decrees of this assembly, which have been translated into Italian and
German, have been printed in one volume.
This council was published in the different dioceses, and its
regulations were put into force. During this time, the government,
ever hostile to religion, had not abandoned the project of
persecuting and perhaps of destroying it. The voice of the public,
who called for this religion, and held in esteem the constitutional
clergy as religious and patriotic, checked, in some respects, the
hatred of the Directory and its agents. Then the spirit of
persecution took a circuitous way to gain its end: this was to cry
down religion and its ministers, to promote theophilanthropy, and
enforce the transferring of Sunday to the _décade_, or tenth day of
every republican month.
The bishops, assembled at Paris, again caused this project to
miscarry, and, in their name, GRÉGOIRE compiled two consultations
against the transferring of Sunday to the _décade_. The adhesion of
all the clergy was the fruit of his labour; but all this drew on him
numerous outrages, the indigence to which he was at that time
reduced, and multiplied threats of deportation. The functions which
he had discharged, and the esteem of the friends of religion, formed
around him a shelter of opinion that saved him from deportation, to
which were condemned so many unfortunate and virtuous constitutional
priests, who were crowded, with the refractory among others, into
vessels lying in the road of Rochefort.
GRÉGOIRE remonstrated against this grievance, and obtained an
alleviation for his brethren; but it is to be remarked that, in
giving an account of their enlargement, the dissentient priests have
taken good care not to mention to whom they were indebted for having
provoked in their behalf this act of humanity and justice.
The constitutional clergy continued their labours, struggling
incessantly against calumny and libels, either from their dissentient
brethren or from the agents of the directorial government. This
clergy convoked a second national council for the year 1801. It was
preceded by a vast number of synods, and by eight metropolitan
councils.
This second national council was opened at Paris on St. Peter's day
of the same year. Several decrees had already been carried, one of
which renewed, in the face of the whole church, the example of the
bishops of Africa, by a solemn invitation of the dissentients to
conferences for the grand affair which separated them from the
constitutional clergy. The different congregations were on the point
of presenting to the general meeting their labours on the dogma,
morality, and discipline. A report on the liturgy by GRÉGOIRE, bishop
of Blois and vice-president of the council; and a similar report on
the plan of education for ecclesiastics, occupied the members of this
assembly, when all at once the government manifested its wish to see
the council closed, on account of the Concordat which it had just
arranged with the Pope.
Notwithstanding this proceeding, which trenched on the rights of a
national church, the fathers of the council suspended their
remonstrances, in order not to afford any pretext to those who might
have wished to perpetuate religious troubles. Wherefore, after having
sat six weeks and pronounced the suspension of the national council,
&c. they separated quietly without quitting Paris.
Their presence was necessary for the execution of the decree of the
conferences. The eighteen members destined for that purpose by the
council, after having held several meetings, presented themselves at
the Cathedral of _Notre-Dame_, the place appointed and proclaimed by
the council throughout all the extent of France. For three successive
days, morning and evening, they there assembled. At the expiration of
that time, on seeing that the dissentient kept themselves concealed,
the members of the constitutional clergy took for witnesses of this
generous and open proceeding the vast body of people who had repaired
to _Notre-Dame_, and by two energetic and moving discourses,
delivered by BELMAY, bishop of Carcassonne, and GRÉGOIRE, bishop of
Blois, terminated the council after the accustomed prayers.
M. SPINA, archbishop of Corinth, charged by the court of Rome with
part of the affairs to be transacted with the First Consul, about the
middle of September, sent to the constitutional bishops a brief which
he announced to come from Pius VII, in order to induce them on the
part of the Pope to give up the episcopal sees they had occupied, and
return to unity. An invitation so insulting, received by all these
bishops, drew on M. SPINA energetic answers, which made the Pope and
himself sensible how wrong they were to accuse of intrusion and
schism bishops, whose canonical institution was conformable to that
of the bishops of the first twelve centuries, and who had always
professed the warmest love for catholic unity.
But as there was little good to be expected from M. SPINA, some
bishops made their complaints to the government in a spirited and
well-composed memorial, denouncing the Pope's brief as an attack on
the liberties of the Gallican church and the rights of the Republic.
This measure had its effect. The government passed a decree for
prohibiting the publication of the Rescripts of Rome, if they should
not be found conformable to the rules and usages observed in France.
During these transactions, the Cardinal Legate, CAPRARA, arrived in
Paris. The Concordat had just been signed. The constitutional
bishops, without remonstrating against it, no sooner learnt that the
government wished them to resign, than they hastened to do so, the
more willingly, as they had a thousand times made the promise
whenever the good of religion and of the country should require it. A
similar generosity was expected on the part of the emigrated bishops.
Have they been to blame in refusing? This question may, in a great
measure, depend on the arrangement of the Concordat, and the
imperious and menacing tone of the court of Rome which demanded of
them the resignation of their former sees.[1]
[Footnote 1: For the gratification of the reader is here annexed an
account of the Pope's conduct in regard to the constitutional clergy,
since the promulgation of the Concordat.
At length the nominations took place. A small number of those
appointed to the sixty new dioceses, were taken from the
constitutional clergy. The others were taken from the mass of the
refractory and those who had retracted, and the greater number formed
the most eloquent apology of the constitutional bishops. They all
received the institution from the Pope, who announced it with an air
of triumph to the college of Cardinals, in his collocution of the
24th of May, 1802. He had good reason to congratulate himself at this
epoch, the more so as he had been made to believe that the re-elected
constitutional clergy had made a retraction, and received penitence
and absolution. The author of this calumny was BERNIER, who had been
charged by the Cardinal Legate with a step so worthy of his former
military exploits. It was solemnly contradicted. After the decree of
absolution which BERNIER had ventured to present to these bishops was
thrown with indignation into the fire of PORTALIS, the counsellor of
state charged by the government with religious affairs, who was
witness to the transaction. Indeed, he had in this encouraged the
bishops to imitate his own example in getting rid, by the same means,
of a brief which the Legate had transmitted to him in order to
absolve him from the guilt he might have incurred by taking part in
the revolution.
The government wished to pacify religious troubles; but the majority
of the dissentient bishops began to foment new disputes, by requiring
retractations from the constitutional clergy, who, for the most part,
have stood firm amidst privations of every description. However, the
mischief made not the progress which there was every reason to
apprehend: the government pronounced its opinion thereon by
prohibiting bishops from requiring any thing more than submission to
the Concordat, and obedience to the new bishops. Notwithstanding the
wise intentions of the government, sincerely desirous of peace and
concord, it is only in the dioceses fallen to the constitutional
bishops that a good understanding prevails. Most of the disentient
clergy continue to promote discord, and torment their constitutional
brethren. BOISCHOLLET, bishop of Séez, MONTAULT, bishop of Angers,
and some others, have been sent for to Paris, in order to be
reprimanded and cautioned to behave better.
It is proper to mention the documents which Cardinal CAPRARA has
distributed to all the bishops. They form a collection of thirteen
papers, which might not improperly be called an analysis of the
decretals of Isidorus. On these, no doubt, good canonists will debate
at some future day, in order to shame the court of Rome, by pointing
out its absurdities and blunders; and certainly the respect which
catholics owe to the Holy See ought not to prevent then from
resisting the pretensions of the Pope.]