the number of French ecclesiastics previous to the Revolution. Le Bas
(Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de l’Histoire de France, V. 218) gives
a table, showing an aggregate of 418,206 souls, of whom 235,147 may
be considered as attached to the secular service, and 183,059 to the
regular orders and canons. Of these latter, 100,451 were men and
82,608 were women. On the other hand, M. Sauvestre (Congrégations
Religieuses, pp. 5, 6) quotes from the Abbé Expilly a statement that in
1765 there were 79,000 monks and 80,000 nuns; while he shows that other
contemporary authorities reduce the number of members of religious
orders in 1789 to 52,000 of both sexes. M. Charles Chabot (Encyclopédie
Monastique, p. x., Paris, 1827) computes, after elaborate tabulation,
the number of ecclesiastics, regular and secular, at 407,753 persons,
enjoying a revenue of 127,610,576 francs.
[1571] Lett. Encyc. 15 Mars, 1795, art. IX. (Grégoire, p. 109).
[1572] This speech of Portalis _père_ is an admirable commentary on the
Concordat, developing its causes and consequences with a rigidity of
logic and an enlightened spirit of faith which are equally creditable
to the head and heart of the distinguished orator. From the portion
devoted to the subject of marriage, I quote the following, as embodying
a clear exposition of the intentions of those who negotiated the
Concordat.
“Quelques personnes se plaindront peut-être de ce que l’on n’a
pas conservé le mariage des prêtres.... En effet, d’une part nous
n’admettons plus que les ministres dont l’existence est nécessaire à
l’exercice du culte, ce qui diminue considérablement le nombre des
personnes qui se vouaient anciennement au célibat. D’autre part,
pour les ministres mêmes que nous conservons, et à qui le célibat
est ordonné par les réglements ecclésiastiques, la défense qui leur
est faite du mariage par ces réglements n’est point consacrée comme
_empêchement dirimant_ dans l’ordre civil: ainsi leur mariage, s’ils
en contractaient un, ne serait point nul aux yeux des lois politiques
et civiles, et les enfans qui en naîtraient seraient légitimes; mais
dans le for intérieur et dans l’ordre religieux, ils s’exposeraient
aux peines spirituelles prononcées par les lois canoniques: ils
continueraient à jouir de leurs droits de famille et de cité, mais ils
seraient tenus de s’abstenir de l’exercice du sacerdoce. Conséquemment,
sans affaiblir le nerf de la discipline de l’église, on conserve aux
individus toute la liberté et tous les avantages garantis par les lois
de l’état; mais il eût été injuste d’aller plus loin, et d’exiger
pour les ecclésiastiques de France, comme tels, une exception qui les
eût déconsidérés auprès de tous les peuples Catholiques, et auprès
des Français mêmes, auxquels ils administreraient les secours de la
religion” (Dupin, Manuel du Droit Public Ecclés. Français, 4ème éd. pp.
196-8).
[1573] Code Civil, Liv. I. Tit. v.
[1574] In an address to the Council of State, Dec. 20th, 1813, Napoleon
said, “Le sacerdoce est une sorte de mariage; le prêtre étant uni à
l’église comme l’époux à son épouse, il n’y aurait aucun inconvénient
à appliquer au prêtre qui se marierait la peine de la bigamie: un tel
ecclésiastique ne mérite aucun sorte de considération”—Bouhier de
l’Écluse, de l’État des Prêtres en France, Paris, 1842, p. 17.—Chavard
(Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 409-10) quotes Dean Stanley as asserting,
on the authority of the elder Duc de Broglie, that Pius VIII.
spontaneously offered to Napoleon to permit sacerdotal marriage, but
that the Emperor declined the proposal. I cannot but think, however,
that there must be some mistake in this statement.
[1575] For many of the above details I am indebted to the curious but
ill-digested little work—“Histoire du Mariage des Prêtres en France,”
published by Grégoire in 1826. Grégoire, though a priest of the _ancien
régime_, was a sincere and consistent republican. A member of the
States General, of the Convention, and of the Council of Five Hundred,
elected Bishop of Blois by the voice of a people who knew and respected
him, he preserved his ardent faith through all the excesses of the
Revolution, and his democratic ideas in spite of the injuries inflicted
on his class in the name of the people. The sincerity and boldness of
his character may be estimated by a single example. When, on the 7th of
November, 1793, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, appeared before the Convention
with twelve of his vicars and publicly renounced his sacred functions
on the ground that hereafter there should be no other worship than that
of liberty and equality, almost all the ecclesiastics in the Convention
followed his example. To hold back at such a moment was dangerous in
the extreme, yet Grégoire had the hardihood to utter a defiant protest.
“I am a Catholic by conviction and by feeling, a priest by choice, a
bishop by the voice of the people, but not from the people nor from you
do I derive my mission, and I will not be forced to an abjuration.”
To him perhaps more than to any one else is attributable the skilful
management which carried the church through the storms and persecutions
of the Revolution, but the same inflexibility which maintained his
Catholicism through the ordeal of 1793 and 1794 caused him to stand by
his republicanism long after it had gone out of fashion. He was not
to be bought or bullied; the Legitimist was less tolerant than the
Terrorist, and under the Restoration he was reduced almost to absolute
indigence. Together with the other constitutional bishops, he had
been compelled to resign his bishopric by order of the pope after the
Concordat of 1801, and he was too dangerous a man to be rewarded for
his invaluable services to religion. He died in 1831.
[1576] Grégoire, op. cit. p. 102.
[1577] Bouhier de l’Écluse, op. cit. It was apparently this case
which led to the publication, under date of Monaco, 1829, of the
“Considerazioni imparziali sopra la legge del Celibato Ecclesiastico,
proposte dal Professore C. A. P.”—a tolerably well written summary of
the arguments against the rule.
[1578] Talmadge’s Letters from Florence, p. 166.
[1579] Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 525-30.
[1580] J. M. Cayla, Les Curés mariés par le Concile, Paris, 1869.
[1581] Encyc. Mirari vos.
[1582] Encyc. Qui pluribus.
[1583] Litt. Apostol. Multiplices inter.
[1584] Panzini, pp. 16, 58, 102, 143, 201, 401.
[1585] Ibid. p. 123.
[1586] Naples was, perhaps, the first kingdom in Europe to promulgate
a civil marriage law, and to withdraw matrimonial cases from
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This was one of the reforms of the
minority of Ferdinand IV. about the year 1760. See Colletti’s History
of Naples, Horner’s Translation, I. 107.
[1587] Conc. Vatican. ann. 1870 Const. Dogmat. I. cap. iv. I use
Cardinal Manning’s version.
[1588] Castillo y Mayone, II. 247, 254.—Panzini, pp. 358-63.—Alloc.
Acerbissimum, 27 Sept. 1852.—Encyc. Incredibili afflictamur, 17 Sept.
1863.—Chavard, op. cit. p. 263.
[1589] Panzini, pp. 596-7.
[1590] Esaminatore, Firenze 15 Dic. 1867, p. 396.
[1591] Encyc. Neminem latet, 19 Mar. 1857.—Panzini, pp. 535-6.
[1592] Panzini, p. 123. An example of this is to be seen in the case of
Saurin vs. Starr and Kennedy, which excited so much interest in England
in 1869 by its curious revelations of the petty tyrannies and sordid
miseries which sometimes at least form a feature of conventual life.
[1593] Yet, to meet the spiritual wants of all classes, there are still
congregations which practise the most severe ascetic austerities. Thus,
in 1883, a description of the Barefooted Clares in Paris shows that,
out of eighteen members, but four are more than twenty-two years of
age, the severity of discipline causing nearly all who enter to die
young. No fire is allowed, even that in the kitchen being arranged to
prevent access; sleep is only had on a narrow board, meat is only eaten
on Christmas Day, and silence is enforced until some of the nuns lose
the power of forming connected sentences.
[1594] The _Pères de la Foi_, also known as _Adorateurs de Jésus_ and
_Paccanaristes_, were Jesuits in disguise; the _Société des Victimes
de l’Amour de Dieu_ were Quietists. For the Report of M. Portalis,
recommending their suppression, see Dutilleul, Hist. des Corporations
Religieuses en France, Paris, 1846, pp. 411 sqq. For an exceedingly
interesting sketch of modern French monachism, see also Ch. Sauvestre’s
“Les Congrégations Religieuses” (Paris, 1867)—a work to which I desire
to acknowledge my indebtedness for much that follows.
[1595] Décret du 18 Fév. 1809 Sect. II. Art. 8 (Dupin, Droit Ecclés. p.
295). This regulation, I believe, is still in force, and the members
of these bodies are accustomed to renew their engagements every five
years. From the position taken by Bishop Fabre, of Montreal, in April,
1883, in the case of a young woman who desired to leave her convent, I
presume that the same regulation is in force in the Dominion of Canada.
[1596] For details, see Dupin, op. cit. pp. 285-298.
[1597] Chabot, Encyclopédie Monastique, p. xi. (Paris, 1827).
[1598] N. Y. Nation, May 29th, 1879. It is to the Paris correspondence
of this journal that I am indebted for most of the details respecting
the recent struggle between the religious orders and the state.
[1599] “Règle 91.—Qu’il ne laisse entrevoir aucune opinion, soit
politique, soit théologique ou religieuse, contraire aux opinions du
saint-siége.”—Sauvestre, op. cit. 215.
[1600] Le Pape et la Société Moderne, Paris, 1879, pp. 416-437.
[1601] Sauvestre, op. cit. pp. 123-4.
[1602] N. Y. Nation, April 21st, 1881.
[1603] Noli metuere ne omnes virgines fiant; difficilis res est
virginitas, et ideo rara quia difficilis. Incipere plurimorum est,
perseverare paucorum.—Hieron. adv. Jovin. I. 36.
[1604] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIV. De Sacrament. Matrim. c. ix.
[1605] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXIII. De Reform. c. xii. The Abbé
Chavard relates (Le Célibat des Prêtres, p. 269) that he once asked
the directors of a seminary whether the age for assuming the burdens
of the priesthood ought not to be postponed to the fortieth year, and
he was told that the church must have priests and that there were few
indeed who would submit to its conditions after the age of illusions
was passed.
[1606] Souvenirs d’Enfance et de Jeunesse, Paris, 1883, p. 139.
“Le fait est que ce qu’on dit des mœurs cléricales est, selon mon
expérience, dénué de tout fondement. J’ai passé treize ans de ma vie
entre les mains des prêtres, je n’ai pas vu l’ombre d’un scandale; je
n’ai connu que de bons prêtres. La confession peut avoir, dans certains
pays, de graves inconvénients. Je n’en ai pas vu une trace dans mon
jeunesse ecclésiastique.”
[1607] Concil. Trident. Sess. XXV. De Reform. cap. xiv.
[1608] Convent. Episcc. Mediolanenss. ann. 1849 Sess. III. No. 18
(Collect. Lacens. VI. 717).—Concil. Roman. ann. 1725 Tit. XVI. c. iii.
(Ib. I. 372).
[1609] For the varying legislation on this subject the reader may refer
to C. Beneventan. ann. 1693 Tit. XVIII. c. iii. (Collect. Lacens.
I. 44).—Synod. Bahiens. ann. 1707 Lib. III. (I. 854).—C. Tarracon.
ann. 1717 c. XXXI. (I. 779).—C. Avenionens. ann. 1725 Tit. XXXVII.
c. iii. (I. 554).—Synod. Firmanens. ann. 1726 Tit. IX. (I. 599).—C.
Ebredunens. ann. 1727 c. v. No. 5 (I. 626).—Synod. Nat. Hungar. ann.
1822 De Discip. renov. 3 (V. 940).—C. Baltimor. IV. ann. 1840 Decr. X.
(III. 72).—Conv. Episcc. Mediolan. ann. 1849 Sess. III. No. 18 (VI.
717).—C. Turon. ann. 1849 Decr. XI. i. (IV. 268-9).—C. Avenionens.
ann. 1849 Tit. VI. c. v. No. 16 (IV. 348).—C. Remens. ann. 1849 Tit.
XII. c. ii. (IV. 129).—C. Albiens. ann. 1850 Tit. I. Decr. v. No. 1
(IV. 411).—C. Burdigal. ann. 1850 T. IV. c. xii. No. 3 (IV. 588).—C.
Bituricens. ann. 1850 Tit. VI. (IV. 1122).—C. Tolosan. ann. 1850 Tit.
IV. c. iv. No. 126 (IV. 1069).—C. Senonens. ann. 1850 Tit. IV. c. iv.
(IV. 904).—C. Aquens. ann. 1850 Tit. V. § 2. c. ix. No. 1 (IV. 985).—C.
Rothomag. ann. 1850 Decr. XI. No. 3-5 (IV. 525).—C. Lugdunens. ann.
1850 Decr. XVIII. No. 1-3 (IV. 475).—Synod. Thurlesiens. ann. 1850
Decr. XVII. No. 14 (III. 785).—Conv. Epp. Lauretan. ann. 1850 Sect. I.
v. (VI. 778).—Conv. Epp. Siciliæ Tit. II. c. i. No. 9 (VI. 815).—C.
Auscitan. ann. 1851 Tit. IV. c. i. No. 147 (IV. 1200).—C. Quebecens.
I. ann. 1851 Decr. XIV. (III. 615).—C. Westmonasteriens. I. ann. 1852
Decr. XXIV. No. 4 (III. 939).—C. Quebecens. II. ann. 1854 Decr. XIV.
No. 20 (III. 652).—C. Armacens. ann. 1854 Decr. XXIII. (III. 852).—C.
Portus Hispaniæ ann. 1854 Sect. II. No. 5 (III. 1100-1).—C. Ravennat.
ann. 1855 P. IV. c. iv. No. 3 (VI. 198).—C. Seti. Ludovici II. ann.
1858 Decr. VII. (III. 318).—C. Viennens. ann. 1858 Tit. V. c. vi. (V.
197).—C. Strigonens. ann. 1858 Tit. VI. No. 9 (V. 53).—C. Venetic. ann.
1859 P. II. c. xvii. No. 10-11 (VI. 317).—C. Urbinatens. ann. 1859 P.
II. Tit. vii. No. 148 (VI. 51).—C. Pragens. ann. 1860 Tit. I. c. vi.
No. 1 (V. 426).—C. Coloniens. ann. 1860 Tit. II. c. xxxiv., xxxviii.
(V. 378-80).—C. Cincinnatiens. III. ann. 1861 Decr. IX. (III. 226).—C.
Coloniens. ann. 1863 Tit. IV. c. iv. (V. 670).—C. Quitens. ann. 1869
Decr. IV. No. 2 (VI. 403).—C. Ultrajectens. ann 1865 Tit. VIII. c. iv.
(V. 905).—C. Pl. Baltimor. II. ann. 1866 Tit. III. c. vi. No. 164 (III.
446).—C. Halifaxiens. ann. 1868 Decr. XVIII. (III. 751).
[1610] De Sacerdotum Cœlibatu Doctrina Varsoviæ, 1801 pp. 62-3.
[1611] See previous note for warnings of this kind. The council of
Ausch, in 1851, even ventures to allude to the grave inconveniences
which may arise from the residence of a sister or aunt, if young, and
if there is not also the mother or a female servant in the house.
[1612] Helsen, Avis à l’Archevêque de Malines, Monseigneur Sterckx, sur
les abus du Célibat des Prêtres, 4to. Bruxelles, 1833.
[1613] Helsen, pp. 19-20.
[1614] Ibid. pp. 74-5.
[1615] Helsen, pp. 13, 16, 18, 100.
[1616] The comparative strength of the ecclesiastical militia is an
important element in considering the condition of the church and its
influence on the laity. I have already quoted statistics with regard to
France, Belgium, and Austria, and will here append those for some of
the other states and cities of Europe as given by Prof. von Schulte in
his work on the Newer Catholic Orders (N. Y. Nation, Aug. 1st, 1872, p.
75).
Prussia, one ecclesiastic for every 584 Catholics, of all ages.
Bavaria, one for every 300 Catholics.
Germany at large, one for every 481.
Aix-la-Chapelle, one for every 110.
Cologne, one for every 313.
Münster, one for every 61.
Trèves, one for every 56.
Paderborn, one for every 33.
In the old Kingdom of Naples, by the census of 1842, there were 55,167
ecclesiastics in a population of 6,145,492, making a proportion of one
to 112 (Penka, Uberior Cœlibatus Sacerdotalis Expositio, Cracoviæ,
1846).
[1617] In Italia libido non est probrosa.—P. Dens Theolog. No. 100 de
jure et justitia. (ap. Helsen, p. 10). Dens died in 1775.
[1618] L’Esaminatore, Firenze, 15 Settemb. 1867.
[1619] Prota, Matrimonio Civile, Napoli, 1864, p. 44.
[1620] L’Esaminatore, 15 Oct. 1867.
[1621] Panzini, Pubblica Confessione, pp. 101, 357.
[1622] Report to the Italian Committee of the American Episcopal Church
(The Episcopalian, Phila., Sept. 11th, 1867).
[1623] C. Baltimor. I. ann. 1829 Decr. XXV. (Collect. Lacens. III.
30-1).—C. Baltimor. V. ann. 1843 Decr. IX. (III. 90).—C. Australiens.
I. ann. 1844 Decr. XII. (III. 1051).—C. Thurlesens. ann. 1850 Decr.
XII. 41 (III. 782).—C. Rothomagens. ann. 1850 Decr. XVII. 3 (IV.
530).—C. Tolosan. ann. 1850 Tit. III. c. i. No. 70 (IV. 1054).—C.
Casseliens. ann. 1853 Tit. III. (III. 837).—C. Tuamens. ann. 1854 Decr.
VIII. (III. 860).—C. Quebecens. II. ann. 1854 Decr. IX. § 7 (III.
639).—C. Port. Hispaniæ ann. 1854 Art. IV. No. 1, 2 (III. 1098).—C.
Halifaxiens. I. ann. 1857 Decr. XIV. (III. 745).—C. Viennens. ann. 1858
Tit. III. c. vii. (V. 169).—C. Coloniens. ann. 1860 Tit. II. c. XV. (V.
351).—C. Pragens. ann. 1860 Tit. IV. c. vii.; Tit. V. c. viii. (V. 508,
543).—Synod. Ultraject. ann. 1865 Tit. IV. c. viii. (V. 830).—C. Plen.
Baltimor. II. ann. 1866 App. X. (III. 553).
[1624] Helsen, Abus du Celibat, p. 85.
[1625] C. Tuamens. ann. 1817 Decr. XVII. (Collect. Lacens. III.
765).—C. Australiens. I. ann. 1844 Decr. XII. (III. 1052-3).—C. Remens.
ann. 1857 c. VI. No. 27 (IV. 211).
[1626] Instruct. S. Inquisit. Roman. Feb. 20, 1867, No. 7, 11-14
(Collect. Lacens. III. 553-6).
[1627] For an extract from a modern manual of the confessional “de
agendi ratione confessarii erga conjugatos et conjugendos,” see Bouvet,
De la Confession et du Célibat des Prêtres, Paris, 1845, pp. 290-6. It
will be remembered what excitement was aroused in the British House of
Commons a few years since, when a member produced and read a very much
less objectionable form prepared for use by “Anglican priests.”
[1628] Bouvet, p. 516.
[1629] Lasteyrie, Hist. of Auricular Confession, II. 38-45.
[1630] Wahu, op. cit. p. 423.
[1631] Sauvestre, op. cit. p. 144. It is by this policy that the church
renders itself responsible for the evil committed by its members. No
human organization is without its share of the weak or vicious, and
there is no lack of scandals in the Protestant denominations; but in
these there is a wholesome jealousy which usually seeks at once to cast
out and punish the offender. Thus, when, in July, 1867, the Rev. Mr.
Wendt, at an orphan institution near Philadelphia, was discovered to be
tampering with the virtue of the children under his charge, those who
were most nearly connected with the management of the asylum were the
first to take steps for his prosecution, and, as soon as the necessary
legal proceedings could be had, he was undergoing a sentence of fifteen
years’ solitary confinement, without a voice being raised in palliation
of his crime.
[1632] Op. cit. pp. 138-44.
[1633] One result of this is that there is a large number of priests,
summarily deprived by their bishops of the ministry, who seek the great
cities to hide their poverty or find some miserable means of support.
As all requests for dispensation to marry are refused, they mostly
live in concubinage and their offspring go to swell the ranks of the
dangerous classes. See Chavard, Le Célibat des Prêtres, pp. 542-48.
[1634] Wahu, op. cit. pp. 154-55.
[1635] Syllab. Dec. 1864 No. xix., xlii., liv., lv.
[1636] Clement. PP. VIII. Instruct. super aliquibus ritibus Græcorum,
A. D. 1595, § V. No. 27.—Benedict. PP. XIV. Bull. Etsi Pastoralis, A.D.
1742, § VII. No. 16, 27, 28 (Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 449, 517).