MR. DESAULNIER IS NAMED VICAR GENERAL OF CHICAGO TO CRUSH US—OUR PEOPLE
MORE UNITED THAN EVER TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS—LETTERS OF THE PEOPLE OF
CHICAGO TO THE BISHOPS AND TO THE POPE—LETTERS OF THE BISHOP OF
MONTREAL AGAINST ME, AND MY ANSWER—MR. BRASSARD FORCED, AGAINST HIS
CONSCIENCE, TO CONDEMN US—MY ANSWER TO MR. BRASSARD—HE WRITES TO BEG
MY PARDON.
It was evident that the betrayal of Mr. Desaulnier would be followed by
new efforts on the part of the bishop to crush us. Two new priests were
sent from Canada, Mr. Mailloux, vicar general, and Mr. Campo, to
strengthen his hands, and press the people to submit. Mr. Brassard wrote
me from Canada in December:
“All the bishops are preparing to hurl their thunders against you, and
your people, on account of your heroic resistance to the tyranny of the
bishop of Chicago.
“I have told them the truth, but they don’t want to know it. My lord
Bourget told me positively, that you must be forced, at any cost, to
yield to the authority of your bishop; and he has threatened to
excommunicate me, if I tell the people what I know of the shameful
conduct of Desaulnier. If I were alone I would not mind his
excommunication, and would speak the truth, but such a sentence against
me would kill my poor old mother. I hope you will not find fault with
me, if I remain absolutely mute. I pray you to consider this letter
confidential. You know very well the trouble you would put me into, by
its publication.”
The French Canadians of Chicago saw, at once, that their bishop,
strengthened by the support of Desaulnier, would be more than ever,
obstinate in his determination to crush them. They thought that the best
way to force him to do them justice, was to publish a manifesto of their
grievances against him, and make a public appeal to all the Bishops of
the United States and even to the Pope.
On the 22nd of January, 1857, _The Chicago Tribune_ was requested by
them to publish the following document:
At a public meeting of the French and Canadian Catholics of Chicago held
in the hall of Mr. Bodicar, on the 22nd of January, 1857, Mr. Rofinot
being called to preside, and Mr. Franchere,[G] acting as a Secretary,
the following addresses and resolutions, being read, have been
unanimously approved:
-----
Footnote G:
These two gentlemen are still living in Chicago, 1886.
-----
“EDITORS OF THE TRIBUNE:—Will you allow a thousand voices from the dead
to speak to the public, through your valuable paper.
“Everybody in Chicago knows, that a few years ago, there was a
flourishing congregation of French people coming from France and Canada
in this city. They had their priest, their church, their religious
meeting. All that is now dispersed and destroyed. The present Bishop of
Chicago has breathed his deadly breath upon us. Instead of coming to us
as a father, he came as a savage enemy: instead of helping us as a
friend, he has put us down as a revengeful foe. He has done the very
contrary to which was commanded him by the gospel. ‘The bruised reed he
shall not break, and the smoking flash he shall not extinguish.’ Instead
of guiding us with the cross of the meek Jesus, he has ruled over us
with an iron rod.
“Every Sunday, the warm-hearted and generous Irish go to their church to
hear the voice of their priest, in their English language. The
intelligent Germans have their pastors to address them in their mother
tongue.
“The French people are the only ones now who have no priest and no
church. They are the only ones whose beautiful language is prohibited,
and which is not heard from any pulpit in Chicago. And is it from lack
of zeal and liberality? Ah! no, we take the whole city of Chicago as a
witness of what we have done. There was not in Chicago a better-looking
little church than the French Canadian Church called St. Louis. But,
alas! we have been turned out of it by our very bishop. As he is now
publishing many stories to contradict that fact, we owe to ourselves and
to our children to raise from the tomb, where Bishop O’Regan has buried
us, a voice to tell the truth.
“As soon as Bishop O’Regan came to Chicago, he was told that the French
priest was too popular, that his church was attended not only by his
French Canadian people, but that many Irish and Germans were going daily
to him, for their religious duties. It was whispered in the ears of his
Rt. Reverence, that on account of this, many dollars and cents were
going to the French priest, which would be better stored in his Rt.
Reverence’s purse.
“Till that time, the bishop was not, in appearance, taking much trouble
about us. But as soon as he saw that there were dollars and cents at
stake, we had the honor to occupy his thoughts day and night. Here are
the facts, the undeniable public facts. He (the bishop) began by sending
for our priest, and telling him that he had to prepare himself to be
removed from Chicago to some other place. As soon as we knew that
determination, a deputation was sent to his Rt. Reverence, to get the
promise that we would get another French priest, and we received from
him the assurance that our just request would be granted. But the next
Sunday, an Irish priest, having been sent to officiate, instead of a
French one, we sent a deputation to ask him where the French priest was
that he had promised us? He answered: ‘That we ought to take any priest
we could get, and be satisfied.’ This short and sharp answer raised our
French blood, and we began speaking more boldly to his Reverence, who
got up and walked through the room, in a rage, saying some half dozen
times: ‘You insult me!’ But seeing that we were a fearless people, and
determined to have no other priest but one whom we could understand, he,
at last promised us again, a French priest, if we were ready to pay the
debt of our church and priest-house. We said we would pay them, but, our
verbal promise was nothing to his Reverence. He immediately wrote an
agreement, though it was Sunday, and we signed it. But to attain, sooner
or later, his object, he imposed upon that unfortunate priest, a
condition that he knew no Christian could obey.
“This condition was that he should not receive, in his church, any one
but the French. This was utterly impossible, as many Irish, Germans and
American Catholics had been in the habit, for years past, of coming to
our church; it was impossible to turn them out at once.
“We did everything in our power to help our priest in the matter, by
taking all the seats in the church against the will of the respectable
people of the different nations who had occupied them for years. Finding
themselves turned out of the church, and unable to conceive the reason
of so gross an insult from a fellow-Christian people, they said to us:
‘Have we not paid for our seats in your church till this day? Double the
rent if you like; we are ready to pay for it; but, for God’s sake permit
us to come and pray with you at the foot of the same altars.’
“We explained to them the tyrannical orders of the bishop, and they,
too, commenced cursing the bishop and the ship that brought him over.
“They continued, however, to come to our church, though they had no
seat. They attended divine service in the aisles of the church, and we
did not like to disturb them; but our feelings were too Christian for
the bishop. He kept a watch over our priest, and, of course found out
that he was receiving many who were forbidden, by him, to attend our
religious meetings.
“The bishop, then, thought once more of his dear French priest; so he
came in person to his house, and asked him if he had kept his orders.
The priest answered, that it was quite impossible to obey such orders,
and remain a Christian. He acknowledged that, in many instances, he had
been obliged, by the laws of charity, to give religious help to some who
were not French people.
“‘Well then,’ answered the bishop, ‘from this very moment; I silence
you, and I forbid you the functions of priest in my diocese.’
“The poor trembling priest, thunderstruck, could not say a word.
“He went to some friends to relate what had just happened him; and he
was advised by them to go back to the bishop immediately to beg the
privilege of remaining at the head of his congregation till Lent was
over. The bishop said:
“‘I will consent to your request, if you pay me one hundred dollars.’
“‘I will give you the sum as soon as I can collect it, and will give you
my note for thirty days,’ answered the priest.
“‘I want the money cash down,’ said the bishop; ‘go to some of your
friends; you can easily collect that amount.’
“The poor priest went away in search of the almighty dollars; but he
could not find them as soon as he wished, and did not return to his
lordship, that day. The bishop started that night for St. Louis, but he
did not forget his dear French people in his long journey. As soon as he
arrived in St. Louis, he wrote to his grand vicar, Rev. Mr. Dunn, that
the French priest pay him $100 or remain suspended.
“This goodwill of the bishop for our spiritual welfare, and his paternal
love for our purses, did not fail to strike us. Our priest made a new
effort that very day; he went to see an old friend who had been absent
from town for some time, and related to him his sad position. This old
friend (P. F. Rofinot) seeing that he could redeem a priest for so
little a sum, (for the priest had collected part of it himself)
immediately proceeded with the priest to the house of very Reverend
Dunn, with the money in hand to satisfy the bishop.
“But alas! that bargain did not last very long; for as soon as the
bishop returned, the watch that he had left behind him performed his
duty well and told him that the French priest was going on as before. So
the poor priest had to go again to the bishop to explain his conduct.
But this time he could not bear the idea of officiating any longer under
such a tyrant. He left us to fight the hardest battles ourselves,
against the bishop.
“As the church and the house of our priest were on leased grounds, the
lease had to be renewed or the buildings removed. We went to the bishop,
who advised us to buy a lot and remove the church on it, and sell the
house to help pay for the lot. Suspecting nothing wrong in that advice,
we followed it. We bargained for a lot, agreed to sell the house and
went to report our progress.
“But we were going too fast. The bishop must stop us, or he would be
frustrated in his calculations, for he had a lot himself, to put the
church on, he opposed our removing our church, by telling us that there
was another lot adjoining the one we had bargained for; and that we must
buy it also. We went immediately and bought the lot on ninety days time.
But he objected to this again, saying that he would not allow us to
touch the church, unless we had the whole lot paid for, and put the deed
in his hands, and that the deed should be made to himself personally.
“This had the effect desired by the bishop. We had collected all the
money that could be collected then, in our small congregation; it was
impossible for us to do any more, so we concluded to give up the battle.
The bishop then, went on, took the money we had sold the house for
($1,200). A Catholic lady, whose husband had bought the house, had
subscribed one hundred dollars for removing the church, providing the
bishop would promise that it would remain in the hands of the French,
and attended by a French priest. The bishop proffered again to that lady
the lie, which he had so often uttered to us, everywhere, even from the
altar, that upon his word of bishop, it should remain a French Church,
and that they should have a French priest. (This we should call lie
number one). He then moved the church to another lot of his own, sent an
Irish priest to officiate in it, put the money in his pocket, and made
the congregation which is now Irish, pay for the lot, the moving and
repairing of the church, and he takes quarterly the revenues which are
no less than $2,000 a year.
““This is the way we have been swindled out of our church, of the house
of our priest, and of our all, by the tyrant, Bishop O’Regan: and when a
French priest visits our city, he forbids him to address us in our
mother tongue. This is the way we, French Catholics, as a society, have
been blotted out of the book of the living!
“And when Rev. Father Chiniquy has publicly accused Bishop O’Regan of
having deprived us most unjustly of our church, he has proffered a truth
which has as many witnesses as there are Catholics and Protestants in
Chicago.
“We know well that Bishop O’Regan is proclaiming that he has not
deprived us of our church, that if it is in the hands of the Irish, it
is because the Irish and not the French built it. ‘This is lie number
two, which can be proven by more than a thousand witnesses.’
“We would like to know if he has forgotten the agreement (mentioned
above) which he made us sign in bargaining for a French priest. He has
the receipts for every cent that was due up to the time he took
possession of our church. He then proffered these words to the French
gentlemen who brought him the receipts: ‘It takes the French to collect
money quick these hard times,’ (being in the winter).
“We must also add that we, French people, have paid for the very
vestments that the bishop uses in his Cathedral, which he has taken from
our church. But he uses them only on some high feasts, thinking too much
of stolen property, to use them on a common day.
“Will it be out of place, here, to say that the cathedral of Chicago was
built by the French, and that the lot which it is built on was given by
a Frenchman? It is very reluctantly that we expose all these facts
before the eyes of the public; but having waited patiently, during two
long years, and having used all the influence we could command in France
and Canada, to no purpose, we must resort to the sympathy of the public
for justice, through the free press of the United States.
“RESOLUTIONS.
“_Resolved_, 1st. That the Right Rev. O’Regan, Bishop of Chicago, has
entirely lost the confidence of the French and Canadian population of
Chicago since he has taken away from us our church.
“_Resolved_, 2nd. That the Right Rev. O’Regan has published a base
slander against the French and Canadian population of Chicago, when he
said he took our church from our hands on the pretence that we could not
pay for it.
“_Resolved_, 3rd. That the Right Rev. O’Regan, having said to our
deputies, who went to inquire from him by what right he was taking our
church from us to give it to another congregation: ‘I have the right to
do what I like with your church, and your church properties; I can sell
them and put the money in my pocket, and go where I please with it,’ has
assumed a power too tyrannical to be obeyed by a Christian and a free
people.
“_Resolved_, 4th. That the nature of the different suits which the Right
Rev. O’Regan has had before the civil courts of this state, and which he
has almost invariably lost, have proved to the whole people of Illinois
that he is quite unworthy of the position he holds in the Catholic
Church.
“_Resolved_, 5th. That the Right Rev. O’Regan is here publicly accused
of being guilty of simony for having extorted $100 from a priest to give
him permission to officiate and administer the sacraments among us.
“_Resolved_, 6th. That the Right Rev. O’Regan, in forbidding the Irish
and German Catholics to communicate with the French Catholic Church, and
allowing the French and Canadians to communicate with the Irish and
German Churches, has acted with a view to deprive the French Church of
religious fees and other donations, which acts we consider unjust and
against the spirit of the church, and more resembling a mercantile
transaction than a Christian work.
“_Resolved_, 7th. That the French and Canadian people of Illinois have
seen with feelings of grief and surprise that the Rev. Mr. Desaulnier
has made himself the humble valet of the merciless and shameless
persecutor of his countrymen.
“_Resolved_, 8th. That the Rev. Mr. Chiniquy, pastor of St. Anne,
deserves the gratitude of every Catholic of Illinois, for having the
first, put a stop to the rapacious tyranny of the bishop of Chicago.
“_Resolved_, 9th. That the French Catholics of Chicago are determined to
give all support in their power to the Rev. Mr. Chiniquy, in his
struggle against the bishop of Chicago.
“_Resolved_, 10th. That a printed copy of these resolutions be sent to
every bishop and archbishop of the United States and Canada, that they
may see the necessity of giving to the church of Illinois a bishop more
worthy of that high position.
“_Resolved_, 11th. That a copy of these resolutions be sent to His
Holiness Pius IX., that he may be incited to make inquiries about the
humiliated position of the church in Illinois, since the present bishop
is among us.
“_Resolved_, 12th. That the independence and liberty loving press of the
United States be requested to publish the above address and resolutions
all over the country.
“P. F. ROFINOT, President.
“DAVID FRANCHERE,
Secretary.”
That cry of more than two thousand Roman Catholics of Chicago, which was
reproduced by almost the whole press of Illinois, and the United States,
fell as a thunderbolt upon the head of my lord O’Regan and Desaulnier.
They wrote to all bishops of America, to hasten to their rescue, and for
several months the pulpits of the Roman Catholic Churches had no other
mission than to repeat the echoes of the Episcopal fulminations hurled
against my devoted head. Many bishop’s letters and mandements were
published, denouncing me and my people as infamous schismatics, whose
pride and obstinancy were troubling the peace of the church. But the
most bitter of all these, was a letter from my lord Bourget, bishop of
Montreal, who thought the best, if not the only way, to force the people
to desert me, was by forever destroying my honor. But he had the
misfortune to fall into the pit he had dug for me, in 1851.
The miserable girl he had associated with himself, to satisfy his
implacable hatred, was dead. But, he had still in hand the lying
accusations obtained from her, against me. Having probably destroyed her
sworn recantation, written by the Jesuit Father Schneider, and not
having the least idea that I had kept three other sworn copies of the
recantations—he thought he could safely publish that I was a degraded
man, who had been driven from Canada, by him, after being convicted of
some enormous crime, and interdicted.
This declaration was brought before the public, for the first time, by
him, with an hypocritical air of compassion and mercy for me, which
added much to the deadly effect he expected to produce by it. Here are
his own words, addressed to the people of Bourbonnais, and through them,
to the whole world:
“I must tell you that on the 27th of September, 1851, I withdrew all his
powers, and interdicted him, for reasons which I gave him in my letter
addressed to him; a letter which he has probably kept. Let him publish
that letter if he finds that I have persecuted him unjustly.”
I could hardly believe my eyes when I read this ignominious act of
perfidy on the part of that high dignitary: it seemed incredible, and
surpassed anything I had ever seen, even in Bishop O’Regan. I can not
say, however, that it took me entirely by surprise, for I had
anticipated it. When Father Schneider asked me why I had taken four
sworn copies of the recantation of the unfortunate girl whose tears of
regret were flowing before us, I told him that I knew so much of the
meanness and perfidy of Bishop Bourget, that I thought he might destroy
the copy we were sending him, in order to pierce me again with his
poisonous arrows, whilst, if I kept three other copies, one for him, one
for Mr. Brassard and one for myself, I would have nothing to fear. I am
convinced that my merciful God knew the malice of that bishop against
me, and gave me that wisdom to save me.
I immediately sent him, through the press, the following answer:
TO MONSIGNOR BOURGET:
ST. ANNE, April 18, 1857.
MY LORD:—In your letter of the 19th of March, you assure the public that
you have interdicted me, a few days before my leaving Canada for the
United States, and you invite me to give the reasons of that sentence. I
will satisfy you. On the 28th of September, 1851, I found a letter on my
table from you, telling me that you had suspended me from my
ecclesiastical offices, on account of a great crime that I had
committed, and of which I was accused. But the name of the accuser was
not given, nor the nature of the crime. I immediately went to see you,
and protesting my innocence, I requested you to give me the name of my
accusers, and allow me to be confronted by them, promising that I would
prove my innocence. You refused to grant my request.
Then I fell on my knees, and with tears, in the name of God, I requested
you again to allow me to meet my accusers and prove my innocence. You
remained deaf to my prayer and unmoved by my tears; you repulsed me with
a malice and air of tyranny which I thought impossible in you.
During the twenty-four hours after this, sentiments of an inexpressible
wrath crossed my mind. I tell it to you frankly, in that terrible hour,
I would have preferred to be at the feet of a heathen priest, whose
knife would have slaughtered me on his altars, to appease his infernal
gods, rather than be at the feet of a man who, in the name of Jesus
Christ, and under the mask of the gospel, should dare to commit such a
cruel act. You had taken away my honor—you had destroyed me with the
most infamous calumny—and you had refused me every means of
justification! You had taken under your protection the cowards who were
stabbing me in the dark!
Though it is hard to repeat, I must tell it here publicly, I cursed you
on that horrible day.
With a broken heart, I went to the Jesuit college, and I showed the
wounds of my bleeding soul to the noble friend who was generally my
confessor, the Rev. Father Schneider, the director of the college.
After three days, having providentially got some reasons to suspect who
was the author of my destruction, I sent some one to ask her to come to
the college, without mentioning my name.
When she was in the parlor, I said to Father Schneider:
“You knew the horrible iniquity of the bishop against me; with the lying
words of a prostitute, he has tried to destroy me; but please come and
be the witness of my innocence.”
When in the presence of that unfortunate female, I told her:
“You are in the presence of God Almighty, and two of his priests. They
will be the witnesses of what you say! Speak the truth. Say in the
presence of God and this venerable priest, if I have ever been guilty of
what you have accused me to the bishop.”
At these words, the unfortunate female burst into tears; she concealed
her face in her hands, and with a voice half suffocated with her sobs,
she answered:
“No, sir, you are not guilty of that sin!”
“Confess here another truth,” I said to her; “Is it not true you have
come to confess to me more with the desire to tempt me than to reconcile
yourself to God?”
She said, “Yes, sir, that is the truth.” Then I said again, “Continue to
say the truth, and I will forgive you, and God also will forgive your
iniquity. Is it not through revenge for having failed in your criminal
designs, that you have tried to destroy me by false accusation to the
bishop?”
“Yes, sir, it was the only reason which has induced me to accuse you
falsely.
“And all I say here, at least in substance, has been heard, written and
signed by the Right Rev. Schneider, one of your priests, and the present
director of the Jesuit college. That venerable priest is still living in
Montreal; let the people of Canada go and interrogate him. Let the
people of Canada also go to the Rev. Mr. Brassard, who has in his hands
an authenticated copy of that declaration.
“Your lordship gives the public to understand that I was disgraced by
that sentence some days before I left Canada for Illinois. Allow me to
give you my reasons for differing from you in this matter.
There is a canon law of the church which says:
“If a censure is unjust and unfounded, let the man against whom the
sentence has been passed pay no attention to it. For, before God and his
church, no unjust sentence can bring any injury against anyone. Let the
one against whom such unfounded and unjust judgment has been pronounced
even take no step to annul it, for it is a nullity by itself.”
You know very well that the sentence you had passed against me was null
and void, for many good reasons; that it was founded on a false
testimony. Father Schneider is there, ready to prove it to you, if you
have any doubt.
The second reason I have to believe that you had yourself considered
your sentence a nullity, and that I was not suspended by it from my
ecclesiastical dignity and honor, is founded on a good testimony, I
hope—the testimony of your lordship himself.
A few hours before my leaving Canada for the United States, I went to
ask your benediction, which you gave me with every mark of kindness. I
then asked your lordship to tell me frankly if I had to leave with the
impression that I was disgraced in his mind? You gave me the assurance
of the contrary.
Then I told you that I wanted to have a public and irrefutable testimony
of your esteem, written with your own hand, and you gave me the
following letter:
MONTREAL, CANADA, October 13, 1851.
SIR:—You ask me permission to leave my diocese to go and offer your
services to the bishop of Chicago. As you belong to the diocese of
Quebec, I think it belongs to my lord the archbishop to give you the
exeat you wish. As for me, I can not but thank you for your labours
among us, and I wish you in return, the most abundant blessings from
heaven. You shall ever be in my remembrance and in my heart, and I hope
that divine providence will permit me, at a future time, to testify all
the gratitude I owe you.
Meanwhile, I remain your very humble and obedient servant,
✠IGNATIUS, Bishop of Montreal.
MR. CHINIQUY, Priest.
I then asked you to give me some other tangible token of your esteem,
which I might show everywhere I should go.
You answered that you would be happy to give me one, and you said: “What
do you wish?” “I wish,” I said, “to have a chalice from your hands to
offer the holy sacrifice of the mass the rest of my life.”
You answered: “I will do that with pleasure,” and you gave an order to
one of your priests to bring you a chalice, that you might give it to
me. But that priest had not the key of the box containing the sacred
vases; that key was in the hands of another priest, who was absent for a
few hours.
I had not the time to wait; the hour of the departure of the trains had
come; I told you: “Please, my lord, send that chalice to Rev. Mr.
Brassard, of Longueuil, who will forward it to me in a few days, to
Chicago.” And the next day, one of your secretaries went to Rev. Mr.
Brassard, and gave him the chalice you had promised me, which is still
in my hands. And the Rev. Mr. Brassard is there still living, to be the
witness of what I say, and to bring that fact to your memory, if you
have forgotten it.
Well, my lord, I do believe that a bishop will never give a chalice to a
priest to say mass, when he knows that that priest is interdicted. And
the best proof that you know very well that I was not interdicted by
your rash and unjust sentence, is that you gave me that chalice as a
token of your esteem and of my honesty, etc.
Respectfully,
C. CHINIQUY.
Ten thousand copies of this exposure of the depravity of the bishop were
published in Montreal. I asked the whole people of Canada to go to the
Rev. Mr. Schneider and to the Rev. Mr. Brassard, to know the truth, and
many went. The bishop remained confounded. It was proved that he had
committed against me a most outrageous act of tyranny and perfidy; and
that I was perfectly innocent and honest, and that he knew it, in the
very hour that he tried to destroy my character. Probably the bishop of
Montreal had destroyed the copy of the declaration of the poor girl he
had employed, and thinking that this was the only copy of her
declaration of my innocence and honesty, he thought he could speak of
the so-called interdict, after I was a Protestant. But in that he was
cruelly mistaken, for, as I have already said, by the great mercy of
God, three other authenticated copies had been kept; one by the Rev. Mr.
Schneider himself, another by the Rev. Mr. Brassard, another by one whom
it is not necessary to mention, and then he had no suspicion that the
revelation of his unchristian conduct and of his determination to
destroy me with the false oath of a prostitute, were in the hands of too
many people to be denied.
The bishop of Chicago, whom I met a few days after, told me what I was
well aware of before:
“That such a sentence was a perfect nullity in every way, and it was a
disgrace only for those who were blind enough to trample under their
feet the laws of God and men to satisfy their bad passions.”
A few days after the publication of that letter in Canada, Mr. Brassard
wrote me:
“Your last letter has completely unmasked our poor bishop, and revealed
to the world his malice, injustice and hypocrisy. He felt so confounded
by it, that he has been three days without being able to eat or drink
anything, and three nights without sleeping. Every one says that the
chastisement you have given him is a terrible one, when it is in the
face of the whole world; but he deserved it.”
When I received that last friendly letter from Mr. Brassard, on the 1st
of April, 1857, I was far from suspecting that on the 15th of the same
month, I should read in the press of Canada, the following lines from
him:
ST. ROCH DE L’ACHIGAN, LE 9 AUVRIL, 1857.
MESSIEURS:—I request you to insert the following lines in your journal:
As some people suspect that I am favoring the schism of Mr. Chiniquy, I
think it is my duty to say that I have never encouraged him by my words
or writings in that schism. I must say that, last November, when I went
to St. Anne, accompanied by Mr. Desaulnier, Superior of St. Hyacinthe
College, my only object was to persuade that old friend to leave the bad
ways in which he was walking. And in Chicago I pressed him to put
himself in a canonical way.
I, more than any one else, deplore the fall of a man whom, I confess, I
loved much, but for the sake of whom I will not sacrifice the sacred
ties of Catholic unity. I hope that all the Canadians who were attached
to Mr. Chiniquy when he was united to the church, will withdraw from him
in horror of his schism. For before anything else, we must be truly and
faithfully Catholic.
However, we have a duty to perform towards the man who has fulfilled
such a holy mission in our midst, by establishing the society of
temperance. It is to call back, with our prayers, that stray sheep who
has left the true Pastor’s fold.
I request all journals to reproduce this declaration.
Truly yours,
MOSES BRASSARD, Pastor.
M. M., the Editors of the _Courrier du Canada_.
I felt that there was not a line, not a sentiment of Mr. Brassard in
that letter. It smelt Bishop Bourget’s hand, from the beginning to the
end. I thought, however, it was my duty to address him the following
answer:
ST. ANNE, KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, April 13, 1857.
MY DEAR MR. BRASSARD:—I have just received your letter of the 9th inst.,
but no! I will not call it a letter, it will be better named a bitter
tear, and a sad wail of a heart as good as it is noble and generous.
You have been a witness how the people and missionary of St. Anne have
been betrayed by Mr. Desaulnier. You were at my side, as my friend and
father, when this traitor said to me, as well as to my brethren: “Sign
this act of submission to the bishop of Chicago; this act alone is
enough to make him withdraw the sentence which fills your Canadian
friends with anxiety. If the bishop does not give you the place you
want, and if he does not withdraw the excommunication after having been
presented with this act, I will tell him:
“It is neither the pastor, nor the people of St. Anne who wish a schism,
they have done that which religion and honor commanded, to prove it; it
is you who wish it.”
Your tears were mingled with mine, and the incense of your prayer
ascended with those of my brethren, when on the 26th of November, Mr.
Desaulnier said to the people of St. Anne:
“You cannot be blamed for what you have done since the beginning of your
difficulties with your bishop.”
You were a witness that our first condition to the signing of the act
which you and Mr. Desaulnier presented to us, was that you should be the
pastor of St. Anne, and that I should remain with you as long as you
would find it to the interest of my colony. You know that he gave me his
word of honor, in the presence of all the people, that if the bishop
would not give us peace after the signing of the act, he (Mr.
Desaulnier) would go with us to St. Louis, and even to Rome, to plead my
cause, and show the iniquity and unbearable tyranny of the bishop of
Chicago. Did he not assure us that, in case the bishop should refuse to
accept the act of submission, we had signed, your mission to St. Anne
was finished, and that you both would return to Canada, after your
voyage to St. Louis? Is it not true that when in Chicago, in reply to
our question: “What news?” Mr. Desaulnier said:
“You have only to take your bags and both return to Canada at once.”
Mr. Desaulnier denies all those facts, with an impudence of which he
alone is capable. You are my only witness before our Canada, which
wishes and has a right to know the truth in this matter.
I took you as my witness, and you replied in many of your letters, that
you could not say the truth without compromising yourself.
Is not this an acknowledgment that we, priests of Jesus Christ, are
groaning under the weight of the most frightful tyranny? and that we are
in the power of men who threaten our honor and life, if we dare speak
the truth in favor of an oppressed brother? And this is the system that
proclaims itself as the divine and ineffable news which the Messiah
brought to the world! And this abominable oppression, this system of
deceit, is the religion which the Son of the God of truth, justice and
mercy, has established to save the world? This is the foundation-stone
of the church of Christ!!! No! You do not believe that, my dear Mr.
Brassard. Neither do I. I never did, and never will believe it.
They tell us it is for the greater good of the church that they act
thus; that it is to preserve the respect which is due to the Holy
Catholic Hierarchy, that they take those extreme measures against the
people of St. Anne!
But I have carefully studied the laws of the church upon these great
questions, and I see they say precisely the contrary. I see that the
Catholic Church said to us:
1st. “In the church there is no arbitrary power.”
2nd. “The censures are null when they have been pronounced against sins
which have not been committed.”
3rd. “Never receive any accusation against a priest, which has not been
proven by two or three witnesses.”
4th. “If a sentence is visibly unjust, the condemned must not pay any
attention to it; for before God and His church, no unjust sentence can
injure any one.”
5th. “The unjust excommunication is not binding, neither before God nor
the people, when that people know its injustice, because the Holy Ghost
can not abandon those who have not deserved it.”
You wish me to act according to the canons of the church. I have already
told you that if I had been interdicted on the 19th of August, I would
have been able to appeal from that sentence, but I had not. I had
fifteen days to consider. How could I have appealed from a sentence
which had not been pronounced? What witness could I bring against a fact
which, I knew, had never taken place?
But you will say:
“The excommunication? Should it not give you some anxiety?”
“Not the least.”
St. Thomas said positively that no excommunication of which the
injustice is known by the people, ought not to prevent a priest from
exercising his ministry among them.
They will perhaps say:
“But where did the people get the right to judge in such things?” St.
Thomas must have believed that the people had that right, since he said
it. St. Thomas was neither a heretic nor a schismatic for believing
these things?
Why, then, should I be one, for having a thought, spoken and acted
according to the doctrine of _him_ whom the church has named the angel
of the school. Besides that, you know that the excommunication was a
nullity from want of being signed.
The reason of this surprise about the right which the people had to
exercise its judgment upon this question, is that, lately, the bishops
have not only stripped the priests, but also the people, of the holy and
just rights which Jesus Christ had given them. Those who have carefully
studied the history of the church in the first centuries know this, as
well as I do.
But be it known, there are rights against which time does not prescribe.
There are rights which the priests and people have never renounced, and
which the church of Christ will always like to see them enjoy.
I do not say that the bishops are not ordained to govern the Christian
people, but I say that the bishops are not appointed by the church to
govern the flock according to their caprices, but according to the
unchangeable rules of justice, equity and truth of the gospel. In the
primitive church, every time that a bishop forgot this, other bishops
reminded him of it.
Do we not see in the gospel, that the first Christians complained
bitterly to the apostles themselves of the manner in which they had
administered the goods entrusted to them? Were they excommunicated for
that? Did they receive in answer the insolent reply that the people
receive to-day? viz: “You are but the laity, that does not concern you?”
No! The apostles listened to the complaints of the people; they found
them just, and the people were allowed to choose the administrators of
their goods.
The people, then, were looked upon as something worthy of attention and
respect, and were not tied, as to-day, to the feet of a dignitary, and
obliged to go right and left at the good pleasure of their pretended
master. The people were not, then, bridled; were not mere machines to
pay tithes, build palaces, raise proud cathedrals; nor were they
degraded, demoralized, as to-day; obliged to believe they had minds, but
had no right to make use of them; they were not, then, as now, poor
beasts of burthen, whose only duty is to obey their master. But their
wants and wishes were consulted; their voice was heard. They had not yet
the idea that the Holy Ghost was to enlighten only a certain class of
men, and that the rest of humanity were, given up to ignorance, only to
walk in the light of a few privileged luminaries.
But the spirit of wisdom, charity and tolerance; this respect for the
will and wishes of the people, where do you find them to-day?
On the contrary, we find tyranny on the one side, and stern and
necessary resistance on the other; resistances which are but the
expression of the law of God. Let the tolerant conduct of the apostles,
who listened with so much humility to the complaints of the first
Christians, be compared to that of Bishop O‘Regan when questioned by the
French people of Chicago upon the right he had to deprive them of their
church, to give it to another congregation, put them out of doors,
saying: “You do not know your religion; I have the right to sell your
churches, and the grounds attached to them, put the money in my pocket,
and eat and drink where I like.”
This is what Bishop O‘Regan has said and done; and this is what the
bishop of Canada approves and sanctions in the name of the gospel! They
try to make you believe that it is the doctrine of Jesus Christ which
these high dignitaries preach and practice.
Let the poor people of Canada believe this, if they wish; as for us, in
St. Anne, we do not, and never will believe it. Are not these men who
cry the loudest to make us respect the canons of the church, the very
men who publicly trample the most holy laws of the people and of the
church under their feet? How easy it would be to put to those powerful
personages, questions which they would call impertinent, but which would
shed great light in the midst of the profound darkness in which a
certain corner of the world is kept to-day?
You who overwhelm us with curses, and send us to hell if we are not
ready to say amen to all you say, what have you done with the canon of
the holy council of Nice, which forbids you to change a priest’s charge
without his permission?
Where is the canon of a general council which allows the bishops to add
the words: “_usque ad revocationem_,” in the powers given to the
priests! While one of the canons of the church says: “It is the
authority of the canons, and the examination of the conduct of the
priests, which ought to give or take away the ecclesiastical dignities,
and not the _will of the prelates_.
History has preserved the names of certain tyrants who forced the
trembling hand of a father to set fire to the pile which consumed his
own child. Ah! why do these bishops of Canada remind us of that
lamentable page of past centuries, in commanding you to throw burning
coals on the pile to which they have led me.
You are more than a friend to me. I have the right to call you ‘Father.’
When still very young, domestic misfortunes forced me to leave for a
strange country, in search of a living; you stretched out to me a
helping hand. Although poor yourself, you shared your bread with the
poor orphan. You opened to me the doors of the college where I studied.
And ever since, when a tempest threatened my fragile bark with
shipwreck, in your arms I found sure port. Every time I received a
wound, in the struggles of life, in your affection I found a remedy.
When heaven chose your poor friend to change the face of our dear
country, it was beneath your hospitable roof that I found rest. Your
hand was the last one which pressed mine, when in 1851 I left Canada to
consecrate myself to the service of the emigrants: and lastly, when the
thunders of three deluded prelates fell upon my head, I said to myself:
‘I have, in Canada, a friend, a father. I am so sure of his heart, that
I do not even need to call him to aid; there is a voice in his soul
which cries to him; ‘Go, go to the aid of thy friend, thy child!’
“I was not mistaken. On the 24th of November, you pressed me to your
heart; your words of peace and charity cheered my broken heart. For the
love of God, and for your sake also, my dear Mr. Brassard, I have
consented to do all you have required of me. Ah! why did you not come
alone? How easily everything would have been settled. But without
knowing it, you had with you a traitor, who came to give the people and
pastor of St. Anne the kiss of Judas, before delivering them into the
hands of their enemies.
“To-day you are commanded to add your efforts to those of this traitor,
to strike me. They want you to add a new thorn to that crown of shame
which the bishops have placed on my forehead.
“But how can I be guilty for having called you as a witness of the
iniquities of my enemies? Have you forgotten with what sincerity and
promptitude I signed, as well as my brethren of St. Anne, the act of
submission to the Bishop O’Regan? Have you forgotten the desolation of
your heart and mine, when (on the conditions you well know) I declared
to my people that I would no longer be their pastor?
“Since the bishops of Canada command you to speak in the name of the God
of truth and justice, I, also, ask you to speak. Yes, state to the
people of Canada, how shamefully Mr. Desaulnier has deceived the
generous people who surround me here. Yes! tell your surprise, your just
indignation, your bitter sorrow, when Mr. Desaulnier refused, in
Chicago, to fulfill the sacred promise he had made! Tell the nature of
the new document which he wanted me to sign at Chicago. Declare honestly
that you said to me: “My poor friend, you can not sign that act without
lying and dishonoring yourself forever.”
“Since the bishops of Canada command you to speak, raise your voice to
say to the Canadian people what you wrote to Dr. Letourneaux and to
myself:
“They do not wish to know the truth in Canada, more than at Chicago,
about the shameful conduct of Mr. Desaulnier in this affair!!
“Yes, speak! Give to my dear Canada the reply which the bishop of
Chicago made when you asked: “Have you any accusation in hand against
the character of Mr. Chiniquy?
“I need your testimony upon this question, for the bishop of Chicago,
forgetting what he confessed to you, is circulating, through my enemies,
a thousand calumnies against me, which are reproduced to-day, by the
bishop of Montreal.
“Say to Canada that the bishop of Chicago assured you that he had
interdicted me, _only_ because I disobeyed him in refusing to leave St.
Anne, whilst, at the very time, he held a letter brought by four
witnesses, saying that I was ready to obey, and that I would prefer
going to the end of the world, rather than be interdicted.
“If, having said all these things, you are still commanded to strike me,
do so, dear friend. Though your blows go more directly to my heart than
all the thunders of Bishop O’Regan, they will never shake my constancy,
nor make me betray my brethren; they will neither make me change my
convictions nor force me any longer to bend the knee before men who wish
us to submit to their capricious and impious commands rather than to the
laws of the God of justice, truth and mercy, whose priest I have the
honor to be. I have sworn at the foot of the altar to preach truth and
justice; nothing will make me break my oath.
“Do you remember with what dignity you refused, one day, to bow before
one of those modern divinities who believe that everything is allowed
them on earth?
“Do you not recollect that the bishop of Ottawa had the audacity to take
one of your letters out of the postoffice and read it, hoping the
shameful act would never be known? I shall never forget the noble
independence with which you protested against that abuse of power, and
with what indignation you threatened to drag that haughty bishop before
the courts of Justice, if he did not ask pardon for that outrage! Were
you revolting against the church of Christ then? No! for you knew that
her principles of truth and justice could not sanction such brigandage.
So I did not revolt against the church of Christ, when I resisted the
insolence and outrages of the bishop of Chicago.
“Like St. Jerome, I know the rights of the bishops: I respect their
authority. The Catholic Hierarchy is to me a holy and venerable
institution. But when men sheltering themselves behind those holy
institutions, trample under their feet the principles of justice, truth
and holiness, which the gospel of Christ inculcates, I will fight to the
end, with my poor emigrants, for the preservation of their Christian
rights.
“You say that before all, we must be frankly and sincerely ‘Catholics.’
I answer, yes. But when one is wrongfully deprived of this glorious name
before men, because he opposes, as I have done, the brigandage of a
bishop who believes all is allowed him, he can remain in peace, and be
like St. Paul, who did not care what men said or thought of him. To be
anathematized, because I have devoted myself to the welfare of my
brethren, is not such a sad destiny as some people think. St. Paul said:
“I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my
kinsmen according to the flesh.”
“The favor after which the apostle of the Gentiles sighed, has been
accorded me. I can not complain of it. Besides, does not Christ himself
say to those who labor to scatter seeds of justice and truth upon the
earth, that they ought not expect to be treated better than He?
“From every part of Canada and the United States men of distinction
cease not to cry: ‘Courage!’ It is true that several curse us, but it is
because they are forced to do it. Many keep silent for fear of their
masters, but their prayers and sympathies are for us. The bishops will
see, sooner or later, that in order to retain their power on earth, that
power must be founded, as in heaven, upon justice and truth.
“When the priests of Canada, to please the bishops, contrary to their
convictions, have degraded their own sacerdotal character in my person;
when they have burned the effigy of the proscribed, having no more the
glorious privilege of burning his body; when the father whom, by the
grace of God, I have snatched from an abyss, cursed me; when this dear
young man who has, so many times, blessed me, because I have shown him
the gospel, the way of honor and virtue, by removing the stumbling block
of intemperance offered to his weakness, has been forced to curse me;
when that poor woman, who, by the grace of God, owes me the bread she
eats, and the few days of holy felicity she has enjoyed upon earth, has
cursed me; when this fine little child, who has so many times blessed my
name, because God made use of me to give him back a father, has cursed
me, there will be a silence of sorrow in Canada, around my proscribed
name.
“Then a reaction will take place. A great prestige will be destroyed. A
great power, holy and benevolent in its origin, but fallen by its
excesses, will be destroyed. God grant that, in the midst of those
ruins, there may be no tears, no blood!!
“This is not prophecy, it is history. Yes, let the Canadian clergy open
the records of the past, and they will find where their blind and
demoralizing obedience to the bishops, leads them and their good and
generous people, if not to infidelity and atheism.
“You advise me, dear Mr. Brassard, to put myself in the canonical ways;
but have I not already done so? Have not the bishops of Canada told you
that the letter signed by me, has already placed me in that position?
“Has not Mr. Desaulnier said, in your presence, to my people and myself
at St. Anne.
“Sign this act, and if the bishop does not take away his sentence of
excommunication, I will say to him: ‘It is not Mr. Chiniquy, neither his
people, who wish a schism; they have done what religion and honor
commanded them; it is the bishop of Chicago who makes the schism.’
“What have we gained by taking that public step? Nothing, but to be
cruelly and shamefully betrayed.
“Was not Jesus Christ betrayed only once by Judas? Do not then expect
that we will be stronger than the Son of God. The bishops of Canada, by
their emissary, have already betrayed us, of which you have been
witness. The people and missionary of St. Anne do not feel strong enough
to present their cheek again to the smiter.
“In spite of the clamors which rise around us, we are convinced that we
may be good Catholics, without submitting to that degradation twice.
“The bishops of Canada want you to speak. Very well! My dear Mr.
Brassard, I, also, implore you to speak. In the name of the friendship
which has united us for forty years, I implore you to tell the truth.
Did you not, after reading the document which the bishop of Chicago
commanded me to sign, as the only condition of peace, say to me:
“‘My dear friend, you can not sign such a writing without lying and
dishonoring yourself forever?’ And behold! to-day you cry to my brethren
to destroy and abandon me, when you know that the position in which I
stand is but the result of my refusal to sign a most infamous, lying and
degrading document.
“These things, and many others which you know, would serve wonderfully
to open the eyes of the people upon the awful abuse of power of which
certain bishops are, every day, guilty. This would aid to unmask certain
modern divinities who pretend that we cannot go to heaven without their
permission; who preach that it is not the blood of Jesus Christ, but a
certain passport, of which they hold the patent, which assures us a
place among the elect of God. A sentence founded upon a public lie, and
which was resisted, can not constitute a schism. Christian men who, like
the Catholics of Chicago, Kankakee and St. Anne, resist iniquity, may be
condemned by men, but not by God.
“I was not suspended on the 19th of August, and so, I could exercise the
holy functions of my ministry the following morning and after. It is the
church which assures us of this, through her greatest theologians. As it
is not enough to say: ‘My God! My God!’ to be saved; so it is not enough
to cry: ‘You are lost! you are lost!’ for one to be lost. The Son of
God, who gave his life to save man, gave us a thousand proofs, that the
salvation of our soul has a foundation more certain than the capricious
will of a sinful being. He has given to no one the power to save or
condemn, according to his pleasure. If some bishops and priests believe
this, it is not the faith of the people of Chicago, Kankakee and St.
Anne.
“I will tell you again, my dear Mr. Brassard, that if, in order to obey
the bishop of Montreal, you should strip me of the little honor which
surrounds my name in Canada, I shall still never forget the good you
have done me. Yes! command my friends to betray me, to trample me under
their feet, to turn away from me in horror: Never will you be able to
weaken my sentiments of respect and gratitude for you!
“I will still love and bless you; for I know the hand which forced yours
to do so. I will always know that your own heart was first struck and
wounded by the blow they commanded you to give to your friend and son in
Jesus Christ.
“C. CHINIQUY.”
The effect of that letter upon Mr. Brassard was still more powerful than
I had expected. It forced him to blush at his own cowardice, and to ask
me pardon for the unjust sentence he had passed upon me to obey the
bishop. Here are the parts of the letter bearing upon that subject:
ST. ROCH, 29 MAI, 1857.
MONCHER CHINIQUY:—“Je suis plus convainen que jamais que tu n’as jamais
ete interdit legalement, depuis que j’ai appris par Monseigneur de
Montreal, que l’eveque de Chicago t’a interdit de vive voix, dans sa
chambre; ce que Ligoury dit etre nul te de nul effet.”
I am more than ever convinced that you have never been legally
interdicted, since Bishop Bourget told me that Bishop O’Regan had
interdicted you privately, “_viva voce_” in his private room. Ligoury
says that it is a nullity and that it can have no effect. I beg your
pardon for what I wrote against you. I have been forced to do it.
Because I had not yet sufficiently condemned you, and that my name,
which you were citing in your writings, was giving you too much power,
and a too clear condemnation of Bishop O’Regan, the Bishop of Montreal,
abusing his authority over me, forced me to sign that document against
you. I would not do it to-day if it were to be done again. Keep silence
on what I tell you in this letter. It is all confidential. You
understand it.
Your devoted friend,
L. M. BRASSARD.
No priest in Canada had more deservedly enjoyed the reputation of a man
of honor, than Mr. Brassard. Not one had ever stood so high in my esteem
and respect. His sudden and unexpected fall, filled my heart with an
unspeakable sadness. I may say that it snapped the last thread which
held me to the church of Rome. Till then, it was not only my hope, but
my firm conviction, that there were many honest, upright priests in that
church, and Mr. Brassard was, to me, the very personification of
honesty.
How can I describe the shock I felt when I saw him, there, in the mud, a
monument of the unspeakable corruption of my church!
The perfidious Delilah had seduced and destroyed this modern Sampson,
enchained, as a trembling slave, at the feet of the new implacable
Moloch, “the authority of the bishop!” He had not only lost the fear of
God, and the respect he owed to himself, by publicly declaring that I
was guilty, when he knew that I was innocent, but he had so completely
lost every sentiment of honesty, that he wanted me to keep secret his
declaration of my innocence, at the very moment he was inviting my whole
country, through the press, to abhor and condemn me as a criminal!
I read again and again the strange letter. Every word of it was
destroying the last illusions which had concealed from my mind, the
absolute and incurable perversity of the church of Rome. I had no hard
feelings against this last friend whom she had poisoned with the wine of
her prostitutions. I felt only a profound compassion for him. I pitied
and forgave him from the bottom of my heart. But every word of his
letter sounded in my ears as the warning voice of the angel sent to save
Lot from the doomed city of Sodom. “Escape for thy life. Look not behind
thee; neither stay thou in all the plain. Escape thou to the mountain,
lest thou be consumed!”