therefore every constitution which embraces it and does not take it for
its foundation is vitiated and sterile. The founders of the work knew
this, and were, moreover, not allowed to forget it by the daily
reproaches they received—“You are destroying the family; you are
destroying the parish!”—and what not. But how to reach the family so as
to be of service to it instead of injurious was not for some time made
clear. The Circle of Montparnasse, the prototype of the rest, had
avoided rather than faced the difficulty by disposing of its active
functions in favor only of its unmarried members. But this was plainly
not the solution.
The solution had, however, been discovered, at no great distance from
Rheims, in the great manufacturing region which has for the motive
power of its machines the waters of the Suippe, for its boundary the
extensive woods which form an oasis of verdure in the burning plains of
Champagne, and for its population factory-men, who wander, at the
bidding of the industrial fluctuations of the time, to and from the
looms of the north, of Rheims, or of St. Quentin—a population
exceptionally indigent, since the struggle between capital and wages,
inaugurated by liberalism, has become the normal condition of the
producer and the consumer.
In the hamlet of Val-des-Bois, in the centre of this district, an
industrial family settled about half a century ago, and brought with it
the example of every Christian virtue. Kind towards their workmen,
generous even beyond their gains, Messieurs Harmel assembled around
their vast establishment all the religious and philanthropic
institutions by means of which it has hitherto been attempted to
re-establish harmony in the world of labor.
As is but too frequently the case, they failed in this attempt
completely. But they were not daunted, nor did they rest satisfied with
their past endeavors; for, if they loved the working-men, they loved
their Lord still more, and desired as earnestly as ever that he should
reign in the hearts of those in their employ.
Not many years ago it occurred to one of them to introduce among the
population of their factories—which did not count a single practising
Christian—the principle of the Catholic Association. He determined to
ask four men to join together to form the nucleus of a circle, and
three young girls to be received as _Enfants de Marie_ and wear the
badge. In proportion as the associations developed themselves he
multiplied them according to the sex, age, and condition of each
individual; and this with such success that at the present time the
twelve hundred souls who people Val-des-Bois are united in a marvellous
aggregation of pious confraternities, among whose members are made, in
the course of a year, more than ten thousand communions, in the
intention of making reparation to our Lord for the outrages he receives
in the modern factory.
Then, also, as earthly goods are often increased abundantly to those
who seek first the kingdom of God, the principle of Catholic
Association applied to the families of the Factory of the Sacred Heart
(l’Usine du Sacrè-Cœur)—for it bears this name—has realized there
innumerable economical benefits, a fact which will not surprise those
who know the power of this principle. Assistance of every kind,
clothing, food, and fuel at very reasonable prices, schools free of
expense to the parents, and occasional holidays for recreation, have
brought with them, together with economy, the comfort also and
prosperity of the families. All these institutions, economic,
charitable, and religious, are governed by those personally interested.
The _circle_, which brings together the fathers of families, is, as it
were, the centre of this machinery; and the master, who is its motive
power, associates with himself not only all the members of his own
family and the chaplain of the factory, but also his principal
employés, to fulfil the paternal function of a protecting and directing
committee, and so to secure to the association the chances of
continuance as well as the fruits of example. To this end delegates are
annually appointed, who, under the presidency of the master, are the
guardians of the corporation.
We will give the result of all these well-considered combinations in M.
Harmel’s own words:[113]
“By the persevering endeavors of many years we have attained the end at
which we aimed. Families are reconstituted, peace and love have taken
the place of quarrels and disorder around the domestic hearth; the
mother rejoices at the change wrought in her husband and children; the
father finds in a new life the courage and happiness of labor; his home
is delightful to him from the respect of his children, the ready
cheerfulness of his wife, and the love of all. Economy has put an end
to debts and created savings; the anniversary festivals of the family
bring back that affectionate gayety and warmth which give repose amid
the fatigues of life, and inspire fresh ardor to go bravely on the way.
When we are in the midst of these good and honest faces transformed by
Christian influences, we read there confidence and love, and thank the
good God who has made the large family of Val-des-Bois.” Such are the
experiences there obtained, as if to complete those of the Cercle
Montparnasse.
Alone among the many excellent men who, after the war and Commune,
arose to attempt some means of healing the internal wounds of France,
the members of the _Œuvre Ouvrière_ took a solemn engagement, the terms
of which were marked out with precision. Each member affixes his
signature to an individual and public act of devoted adhesion to the
doctrines defined by the _Syllabus of the Errors of Modern Society_.
Preserved, therefore, from the liberalism which in reality puts
oppression into the hands of the strongest, and the socialism which
demands it for the masses, they will pursue more efficaciously than
either of these the vindication of the popular interests, such as the
due observance of the Sunday and the protection of the family and home,
and, guided by grace and supported by prayer, will find Christian
solutions for all the social questions of labor.
The work of the Catholic circles has set on foot a periodical for the
study and discussion of these questions—namely, the review which
borrows its title from one of the principles of the work:
_L’Association Catholique_. It is open to all questions, but not to all
doctrines, for a work which, at the head of its statutes, invokes the
definitions of the Catholic Church cannot admit the errors which she
has condemned. It numbers among its contributors some of the best
social economists and solid Christian writers of the time, and thus
provides weapons of proof to the polemics of the Catholic press,
besides furthering the great social effort made by the association,
which now reckons three hundred circles in all parts of France.
In conclusion, we would mention that it must be borne in mind that the
important part in this good work is not the exclusive institution of
circles, this being only the first and one of the different forms under
which the principle is brought to act. That principle is the direction
and protection of the working-classes by the higher and more educated,
and the association of the interests of both, as opposed to the
lamentable antagonism of the same different classes which is, in our
times, the great difficulty of social government and the source of
increasing disorder and conflict. These associations are intended to
react, by every possible means, against the erroneous social theories
so numerous and so impotent for good, and to bring into practice the
only true and effectual social law—namely, conformity to the social
duties of Catholics. Our religion has remedies for all evils; its
practice is supreme political and social wisdom, and in the alarming
state of society among the working-classes there cannot be, nor ever
will be, found any other course to be adopted than to return to the
rules of Christian life. It is evident, then, how wide a field is
opened by such a desire breaking forth in the hearts and minds of
fervent Christians such as M. de Mun and his friends, and it would be
impossible to show in few words all that it has produced and is
producing by the grace of God; and although this work of charity has
originated in France, and at present exists only in France, it may, it
is to be hoped, give rise to similar laudable efforts in all countries,
where also, among their associations of Catholic circles for the
working-classes, shall, as in this country, be raised the _labarum_ of
Constantine and its sacred motto: “In hoc signo vinces.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RIVER’S VOICE.
I.
Through the long hours the day’s strong life had flowed
In sunshine, working good deeds silently,
In clouds whose shadows set new harmony
Among the hills—God’s justice’ old abode.
Through mountain hollows had the wind swept down,
Turning green leaves to silver in the sun,
Winning the meadows in broad waves to run
Where still unlevelled shone their grassy crown.
The troubled river had no vision borne
Of gleaming hill and tree-o’ershadowed shore;
The birches, bending their lost mirror o’er,
Met but the driven waves’ unwilling scorn;
Yet heaven’s blue the broken waters bore,
The breeze but strengthened as it hurried o’er.
II.
Lightening their labor with a careless song,
Birds o’er the meadow swept with busy wing,
Flashed in and out the forests’ sheltering,
While clamorous council held the crickets’ throng.
Swift fell the grass beneath the mower’s stroke
To win its perfect ripeness ‘ere day’s end,
When should, the harvest bearing, meekly bend
The mild-eyed oxen ‘neath the unwieldy yoke.
Broken with sound was even the noonday rest—
Shrill-piping locust called imperiously,
Impetuous bee proclaimed its industry,
And blue-mailed flies pursued an endless quest;
Only from throbbing river rose no song
Blending its music with life’s murmuring throng.
III.
Day closed, and busy life lay down to rest.
A shade that moved not held in cold embrace
The yielding meadows and the hills’ calm face,
About whose silence burned the cloudless west.
No leafy murmur rose from darkening wood,
Hushed the pure gladness of the robins’ trill;
Called from low covert some lone whip-poor-will
Only to heighten eve’s still solitude.
The wind asleep, the quiet waters bore
Vision of sky and mountains’ deepening shade,
And touch of bending birches, softly laid,
As the still stream gave back their glance once more.
Clear, through the silence, drifted rippling tones—
The patient river singing to the stones.
IV.
So, through the day, had flowed the river’s song,
So borne the stream its burden of strong life
Spite of its troubled waters’ windy strife—
Heaven in its breast—and, as it sped along,
Bearing its loyal service to the sea,
Praising the stones that gave it voice to sing,
With constant sweetness, whose soft murmuring,
Unwearying ever in its melody,
Was hidden in life’s song that filled the day
With chords confused of labor manifold.
Only with evening’s peaceful skies of gold
Came the lost music of the river’s lay—
Like some brave life whose sweetness but is known
When holy silence doth world-sounds dethrone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAPAL ELECTIONS.
I.
The succession of the Roman pontiffs rests on the word of God; other
lines of princes may fail, their line shall last until the end of the
world. Still, although there will ever be a series of legitimate
successors in the Papacy, the manner of succession has varied, being
left to human prudence, which accommodates itself to times and places,
yet ever under an overruling Providence that directs to its own ends no
less the vices than the virtues of men.
The election of a pope is the most important event that takes place in
the world. It affects immediately several hundred millions of Catholics
in their dearest hopes of religion, and it touches indirectly the
interests of all other people on the earth besides. In the pope the
world receives a vicar of Christ, a successor of St. Peter, and an
infallible judge in matters of faith and morals. The Papacy was always
conferred regularly by way of election—from the chief of the apostles,
chosen by our Lord himself, to Pius IX., now reigning, who was selected
by the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church on the 17th of June, 1846.
Between these there have been two hundred and sixty popes, if we follow
the number given by the _Gerarchia Cattolica_, which is published
annually at Rome.
On the 25th of July, 1876, our Holy Father, in a discourse to the
students of the several colleges in Rome subject to the Propaganda,
took occasion to speak quite earnestly of attempts that were being made
in Italy to unsettle the minds of Catholics on papal elections by
teaching that they were originally _popular_ ones, and that the natural
right of the laity in them (which, it was asserted, had been exercised
without question for twelve hundred years) was arbitrarily and
unlawfully taken away by Pope Alexander III. The errors of this new
schismatical party may be reduced to two points—viz., that the share
which the people were once usually allowed to take in the election of
sacred ministers was a right and not a privilege accorded by the
visible head of the church to ages of faith and fervor; and that
Alexander III. deprived the Romans of this right in the election of
their chief pastor.
Let us state, in the first place, that it is heretical to maintain that
the laity have a strict—_i.e._, inherent or divine—right to elect their
pastors, and historically false to assert that such a right was ever
allowed by the rulers of the church or was ever exercised by the
Christian people. The authorities to confirm our statement are so
numerous as to cause almost an _embarras de richesses_. Besides the
great collections which are the common sources of ecclesiastical
erudition—the Fathers, the councils, annals, papal bulls; the
Bollandists, and particularly, as regards papal elections, the
_Propylæum ad septem tomos Maji_; the works of Thomassin, Gretser,
Bellarmine, and others—we may cite here Selvaggio’s _Antiquitatum
Christianarum Institutiones_, lib. i. par. i. cap. xxi.; Mamacchi’s
_Origines et Antiquitates Christianæ_, tom. iv. lib. iv.; and
Colenzio’s _Dissertationi intorno varie Controversie di Storia ed
Archeologia Ecclesiastica_, diss. vi. _Del preteso dritto del popolo
cristiano nell’ clezione dei Sacri Ministri_.
The earliest manner of electing the popes was by the votes of the Roman
clergy cast in the presence of the faithful, who assisted as witnesses
to the godliness of the subject proposed, and to testify that besides
his personal merits he was an acceptable person on account, perhaps, of
his birth, his nationality, his appearance, or of some other
adventitious circumstance which enhanced his popularity with the great
body of the people, and would cause him, also, to be looked upon with
less disfavor _by them who are without_.[114] Although these elections
belonged to the clergy and laity of the Roman Church—or we should say,
rather, to the higher clergy and the representatives of the laity—the
relative rights or parts of each class of electors were not apparently
determined by express enactment, but upon grounds of common sense and
equity; such, for instance, as that _Episcopus deligatur, plebe
præsente, quæ singulorum vitam plenissime norit, et uniuscujusque actum
de ejus conversatione prospexit_,[115] or that _Nullus invitis detur
episcopus_.[116] Bellarmine,[117] Sixtus Senensis,[118] Petrus de
Marca,[119] and Thomassin[120] prove that the people’s part in such
elections was more perfunctory than real, since testimony of a man’s
good repute could be otherwise obtained, and that even an expression of
preference was not always heeded; as we learn from the same Pope
Celestine, who wrote to the bishops of Apulia and Calabria: _Docendus
est populus, non sequendus; nosque si nesciunt, eosquid liceat quidve
non liceat, commonere non his consensum præbere debemus._[121] The
Roman people, then, did not and could not have, except by usurpation
and abuse, a decisive voice in the election of the pope; for such an
act is by God’s ordinance placed beyond the jurisdiction of the laity.
After the martyrdom of St. Fabian, in January, A.D. 250, the Holy See
remained vacant for a year and a half, until in the month of June, 251,
Cornelius was raised to that post of perilous dignity under a tyrant
like Decius, who had declared that he would sooner see a new pretender
to the empire than another bishop of Rome. This election, although made
almost unanimously by all orders, gave rise to the first schism,
because Novatian, who headed the rigorous party in the affair of the
_Lapsi_, was consecrated bishop and set himself up as anti-pope. We
have an invaluable testimony to the election of St. Cornelius from the
pen of St. Cyprian: _Factus est autem Cornelius episcopus de Dei et
Christi ejus judicio, de clericorum pæne omnium testimonio, de plebis,
quæ tunc adfuit, suffragio et de sacerdotum antiquorum et bonorum
virorum collegio, cum nemo ante se factus esset, cum Fabiani locus id
est cum locus Petri et gradus cathedræ sacerdotalis vacaret._[122] From
this passage of the great Bishop of Carthage we can obtain, says
Baronius,[123] a tolerably good idea of a papal election in the early
ages. Prayers were first offered up to God to obtain his assistance in
making a choice; the desire of the faithful, or rather of their
representatives, and such testimony to the worth of the subjects
proposed as they were prepared to give was heard; the wish of the Roman
clergy, and their willing assent to the proceedings, were inquired into
and sought; and after maturely weighing the for and against, the
bishops of the vicinity, with any others in communion with the Holy See
who happened to be in Rome at the time, went into executive session and
gave the decisive votes—_in commitiis suffragia ferebant_. With regard
to those among the laity who took part in these elections, we must
observe that in the beginning, as long as the majority of Christians
was composed of persons who had embraced the faith from pure and
unworldly motives, whose aim was to behold the church prosperous and
glorious, and whose charity, being yet warm, sought not their own end
_but that which is another’s_,[124] the whole body of Christians who
had reached mature years and belonged to that sex which alone had a
voice in the church[125] gave their testimony and assent in favor of
that one whom it was proposed to elect;[126] but the evils of anything
like a popular election in a great city were so manifest[127] that
attempts were soon made to leave the choice of such on the part both of
clergy and laity—but earlier in the case of the latter order—to a
select body or committee, a general suffrage being gradually superseded
by the votes of approval given by the rich only and the high in
station.
We find, perhaps, a germ of this even in the earliest times.[128] The
Council of Laodicea (A.D. 365) clearly desired that the choice should
be made by some definitely-organized body, and not by a mere
mass-meeting; St. Leo and the Roman council of A.D. 442, and again the
former in Epist. lxxxix.cvi., expressly mention the “_Honorati_,” the
magnates at such elections.[129] The influence of the principal
personages in a city was not to be ignored through the clamor of those
who too often formed only a mob.[130] A letter of Pope Cornelius to
Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, has fortunately been preserved by
Eusebius,[131] which gives us the exact number of the Roman clergy of
every grade, and a clue[132] to what may have been the Christian
population of Rome, in the middle of the third century. According to
these precious statistics, there were then belonging to the Roman
clergy 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists,
readers, and _ostiarii_. Fifteen hundred widows and orphans were
provided for by the church, whose children composed an immense
population in the capital of the empire. Hence we may rest assured that
deliberations for the election of the Roman pontiff could not have been
open to all of either clergy or laity, but must necessarily, in the
interests of good order, and by reason of the small size of places of
public meetings then possessed by the Christians, have been confined to
a select number.
The ancient records of the Roman Church reaching back to the beginning
of the early middle ages, which have been published by Mabillon and
Galletti, show us its clergy divided into three distinct classes—viz.,
priests, dignitaries, and inferior ministers. The priests were the
seven cardinal suburbican bishops and the twenty-eight
cardinal-priests; the dignitaries were the archdeacon and the seven
palatine judges (prothonotaries-apostolic); the inferior ministers were
the subdeacons, acolytes, and notaries without office at court. The
laity was likewise divided into three classes—viz., citizens, soldiers,
and commoners; _i.e._, the nobility, the army, and the Third
Estate.[133]
After the death of Pope Zozimus, on the 26th of December, 418, a
majority of the clergy and people elected the cardinal-priest Boniface
to succeed him. A serious dispute immediately arose. Eulalius, the
archdeacon, who, as such, had been practically the most important
personage of the Holy See after the pontiff himself, and felt indignant
at having been passed over in the election, held possession of the
Lateran Palace, where he was chosen pope by a few of the clergy, to
whose faction, however, _all_ the deacons and three bishops
belonged.[134] The fear of future contests suggested to Pope Boniface
I., who is described by Anastasius as unambitious, of mild character;
and devoted to good works, to obtain from the Emperor Honorius, in the
year 420, a rescript by which it was decreed that, in the contingency
of a double election, neither rival should be pope, but that the clergy
and people should proceed to another choice. The decree was almost
textually inserted in the canon law.[135] This difference between St.
Boniface and Eulalius, or rather the latter’s schism, gave occasion to
the first interference of the secular arm in the election of the Roman
pontiffs. St. Hilary, who was elected in the year 461, convened a
council of forty-eight bishops at Rome, and, among other provisions for
filling worthily the Holy See, declared that _no pope should ever
appoint his own successor_. Despite this recent enactment, Boniface
II.—in whose favor, however, it must be said that he sought to
preclude, as even a greater evil than a passing violation of the
canons, the threatened interference of the Gothic king, who wanted to
put a partisan on the papal throne—called a council at St. Peter’s in
the year 531, and there designated the celebrated deacon Vigilius as
his coadjutor with future succession. Subsequently, repenting his
action, he called another council, and with his own hand burned the
paper appointing him.[136]