OCR Text |
Show M. J. O'BRIEN FLAYS FRANCE Former Presiding Justice Arraigns Repub T, for Breach of Contract and Schema ; to Confiscate Lawful Properties of the ; Catholics and Suppress the Church. (By Morgan J. O'Brien, Former Presiding Justin of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.), (Copyright, 190b'. by the Mail and Express Co.) Iu making the following plain statement. I shall .strive earnestly to divest, myself not only of all prejudice, but of all theological feeling. I shall sen down only undisputed and indisputable facts, f shall write, not as a Catholic, not even as a Christian Chris-tian American, but merely as an American. : This is my purpose, because I believe that the merits of the .conflict between the Church and thu present government of France are n fused in tha minds of the American people. It is natural that the first instinctive feeling of citizens of this republic should be one of sympathy sympa-thy with another republic that is an ancient ally. It is natural that the demand for the separation of church and i tate should strengthen that sympathy, sympa-thy, knowing, as Americans do. only such separation separa-tion as exists in this land of complete relig'ioiH freedom. ' It is natural that non-Catholic Americans should unconsciously feel compelled to align themselves them-selves mentally in opposition to any organization, religious or secular, accused of interference with the internal artairs ot a nation and ot rebellion against its laws. It is natural, and I say this with all deference, that the most eminent of Aujrrican Catholics have left the minds of the mass of the American people peo-ple still clouded, after they have spoken upon the questions at issue. For these great prelates, shaking shak-ing from the fullness of their acquaintance with every incident of centuries of Church history, have presupposed too rreat a kuowledge in the minds of many who Ltrt'-fore have given li'ti thought to the subject. They have failed, to .strip this controversy to the bare bone, so that there should be left only the question of right and wrong. Yet I believe that this baring of the issue is all that is needed to ally the non-partisan, non-sectarian American spirit of honesty, truth, fair dealing and contract-keeping in support of every essential contention of the Catholic church today. A glance backward to the year ISO 1 is necessary neces-sary to an understanding of the present conflict. In the French revolution the Church was one of f the chief sufferer. Xapoleon was quick to recog- I nize the fact that liberty of religious worship was g necessary to the stability of the state then passing " under his control. . The compromise known a the concordat; wa the result. For the $J0O.OX).000 worth of Church property that had been confiscated the pope agreed, to make no claim. In return for this pledge to have the title of th holders of the land unquestioned, the French government gov-ernment bound itself to give the use and control of its church edifices, hospitals, seminaries, etc to, the Church and to provide a certain revenue from portions of the confiscated properties to support' the clergy. This was not a gift nor a temporary appropria-, tion from state funds. It was intended to be, and: was declared to be. a portion of the fundamental law of the nation. Reduced to present-day business, terms, it was an agreed re-entry into a port ion of j a wrongfully converted property and a mortgage; upon the remainder given in consideration of nj attack being made upon the title of those in possession. ! This solemn contract was settled and signed hy. representatives of the Holy See and the first consul con-sul in Paris on July 15. 1S01. The ratifications by Pope Pius VII and Bonaparte were exchanged on, Sept. 10. 1S01. It was not published by the French government, however, until April 8. 1S02. Meanwhile. Bonaparte and Talleyrand had caused the legislature to approve a series of provisions pro-visions known as the organic articles, and thesi' were published, together with the concordat, as part and parcel of that treaty. The pope had never seen these organic article-' until they were published. The moment they wen-known wen-known in Rome solemn official protest was made against this ex parte addition of unagreed and unacceptable un-acceptable clauses to a signed contract. They were denounced and disclaimed in an allocution to the college of cardinals and by publication in the official offi-cial journals in Paris. The pope renewed his protest in ISO!); and neither nei-ther he nor anv of his successors ever assented to the articles as part of the treaty in perpetuity between be-tween the Holy See and France. I set forth these facts because every charge that, has been made that the Church has violated its agreement in any way or has interfered with the functions of the state or counseled disobedience to the law is based upon a breach, not of one syllable of the concordat, but of some one or other of these organic articles. Therefore. I ask this question of every fair: minded American: f . . Atlcur you have signed a contract, are you bound by additional "contradictory or objectirmabie clause-! injected into that instrument without your knowledge knowl-edge or consent, and against your repented protests? pro-tests? , ! Continued on I-age 4. j i ! ' . -j " : '" """7 M. J. O'BRIEN FLAYS FRANCE Continued from Page 1. Tin- days of the commune saw churches s.o-k'.i and burned, and white-haired priests stood again-the again-the walls and shot. Thar was the temper ct' ti socialists toward the Church in 1"7J. They do n- deny that it is unchang-ed today, but declare rh, the decisive conflict of the twentieth century is ,. be between the dominance of their economic !. trine-, jind the survival of the Catholic Church a-(lie- ai'ehfypc Of .'IWPVlHljn! -'"d individuaUriju, The socialists gained practical control nf rh-French rh-French government a century after the signing ..f the concordat. Waldeek-I'ousseau forced the parage par-age of the law of associations. This placed t'n-various t'n-various religious orders under the control of t!i French parliament and permitted their suppressi,,-i and expulsion from France. It alvi provided r I i;i -the decision in each case must bo a judicial o;ii-. based upon inquiry into the merits of each applies tion for the government's permission to exisi. It was a harsh law. but most of the eongregi; tions prepared to obey it. Combes, who snoeeeih .i Waldeek-IIousseau, received applications f,r an thorization for 1.ii establishments. These included teaching organizations, eigh' of which has no less than 2 2.. ":' pupils, surpassing the number in the state schools, placed therein voluntarily vol-untarily by tho parents of France. Asylums f,.;- rphans and waifs, schools for- the blind and th.-mutes, th.-mutes, homes where rj.M , mm aged and infirm persons per-sons were supported, were among tho applicant-. All of these were founded, furnished and main tained by Catholics only and without any cmrrilni tion from the tato. These splendid educational and elementary institutions in-stitutions were not the products of subsidies from government. 'but arose from the voluntary offering-of offering-of millions of the faithful who through a lonu series of years made great sacrifices that thes, might live. What th: people thought of the congregation-is congregation-is proved by the responses of 1ST L municipal councils, coun-cils, whose opinions were asked. Of these 1.14 1 were in tavor of the congregations. congrega-tions. Til.") were against them, and 179 made no an swer. . Submission to the law xvas not wanted by fh socialists. Against the protests 'of Wableck-Rousseau, the author of the law. its provisions for sep arate investigations were abandoned; evidence wa-neither wa-neither taken nor heard: all orders were grouped into three categories; votes were forced upon tin groups collectively and the congregations wee ex-pelled. ex-pelled. But throughout ' this action the jusri ligation o!" his course by CombtM was based upon the assertion that the monastic orders were not protected by th- provisions of the concordat. This was a mere sul-t sul-t terfuge. for as l-.tte as I'.miI this treaty was appealed to by the chief assailant of the Church as the sel-lawful sel-lawful basis for the actions of the government toward to-ward the Church. The deeds of I shall summarize brieriv. The French government declares that the concordat con-cordat shall no longer exist. It undertakes to break a treaty without consultation with the other party to it. It undertakes to annul a contract. That cannot be done without a reason. Xo lac! of consideration is alleged. No denial is made tha! the bargain was equitable to the French government. govern-ment. Xo accusation is. made that any clause or" that contract ha not been rigidly observed by th Church. But this is only the beginning. The gov.-rn ment does not say: "I cancel this mortgage ar.d return the principal because I refuse to pay interest inter-est longer." It retains the principal and as-erf-that the title to all the ante-revolutionary church property vested absolutely in the state by the provisions pro-visions of the concordat, without regard to the liability lia-bility which wus the condition. of that iuvestiture. Since 1801 .'jH.Ono churches have been built, of which less than 30 were erected as the result of state aid. Endowments and legacies from foreign as well as French sources have caused an accumulation accumu-lation of property entirely distinct from that confiscated con-fiscated during the revolution. This property now amounts to more than $lW.0n(U )). Tho French government says: ''This, too, is mine." The reason ""because I say it is mine." To say to the pope that the Catholic of Franc may continue to occupy and use their own property prop-erty if they submit to the commands of the separation separa-tion law is not the offer of a fair alternative. If is confiscating property by a subterfuge. Under these conditions consent would eventually eventual-ly and logically sanction the regulation of worship wor-ship by the police, and the control of churches and charities by atheists and socialists not in sympathy sympa-thy with the Catholic masses. I ask the American, Protestant. Hebrew and agnostic ag-nostic alike, whether this is religious freedom? j Does separation of church and state mean that a government can seize and control all churche- i . and regulate public worship ? Is this a recognition of the principle of either civil or religious liberty? v Casting aside bias and bitterness; removing f from our minds all thought of spiritual things: basing a simple ethical proposition upon the belie in right and wrong common to all classes of AmeiA ican citizens. T ask if this is not a fair eonden-ia -1 tion of the question at issue in France today: J I take possession of your property during al period of public disorder and sell it. Later I sign) a contract agreeing to pay you a fixed annual sum. provided that you do not contest ray title to you- . property. After some years I say to you: 4,I cancel can-cel that contract. You have kept your agreementr, but I am tired of paving. I shall retain the prot erty I took originally and confiscate all you hav since acquired, and in addition I shall take every" penny that you have earned; every legacy willed to you: every gift that you have received since av--entered into our original agreement. Stripped of the fine phrases, of Clemenceau and his associates; stripped of diplomatic and theolog- ; ical complexities; stripped to the bare basic question ques-tion of honesty. I have endeavored to formulate briefly the question which is agitating France to-day. |