REV. JAMES MACCAFFREY
Lic. Theol. (Maynooth), Ph.D. ( Freiburg i. B.) Professor of Ecclesiastical History, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth
SECOND EDITION, REVISED
DUBLIN AND WATERFORD
M. H. GILL AND SON, LTD.
ST. LOUIS, MO.
B. HERDER, 17 SOUTH BROADWAY
THOMAS O'DONNELL, C.M.
CENSOR THEOL. DEPUT.
8 Novembris, 1909
THE French Revolution marked the beginning of a new era in the political and religious history of the world. Till then absolute government in its extreme form was the ideal aimed at by most of the rulers of Europe; the principles of imperialism, which in an age of religious unity were such a potent factor in European politics, still dominated the minds of the leading statesmen; while the traditional union between Church and State, even though weakened by the Reformation struggle, seemed strong enough as yet to resist the encroachments of secularism.
Absolutism was not the product of the Middle Ages, nor was it the form of government put forward by the most reliable Catholic writers, or favoured by the Catholic Church. It grew up at a time when the power of the Church and of the Popes was seriously crippled by the religious dissensions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it was in reality as dangerous for Catholic progress as for civil liberty. The Church, instead of having been the ally of the absolute governments of Europe, was rather their slave; but the apparent alliance was sufficient to bring upon her the hatred of those who favoured liberty, and to ensure that when the day of reckoning came the attacks of the masses should be directed equally against both throne and altar. This regrettable conjunction of religion and absolutism brought about by force and against the best traditions of the Catholic Church, was most unfortunate for the future of religion. It gave the popular demagogues an opportunity of pointing to the Church as the declared enemy of liberty, and the masses of the people, accustomed to accept the statements of their leaders and unable to examine such questions for themselves, soon came to regard religion as only another weapon forged by governments for the oppression of the subject.
The people, tired of arbitrary rule and unjust taxation, and urged on by leaders drawn for the most part from the middle classes, rose in revolt, but, in their mad desire for reform and confounding liberty with licence, they went to the other extreme; and soon, moderate men of all sections were glad to submit once more to the government of despotic monarchy in order to escape the still more despotic sway of the popular leaders. The Revolution of 1789 was to a great extent a failure, and in some respects delayed rather than hastened the dawn of constitutional liberty.
But the Revolution of 1848 was of quite a different character, and produced more permanent results. It asserted for the people a voice in the government and administration by forcing the rulers of Europe to proclaim new constitutions. Since that time constitutionalism has been gradually triumphing over absolutism. On the one hand, the elected representatives of the people have encroached more and more upon the powers of the Crown, while, on the other, the concession of the suffrage has enabled the people to control more closely the opinions and votes of their representatives. The study of the rise and progress of the constitutional movement would be in itself a fascinating one; but, here, it is sufficient to point out that it is one of the most notable developments of the nineteenth century.
Again, the struggle between imperialism and nationalism, which in the Middle Ages seemed at one period as if likely to be decided in favour of the former, has turned completely in modern times in favour of the latter. The statesmen assembled at the Congress of Vienna showed no regard for national sentiment in their rearrangement of the countries of Europe, and yet it is precisely because they disregarded such sentiments that most of their decisions were upset during the nineteenth century. Italy, according to their agreement, was left divided into numerous little states, with Austria in control of its fairest provinces; the German states were bound together by no close bond of union; Greece and the Balkan Provinces remained under the yoke of the Sultan; Belgium and Holland were united; Norway was separated from Denmark and handed over to Sweden; while the partition of Poland between Russia, Prussia and Austria was approved.
Since then, the Italian states have disappeared, the Austrians have been expelled, and Italy has become a united kingdom; the German Empire has been established; Greece has shaken off the rule of the Turks and proclaimed itself an independent nation, and the example of Greece has been followed by most of the Balkan Provinces; Belgium has separated definitely from Holland, Norway from Sweden, and Hungary to a certain extent from Austria. In Ireland and Poland the struggle for national autonomy is still being waged with every promise of success. Nor has the development of nationalism achieved merely political results. It has led to a great revival of interest in the national languages and national literatures. In Ireland, in Poland, in the Austrian Provinces, in Brittany, in Belgium and in Norway the language question is a burning one. The smaller nations and races are determined that they shall not allow the strongest bulwark of their nationality and the best memorial of their former glory to be effaced or handed over to the exclusive possession of antiquarians and philologists.
In this struggle the Catholic Church has not been the enemy of nationalism. Her mission of peace does not allow her to stir up strife and dissension or to urge on war, but it is her duty to inculcate the necessity and importance of the virtue of patriotism, and that duty has not been neglected by her clergy. True it is, indeed, that Bismarck and Gladstone professed to believe that Catholics could not be patriots, and that in any struggle their sympathies must necessarily go out to their coreligionists even against their own countrymen. But it is well to remember that these great statesmen seem to have changed their views at a subsequent period, and that the Socialists of to-day loudly proclaim that the Catholic Church by its teaching on patriotism and nationality is one of the great obstacles to the complete union of the whole human race in one common family. The truth is, that in this, as in other matters, the Church has avoided both extremes.
In religious matters the nineteenth century has witnessed some remarkable developments. It is sometimes said that the Revolution completed the separation between Church and State which had been foreshadowed by the Reformation. Such a view is an entirely mistaken one. The Revolution did not effect a separation. It deprived the Church of its property, but it placed the burthen of supporting religion and the clergy upon the State. By doing so it gave the State unlimited control over the ministers of religion, and deprived them, especially in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, of all liberty of speech and action. It put the clergy in a worse position of dependence than in the days of the old regime.
To remedy such a state of affairs the advanced Catholics of the de Lamennais school advocated a complete separation of Church and State, as if a total separation could be effected in practice, and even if effected, could be regarded as the ideal solution. These men forgot that the connection between religion and the daily lives of the people is too intimate to permit a sharp division to be made between the affairs of the Church and the affairs of the State, and that on many important questions, as, for instance, that of education, it is eminently desirable that both powers should go hand in hand. Against these, the Liberal politicians maintained that the Church has no rights which she has not received from the State, that she is in fact a department of the State, and that the religious affairs of a nation should be regulated by the Minister of Worship as the Home Office and Foreign Office are controlled by their respective Secretaries. It was this policy which held sway in Austria, Bavaria, Belgium and most of the German States from 1848 till 1880, and which forced Catholics to organise political parties in order to defend their religion against the encroachments of the State.
Against both these programmes the authorities of the Church protested. They refused to accept the Liberal Catholic view of separation, or the Liberal political theory of dependence. They contended that both Church and State have independent rights, and that in modern circumstances agreement between both powers could be secured best by mutual concessions. Hence, concordats were negotiated between the Holy See and France, Prussia, Bavaria, the Upper Rhine Provinces, Russia, Austria, Spain, and most of the States of Central and Southern America. Such a plan might have worked well had the governments observed the letter or the spirit of their agreements; but, unfortunately, the day is gone when solemn treaties are regarded as binding where no serious danger is to be anticipated from their violation. Most of these concordats have been abandoned or violated, and the Church is obliged to seek a defence for her liberty of action in the devotion and organisation of her own members rather than in the promises of Princes or Cabinets.
The alarming spread of the Liberal theories of State supremacy and secularism has been most apparent in the sphere of education. The absolute rulers had already asserted their rights of control in the universities; but this control was strengthened, and the few universities still remaining in the hands of the Church were secularised during the Napoleonic wars. University education, and to a lesser extent secondary education, passed from ecclesiastical to secular control. But for a long time the primary schools remained in the hands of the religious bodies. It was only, roughly speaking, in the second quarter of the century that the states of Europe began to interest themselves in primary education, and to support the schools by direct financial assistance.
In the beginning no difficulties arose, as all parties were agreed that religious education should be respected, but, gradually, as the principle of state neutrality developed, it was contended that all state supported institutions should be equally neutral, that religious and secular education should be separated, and that religion should be banished from the schools. Towards such a programme the Catholic Church has been unflinching in her opposition. She insists that by confining education to merely secular subjects the most important portion of the training of youth is being neglected, and that the results are likely to prove as disastrous to civil as to religious authority. Hence, she has strongly resisted the scheme of neutral schools; and wherever her protests have been unavailing, she has set up side by side with the state schools, free schools, where the faith of her children may be free from danger. In France, in Germany, in Austria, in Italy, in England, in America and Australia the war is still being waged with a degree of zeal and earnestness which is intelligible only to those who understand the importance of the issues at stake.
The enemies of the Church having secured control of the universities turned against her the very weapons which she herself had forged. These centres of enlightenment, the glory of which in former ages had been the defence of religion, rivalled one another in their efforts to overturn the religious convictions of the masses. Every new discovery was hailed as a triumph of science over superstition. Geology, biology, history, the study of the Oriental languages, literature and monuments, were pressed into service in the war against religion. But these attacks were directed only against individual portions of the Catholic system, and, however its enemies may have boasted of the breaches they had made, still, for a long time, the Christian system as a whole remained without a serious rival. The Evolutionists, however, at last undertook to set up such a rival, and the scientists loudly boasted that they could explain by the powers of matter everything for which the Church endeavoured to account by invoking the supernatural. For a time the danger seemed pressing, but, just as at other periods in the history of the world, a more careful study of the facts has convinced moderate men that revealed religion has nothing to fear from the advance of scientific research.
In face of the hostile attitude of the universities the Catholic Church was obliged to consider carefully her position. Two courses of action opened before her. One was to abandon entirely the institutions which she herself had created, and found new schools which might do for religion in modern times what the Middle Age universities had done in their own day; the other, to throw herself into the universities, even though hostile, as many of the great Christian Apologists had thrown themselves into the Pagan schools of the Roman Empire, and to endeavour to recapture the positions that had been lost. Both schemes found earnest advocates within the Church, and both have been tried with a varying measure of success. While in Germany Catholics strive hard to maintain and to improve their position in the state universities, their Belgian coreligionists have founded at Louvain a Catholic University which has already established its claim to be reckoned as one of the leading centres of higher education on the Continent.
In the struggle between Capital and Labour, which has been one of the most remarkable developments of the century, the Catholic Church could not afford to be an indifferent spectator. It was undeniable that owing mainly to the application of science to manufactures and commerce, the small employers were being gradually crushed out, and consequently the number of those depending upon labour was increasing; while, on the other hand, the wealthy monopolists, pressed hard by national and international competition, strove to lessen the cost of production by reducing the wages of their employees, or by increasing their hours of labour. As a remedy for such grievances the Socialists proposed that private ownership, which, according to them, was the source of social inequality, should be abolished, and that the means of production should be vested in the people for the good of the people. Others, on the contrary, maintained that the rights of property were too sacred to be interfered with even by the state, that the rate of wages should be left entirely to the stern law of supply and demand, and that the public authorities would be acting unwisely by limiting the freedom of contract between the employers and the employed.
With neither of these parties could the Catholic Church find itself in agreement. It recognised the grievances of the working classes, and willingly acknowledged that some remedy should be sought; but it rejected the Socialist proposal for the total abolition of private ownership as being more likely to produce greater evils than the system which it was meant to supplant. On the other side, it repudiated the theory of the absolute inviolability of private property put forward by interested statesmen, and proclaimed the teaching that had been put forward by the ablest Catholic writers of the Middle Ages, that private ownership is limited by the necessities of the individual and by the demands of the common good. Hence, wherever the public good required it, the state could interfere, and could either transfer to itself the ownership of the means of production, while compensating the present occupiers, or take measures to remedy the abuses of which individual owners may have been guilty. These were the principles enunciated by Leo XIII. in his Encyclicals on Labour, and these are the principles upon which has been based the Catholic or Christian Democratic movement which promises to withstand the Socialist campaign in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland.
At the beginning of the century, too, the outlook for the Catholic missions was gloomy in the extreme. France, which had done so much for the spread of Catholicity among the pagan nations, seemed lost to the Church. The religious congregations devoted specially to missionary work had gone down before the storm of the Revolution, and it looked as if the Catholic missions were completely crippled. Yet at no period in the history of the Church has its success in the missionary field been more striking. Were there nothing else to point to, the flourishing churches of the United States and Australia, both products of the nineteenth century, would be a sufficient refutation of the charges of sterility so often levelled against the Catholic missions.
To the progress of the Church during the nineteenth century Ireland has contributed not the least important share. It is mainly Irish Catholic emigrants and their descendants who have built up the Church in the United States, Australia, South Africa and, to a great extent, in England, Scotland and most of the English colonies. These emigrants introduced into these countries and developed a strong type of Catholicity. They were neither Liberals, always complaining of authority, nor Conservatives, striving against every reform. They had imbibed at home the true spirit of faith and of loyalty to the successor of St. Peter, and they communicated this spirit to their descendants.
ST. PATRICK'S COLLEGE, MAYNOOTH, FEAST OF ST. MALACHY.
TO THE SECOND EDITION
THE remarkable demand for The History of the Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century furnishes a striking proof of the interest felt by the clergy and educated Catholic laity in modern religious developments.
The author is extremely grateful to the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh and to the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland who have expressed their strong approval of his work, to the reviewers for their generous appreciation, and to the students of Maynooth College, especially to the Rev. Donald Reidy (Kerry) for their assistance in correcting the proofs and in compiling the Index.
He would be wanting in his duty, too, if he failed to express his gratitude to Messrs. M. H. Gill & Son, Ltd., the printers and publishers, and to their capable staff of assistants. They have shown that Irish authors without going outside their own country can have their books put upon the market in excellent style.
ST. PATRICK'S COLLEGE, MAYNOOTH, FEAST OF ST. BRIGID.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I
(a) Causes of the Revolution
Absolutism of Louis XIV and his successors--Pre-Revolution Govern? ment in France--The clergy, nobles, and the Third Estate-Oppression of the lower classes--Contributory causes--Jansen? ism--Unbelief among higher clergy--Scepticism, Voltaire, and the Encyclopedists--The American Revolution--Financial crisis under Louis XVI--Estates General summoned 1 - 10
(b) The National Assembly
Estates meet--Outbreak of the Revolution--Work of the Assembly-Abolition of tithes and confiscation of ecclesiastical property-Anti-religious measures--Civil constitution of the clergy 10 - 19
(c) The Legislative Assembly and National Convention, The Directory
Character of New Assembly--Anti-ecclesiastical legislation--The Reign of Terror--Abolition of the Monarchy--Hostility of the Convention to Christianity--Opposition to the new regime-Divisions in the Convention--Passing of the Reign of Terror-The Directory--Napoleon invades the Papal States--Peace of Tolentino--Pius VI. a prisoner--Establishment of the Con? sulate 19 - 27
(d) The Consulate and The Empire
The Directory and the Church--Napoleon's attitude--Pius VII. Pope--Negotiations for a concordat--Terms of--Solemn pro? clamation in Paris and Rome--The Organic Articles--Napoleon Emperor--Coronation by Pius VII.--Annexation of Papal States and excommunication of Napoleon--Napoleon's campaign's-His divorce from Josephine and marriage with Maria Louisa-Pius VII. at Savona--The Concordat of Fontainebleau--The Russian Campaign--The Allies and Napoleon--Pius VII. returns to Rome--Abdication of the Emperor--Congress of Vienna--Napoleon escapes from Elba--Waterloo--Louis XVIII. restored 27 - 56
(e) The Restoration
Changes beneficial to Church -- Gallicanism of Government and Church -- Government of Charles X.--Restrictions--Revolution--Louis Philippe, King 56 - 59
(f) The Monarchy of July
Anti-religious character of Government--Religious revival under Lamennais, Lacordaire and Montalembert--L'Avenir founded-Attacks on Absolutism and Gallicanism--Opposition of Government and bishops--L'Avenir suspended--Appeal to Rome-Encyclical, Mirari Vos, and Apostasy of Lamennais--Further efforts of Catholics--Struggle for Catholic Education-Unpopularity of Government--Abdication of Louis Philippe-Republic proclaimed -- Progress of religion under Louis Philippe 59 69
CHAPTER II - THE CHURCH IN THE GERMAN STATES
(a) The Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the Secularisation Policy
German States after dissolution of the Empire -- Relations with Napoleon--Secularisation policy--The Germanic Confederation--The Church and the Congress of Vienna 70 - 75
Civil organisation under Joseph II. -- Religion and Josephism -- Pius VI. visits Vienna--Punctuation of Ems--Attitude of bishops, clergy and people--Resistance in Hungary and the Netherlands -- Leopold II. and Church in Tuscany--Synod of Pistoia-Triple Alliance--Francis II. and Church in Austria--Ferdinand I. and Church in Austria--Mixed marriages controversy-Revolt in Hungary -- Francis Joseph, Emperor 75 - 88
State control of Church under Frederick the Great and Frederick William III.-- Pius VII. and Concordat with Prussia--Mixed marriages controversy -- Successful resistance of Clement Augustus 89 - 101
(d) The Catholic Church in Bavaria
Febronianism and secularisation policy in Bavaria--Resistance in the Tyrol--Concordat--Liberal and Protestant opposition-Disregard for concordat--Attitude of Louis I. 101 -11
(e) The Catholic Church in the Upper Rhine Provinces
Secularisation and Confiscation--Progress of Febronianism--Con? ference at Frankfort and secret intrigues--Concordat for Baden with Leo XII.--State control enforced--Mixed marriages controversy--State and ecclesiastical education-Weakness of bishops--Rebellion 111 -24
THE CHURCH IN SWITZERLAND
Civil constitution before and after Revolution--Government of Mediation and the Church--Ecclesiastical organisation-Federal Reform and Liberal hostility to the Church--Baden Conference--Catholic resistance--War of the Sonderbund-Liberal Constitution 125 -38
Belgian resistance to Josephist reforms--Rule of France and per? secution of the Church--Napoleon and Belgian concordat-Discordant union of Belgium and Holland--State control of Church resisted--Concordat--Revolt and independence of Belgium--Church and State in new constitution--Progress of Liberalism 139 -52
Independence of Holland--Persecution of Catholic Church--Effects of French Revolution in--New Kingdom of Holland--State of the Church--Concordat with William II. and the Catholics-Revolution of 1848--Establishment of Hierarchy 152 -58
Decline of Spain--Restrictions on the Church under Charles III. and Charles IV,--French, rule and the Church in Spain-Political rivalry under Ferdinand VII.--Hostility of Cortes to religion--Civil war--Restoration government and the Church--Carlist wars begin--Violent Liberal persecution of the Church--Protest of Gregory XVI.--End of regency of Espartero--New government and concordat--Literary work of Balmes and Cortes. 159 -72
Pombal and the Church--Change of policy under Dom Pedro-War with France and Spain--English intervention and rule-Revolt--National Assembly and hostility to the Church-Rival claimants and civil discord -- Absolutism, Liberalism and the Church--Chartist party and negotiations for a concordat 172 -81
CHAPTER VI - THE CHURCH IN POLAND AND RUSSIA
Defective civil constitution--Factions--Civil war, foreign intervention, revolt and partitions of Poland--Catherine II. of Russia and efforts at proselytism--Favour of Paul I. and Alexander I.--Poland and Congress of Vienna--Tyranny of Nicholas I.--Persecution of the Ruthenian Catholics--Remonstrances of Gregory XVI.--Concordat with Russia 182 -96
CHAPTER VII - THE PAPACY AND ITALY
Pius VII., Pope -- Consalvi and concordat with Napoleon -Napoleon seizes the Papal States--Napoleon excommunicated and Pius VII. a prisoner at Savona--Concordat of Fontainebleau--Return of Pius VII. to Rome--Congress of Vienna and the Papal States--Re-establishment of the Society of Jesus-Reform in the Papal States--The Carbonari--Leo XII., Pope-Religious reforms and measures against secret societies-Brief reign of Pius VIII.--Gregory XVI., Pope, Early life of-Revolutionary movement in Italy--Powers demand reforms in the Papal States--Revolution and Austrian intervention-Gregory XVI. and his relations with European governments-Movement for Italian unity--Character of Gregory XVI. 197 - 232
(a) The Second Republic and the Second Empire
Catholics support the Republic--The General Assembly--Louis Napoleon, President--Educational legislation--Divisions among Catholics -- Gallicans and Ultramontanes -- Napoleon III., Emperor -- Prevalence of scepticism and rationalism -Napoleon III. and the Church--Friendly relations cease-Franco-Prussian war and overthrow of Empire 233 -51
(b) The Third Republic
The National Assembly--Thiers and MacMahon Presidents -Negotiations for restoration of royalty--The Commune--Revival of religion under Thiers and MacMahon--Catholic Education efforts--Campaign against Christianity--Religious and political differences among Catholic--Adverse Education laws-Hostility to religion--Leo XIII. and the Republic Comte de Mun and Catholic organisation--Wrangling of Catholic parties-Hostile legislation of the bloc--Persecution of religious congregations--Waldeck--Rousseau's Associations Bill--Expulsion of religious orders and suppression of their schools-Rupture of diplomatic relations with the Vatican--Separation of Church and State--Present position of the Church 251 -77
CHAPTER IX - Federation movement in German States--Catholic activities 278
Revolution of 1848-Improved Condition of the Church--Persecution of Catholics under William I.--Bismarck's Centralisation schemes and the Church 280 -84
Protests of bishops against Enslavement of Church--Catholic resistance to secular education 284 -88
(c) The Upper Rhine Provinces
Servitude of Church--Courageous defiance of Herman von Vicari--His arrest--Government agrees to a Convention with Leo XII.--Liberal outcry and new persecution--Educational restrictions--Death of Herman von Vicari--New Convention disregarded--A modus vivendi--The Church in Hesse--Vigorous Catholic policy of Lenning and Ketteler--The Church in Nassau 288 -99
CHAPTER X - THE KULTURKAMPF IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE
Establishment of German Empire--Bismarck's Erastian schemes-Hostilities begin in Prussia and Poland--The tyrannical "May Laws"--Violent persecution of the Church in Prussia and Poland--Unyielding resistance--of Catholics--Peace negotiations--End of the Kulturkampf--The Church in Baden--The Kulturkampf in Baden--The formation of the Catholic People's Party -- The Church in Hesse -- Persecution strengthens Catholicity--The Church in Bavaria--Liberal Restrictions-Enforcement of Catholic demand 300 -18
EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS ORDERS AND CATHOLIC ORGANISATION IN GERMANY
Primary education in Germany before and after the Kulturkampf-Secondary Education--The Universities--The religious orders and congregations--Various Catholic organisations 319 -26
CHAPTER XII - AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY
(a) The Church in Austria Francis Joseph, Emperor--Constitutional changes--Downfall of Josephism--Concordat--Edict of Toleration and violation of concordat--Hostile legislation of the Liberals--Reaction and formation of the Christian Democrat party--Pan-Germanism and the Los-Von-Rom movement 327 -36
(b) The Church in Hungary Political and religious developments in Hungary--Restrictions on the freedom of the Church--Aims of the bishops 336 -38
(c) Education and Organisation in the Austrian Empire Primary education in Austria--The Catholic School Association-Religion in Secondary education--Anti-Catholic Universities-Satisfactory state of Catholic education in Hungary -- Education in Hungary--Catholic organisations in Austria and Hungary 338 -42
CHAPTER XIII - THE CHURCH IN SWITZERLAND
Political re-organisation -- Unity and vigour of the Swiss Catholics-Hostile Liberal legislation--Infallibility and new persecution of Catholics--Favour for Old Catholics and rebellious clergy-Rupture of diplomatic relations with Pope--Election adverse to Radicals--Agreement--Catholic organisation and the Catholic University of Freiburg--Progress of Catholicism--Catholic societies--Legal position of the Church in Switzerland-Catholic education 343 -55
CHAPTER XIV (a) Belgium
Political parties -- Unfavourable educational legislation of Liberal government--Brief existence of weak Catholic ministry--Freemason hostility--Catholic defensive organisation--Determined Catholic opposition to secular education--Catholic free-school system--Fall of Liberal ministry--Catholic programme of social legislation--Liberty and progress of the Church in Belgium-Catholic primary and secondary education--The University of Louvain 356 -73
Civil constitution and Catholics--Re-establishment of Catholic Hierarchy and Calvinist opposition--Local control of education-Organisattion of Church--The school system--Church and State--Catholic Party and Catholic social efforts--Jansenist sect--The Church in Luxemburg--Constitution and Church organisation . . . . . . . . . . 373 -30
CHAPTER XV - SPAIN AND PORTUGAL
Civil discord--Revolution and confiscation of ecclesiastical property--O'Donnell ministry - Rebellion--Brief reign and abdication of Amadeus I.--Alphonsus XII. and the Church--Leo XIII. and rival political parties in Spain--Education laws--Catholic disunion and failure of negotiations for a new concordat . 381 -89
State control and slavery of Church in Portugal--Failure of negotiations-Want of zeal of higher clergy--Confiscation of ecclesiastical property and suppression of religious orders-Subjection of the Church--State education of the clergy-Restrictive education laws--Leo XIII. and signs of improvement in Church in Portugal . . . . . . 390 -97
CHAPTER XVI - THE CHURCH IN POLAND, RUSSIA AND THE BALKAN PROVINCES
Poland and Russia
Russian disregard for the concordat--Polish national movement suppressed by Russia--Revolution in Poland barbarously suppressed by Russia--Persecution of the Church--Protest of Plus IX. and rupture of diplomatic relations between Russia and the Vatican--Persecution grows more severe--Enforced proselytism of Russian Catholics - Negotiations and convention between Leo XIII. and Alexander III.--Improvement of the condition of the Church--Leo XIII. and the Catholics in Poland--Japanese war and grant of religious liberty in Russia-Progress of the Church in the Russian Empire-- Church in Balkan Provinces--Hostile influences to the progress of the Church in Turkey in Europe--Present condition of the Church-The Church in Montenegro, Servia, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria, Roumania and Greece . . . . . 398 - 410
CHAPTER XVII - THE CHURCH IN NORTHERN EUROPE
Early difficulties of the Church in Denmark--Liberal constitution and liberty of worship-Introduction of religious orders and increase of Catholics--Organisation of the Church--Catholic social work--The Church in Iceland . . . . . 411 -13
(b) Norway and Sweden
Growth of toleration in Norway--Organisation of the Church-Work of the religious orders--Catholic education--Attitude of the State to the Church --The religious movement in the Lutheran Church--Persecution of the Church in Sweden--Protestant opposition to toleration--Removal in part of penal legislation-Further repeal of penal laws--Position of the Church in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . 413 -17
CHAPTER XVIII - THE PAPACY
(a) Pius IX. and Italy
Italy at end of reign of Gregory XVI.--Election of Plus IX.-Early life and character--Reforms of Plus IX.--Young Italy and Federalist parties--Revolutions and new constitutions in Italian States--The Pope, Italy and Austria--Violence of Roman mob-Flight of Plus IX. to Gaëta--Abolition of Papal Government and establishment of Roman Republic-French assistance and return of Plus IX. to Rome--House of Savoy at head of Italian Unity Movement--Napoleon III. favours Cavour--Defeat of Austrians at Magenta and Solferino-Peace of Villafranca and Italian Confederation SchemeGaribaldi's attack on Papal States--Defeat of Papal army at Castelfidardo--Annexation of greater part of Papal States-Victor Emmanuel I., King of Italy --The September ConwentionDefeat of Garibaldi at Mentana--Departure of French troops from Rome and Italian invasion of Papal States-Siege and surrender of Rome--Final annexation of Papal territory -Vatican Council suspended--The Law of Guarantees--Rome the Capital of Italy--Church and State in Italy-Suppression of religious houses and confiscation of ecclesiastical property--Hostility of Italian Parliament--Deaths of Plus IX. and King of Italy . . . . . . 418 -38
(b) Pius IX., the Syllabus and the Vatican Council
Definition of dogma of Immaculate Conception--The Syllalbus and the Bull, Quanta Cura--Papal Commission on General Council-Convocation of the Vatican Council--Question of Infallibility mooted--Attitude of various parties--Controversies and discussions--Döllinger's campaign of opposition--Attitude of Swiss and German Catholics--The European press and the Courcil -Formal introduction of the question of Infallibility--Debates in the Council and controversies outside--Solemn Promulgation of the dogma--Proclamation of the Genman bishops-Opposition of a minority-Attitude of France Germany--The German Universities--Action of different European Governments--Establishment of sect of Old Catholics--Recognition accorded by various States--Austria, Infallibility and the Old Catholics--Switzerland and the definition--Failure of schismatic efforts in other countries 438 -69
(c) Leo XIII. and Plus X.
Election of Leo XIII.--Condition of the Papacy--Conciliation policy--Leo XIII. and Italy-Hostility of Italian Government--Freemason opposition--Success of conciliation policy in Germany and Switzerland Improvement of the condition of the Church in Russia--Leo XIII. and other European countries--The Pope, the French Republic and French Catholies--lnfiuence of Leo XIII. in social reform--Social, Ecclesiastical and Religious Encyclicals of Leo XIII.--His death--Election of Pius X.- Activity of Pius X . . 469 -87
THE CHURCH IN FRANCE
(a) CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION
Taine, Les Origines de la France Contemporaine, L'Ancien Régime, 2 vols., 1901. De Tocqueville, L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution, 1856. Granier de Cassagnac, Histoire des Causes de la Révolution Française de 1789, 1850. The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII., The French Revolution, 1904 (Chap. I.-IV.). Sicard, L'Ancien Clergé de France. Les Évêques, avant la Révolution, Paris, 1905. Faguet, Le dix-huitieme siècle. Études Littéraires, 1890. Brunetière- Derechef , Manual of the History of French Literature, London, 1898, Chap. III. ( 1720- 1801).
THE French Revolution was not a sudden outburst of popular fury caused by some passing act of oppression. It was the result of forces partly social and political, partly literary and religious, which had been working in harmony for a long period against the absolutism of the Crown, and the teachings of Christianity as represented by the Catholic Church. Louis XIV. ( 1643-1715) mainly by his own personal gifts and the aid of clever ministers, such as Cardinal Mazarin, had succeeded in asserting the almost unlimited prerogatives of the Crown, and in concentrating in his own hands and in those of his nominees the power hitherto shared in by various local and provincial institutions. This system might have been maintained for a long time had the successors of Louis XIV. been endowed with his ability and foresight, but on his death he was followed by the Duke of Orleans who acted as regent ( 1715-1723), and Louis XV. ( 1723-1774), both of whom, though holding the same exalted ideas of the royal power, were men of weak character utterly incapable of retaining the loyalty or respect of the French nation. The government passed into the control of favourite ministers; the arbitrary rule and the impositions which had been barely tolerable in an age of national prosperity, were now resented by the middle and lower classes of the population; and demands began to be formulated for the limitation of the power of the Crown by the introduction of popular control.
To understand the state of affairs it is necessary to sketch briefly the system of government in France during the period immediately preceding the Revolution. The king ruled through a royal council consisting of about forty members nominated by himself and entrusted by him with the whole administration of the kingdom. The representatives of king and council in the provinces were the Intendants who were charged with the general superintendence of their province, and who were responsible only to the king and council. The communes enjoyed a species of elective control, but as the decrees of the communal assemblies were subject to the revision of the Intendant of the province, the authority of the popular representatives was more nominal than real. In the cities and large towns the administration was vested in the general assembly and town council (Corps de ville), but the municipal authorities, at best very unrepresentative in their character, were largely controlled by the mayor, who was nominated by the Crown and by the Intendant of the province. *
The old Provincial Estates or Parliaments had been discountenanced by the authorities, and had fallen into disuse except in a few provinces, and, practically speaking, it was only in Languedoc and Brittany that they still retained an authority, which at most was only administrative. The royal law courts, as distinguished from the feudal and corporation courts, were of
* The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII., pp. 42-45.
three classes, the most important of which were the Parlements or supreme courts. These were thirteen in number, of which the Paris Parlement was the oldest and most influential. They claimed to be something more than mere judicial tribunals, and especially the Paris Parlement aimed at curbing the royal power, both in legislation and in the imposition of taxes, but its claims were resisted and its decisions set aside by the council of the king. It will thus be seen how, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in France, the machinery of government and administration had been gradually freed from the drag of popular control, and vested in the hands of officials amenable only to the Crown.
The division of the population of France into three orders--the clergy, the nobles, and the Third Estate-had been recognised for centuries. The clergy formed a powerful body from the point of view of numbers as well as of wealth. It is estimated that in 1789 the number of priests in France, excluding members of religious congregations, amounted to about 60,000, while the annual revenue of the Church at the same period from tithes, rents, and other sources of emolument reached nearly seven million pounds. It is, however, an indisputable fact that the tithe was levied as a rule with great moderation, and that the tenants on the church lands were the least harshly treated. There were, in 1789, 134 archbishops and bishops, whose average income amounted to about £2,500 a year, while though some of the curés were in receipt of £800 a year or even more, the vast majority of the priests received little more than the portion congrue fixed by the state in 1768 at 500 livres and in 1786 at 700 livres.* As a body the clergy were either exempt from taxation or had bought exemption by paying a fixed sum, but they freely devoted a large amount (don gratuit) for the king's use every five years, and in times of war or national distress they were prepared to make extraordinary levies.
* About £28.
The clergy of France were to a great extent under the control of the king. By the concordat of 1516 Leo X. had conceded to Francis I. and his successors the right of nominating, subject to the papal confirmation, to the archbishoprics and bishoprics, while many of the abbacies, canonries and inferior benefices were also in the royal gift. By means of this patronage the king was always able to control the higher clergy, who were chosen almost invariably from the ranks of the nobility and formed a special caste even in their own order. In spite of the notorious example of men like Archbishop Dubois (d. 1723) they were as a class not unworthy of their sacred office, though it must be admitted that in the century preceding the Revolution they could boast of few colleagues of eminent sanctity or learning. The lower clergy, on the other hand, were generally recruited from the peasantry of France. They were, with some rare exceptions, men of irreproachable lives, devoted to their duty and in sympathy with the people from whom they were sprung and to whom they ministered. This will explain why in the earlier stages of the Revolution a large number of the clerical deputies were to be found in the ranks of the Third Estate in opposition to their own spiritual superiors, and why, too, out of the 290 deputies whom the clergy were to send forward in 1789, 208 were simple curés. It is a pity, however, that the clergy of both classes did not show themselves a little more active and self-reliant in defending themselves and the sacred cause entrusted to their charge against the sneering attacks of the infidel philosophers of the eighteenth century.
The nobles of France formed a body apart. They owed their position either to their birth or to the purchase of an office to which the rank of nobility was attached. They were in the eighteenth century without any political power, without leaders of even ordinary political foresight, torn by dissensions between the wealthier party who lived around Paris and Versailles and their less fortunate brethren condemned to residence on their hereditary estates, and thoroughly unpopular with the peasantry, except perhaps in Brittany and La Vendée, on account of their privileges and feudal pretensions. But it would be unfair to suppose that the scandalously immoral career of men like the Duke of Orleans was typical of the lives of the French nobles. On the contrary, the homes of many of the country gentlemen were models of a Christian family life.
The body of the peasantry * of France were personally free in 1789, and that at a time when serfdom was still flourishing in other European countries, as, for example, in Prussia. The large farmers were as a rule in comfortable circumstances, but the small farmers who formed the bulk of the French peasantry, and who held in 1789 nearly one-third of the kingdom, found it difficult to procure the necessaries, not to mention the comforts of life. Besides the direct taxation like the taille, capitation, and vingtième, often levied very inequitably, and the indirect taxes on articles such as salt, they were hampered by certain manorial rights of the local lord. They were obliged, for example, to send their grain to his mill, their flour to his oven, their grapes to his wine-press. They were bound to give a certain amount of forced labour, to pay tolls on their produce on the way to market, and to respect the lord's rights of hunting and shooting. Besides, the prices of the food which they wished to buy, or the produce they wished to sell, were often fixed by royal edicts in a way that was disastrous for the small proprietors. The labourers were, as a rule, in a better position, but in spite of the ameliorations effected under Louis XVI. ( 1774-1793) both classes detested the nobles and the court, and it only required leaders to urge them on to the attack.
These leaders were soon provided from the ranks of the middle classes or bourgeoisie. These were confined principally to the cities and large towns, both of which had shared in the general commercial prosperity since
* Levasseur, La Population Française, 3 vols., 1889-92.
the age of Louis XIV. The sons of the wealthy merchants received a good education. They filled the ranks of the lawyers, judges, civil servants, and tax-farmers of France. They were earnest students of the literary attacks made by the infidel writers against religion and civil authority. Their sympathies were entirely with the peasantry as against the nobles, because from the peasantry they anticipated no danger.
These two classes--the bourgeoisie and the peasantry --constituted the Third Estate, upon which the bulk of taxation fell. Owing to the wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the extravagant outlay of the court and its officials, the expenditure was going up year by year, while, on the other hand, the number of those who, from their position or from purchase, were exempt, was constantly on the increase. * The indirect taxes, especially the hated salt tax, was leased out to certain tax-farmers, and was enforced with great harshness. In addition to their taxes the peasants were bound to pay the tithes, the feudal dues, the tolls, &c., so that, according to careful calculation, during the ten years preceding the revolution the French peasants paid in taxes of one species or another about 80 out of every 100 francs of their income. It was not difficult to convince such men that a change of government was urgently required.
Nor were the forces wanting to strengthen that conviction. It is a strange feature of the despotic government in France that a great measure of freedom was allowed to the philosophers and writers who set themselves to undermine Church and Crown. The open immorality and contempt for religion of which the court set the example under the rule of the Duke of Orleans and Louis XV. could not fail to influence the masses, while the interminable disputes between the Jansenists and their opponents, and the scandals consequent thereon, served to generate religious scepticism in the
* Gomel, Les Causes Financières de la Révolution Française, 2 vols., 1892-3.
minds of many. The well-known unbelief of a few amongst the higher clergy helped, too, to promote the spread of the anti-religious movement. The works of English writers like Hobbes ( 1588-1679) and Locke ( 1632-1704), and the professedly free-thinking views of men like Lord Herbert of Cherbury ( 1648), of Toland ( 1722), of Shaftesbury ( 1713), of Tindal ( 1733), and of Collins ( 1729), were eagerly welcomed by man educated Frenchmen. Pamphlets and books began to appear under the guise of descriptions of foreign countries, in which the Catholic Church and its doctrines regarding the Scriptures, the Mass, the Confessional, and the miraculous Birth of Christ were scoffingly assailed.
Typical examples of this class of literature are the Persian Letters of Montesquieu, the Description of the Island of Borneo by Fontenelle, the Life of Mohammed by Henri de Bouillon Villiers, and the Letters on the English by Voltaire. The latter, * whose real name was François Marie Arouet, was born in 1694, received his early education at a Jesuit College, and at an early age adopted the principles of religious scepticism. He devoted his life to the destruction of dogmatic Christianity, and by a mixture of popular philosophy, ready sarcasm, and a keen appreciation of the weak points of his adversaries, did more to spread irreligious opinions among the middle and lower classes than any other writer of his time. Round him were grouped a loyal band of clever supporters, men like Diderot, D'Alembert, and Condillac, pledged to assist him in the work of destruction.
Following the plan adopted by Bayle in his Dictionary they decided to publish an Encyclopedia, † in which, according to Diderot, articles dealing with religious subjects were to be treated with an outward show of deference, while the true opinion of the writer was indicated by embodying a reference to some other article where the opposite views were established on apparently sound principles. By this method the writers were able to
* Crouslé, La Vie et les Oeuvres de Voltaire, 2 vols., 1899.
† Ducros, Les Encyclopédistes, 1900.
undermine the very foundations of Christianity without rudely shocking their readers, and without making themselves liable to be punished for the publication of openly irreligious opinions. The work of the Encyclopedists had a remarkable success; especially as the clergy, instead of actively fighting them with their own weapons, relied rather on royal prohibitions and suppressions. The work of publication was begun in 1751, was ordered to be confiscated by Parliament on the appearance of the second volume, but was finally carried through in 1772 ( 28 vols.), and speedily reproduced in all kinds of editions.
Another writer who exercised an influence on France hardly less than Voltaire is Jean Jacques Rousseau * ( 1712-1778). Born in Geneva, he settled in Paris and became connected with the Encyclopedists. He realised the unshapen revolutionary ideas that were coursing through the minds of the masses, and better than any of his fellows he assisted them to give them expression. By his work, Le Contrat Social ( 1762), he opened up to the people a vista of infinite possibilities by pointing out that the right of governing came not from on high but from the people, and if it were abused the people could recall their concession, and unmake what they themselves had made. This was writing that the people could understand, and it was not long till Rousseau's works were in the hands of everybody, and his theories were the subject of universal discussion. The rights of the people, their social equality, the government for the welfare of the masses, were doctrines that were certain to be appreciated by the masses.
It was at this critical period when men's minds were disturbed by these novel ideas that the news of the American Revolution and of the Declaration of Independence were brought to France. Hatred of England forced the French Government to aid the Americans in their struggle for freedom, and many of the French officers hastened to place their swords at the disposal of the
* Lemaitre, J. J. Rousseau, Paris, 1907.
colonists. Every defeat of England was celebrated by the French populace as if it were a national victory. Soon these volunteer officers returned, filled with admiration for the democratic government established in the States, and announcing to the people that the speculative opinions broached by Rousseau and his school regarding liberty and equality had been at last realised in the new Western republic. It was thus that the American War of Independence exercised no small influence in overturning the despotic royalty of France.
The opportunity soon came owing to the financial troubles of the French Government. On account of the outlay caused by the expensive wars of Louis XIV., and of the Seven Years' War, the national debt of France had been enormously increased, till at last the annual revenue fell far below what was required to carry on the administration, to pay the interest on the loans, and to meet the lavish expenditure of the court. There was thus an increasing deficit each year, which was suddenly multiplied by the millions that were required for the war in which France became involved with England. Louis XVI. ( 1774-1793) was not the man to meet such a crisis. Though in his moral qualities a great contrast to his predecessors, and though he made some efforts to purify the court, he was not a ruler of any intellectual power, nor was he possessed of that energy and firmness of character which were required for the delicate situation in which the government of France then found itself. On his accession to the throne he dismissed the unpopular ministers of Louis XV., recalled the Parlements which had been suppressed, and appointed Turgot as Comptroller-General of the Finances. The problem confronting the new Comptroller-General-how to meet the annual deficit without increasing the taxation--was solved by him by the adoption of rigid economy, but his reforms were opposed by the privileged classes, and he was dismissed ( 1776). His successor, Necker, a Swiss banker, might have succeeded in meeting the annual deficit of twenty-four million livres had he not been handicapped by the vast additional expenditure required for the war with England. In his difficulties he resolved to make the French nation acquainted with the financial bankruptcy threatening the country, and for this purpose he published his celebrated Compte Rendu, which quickly led to his dismissal ( 1781). Various devices were adopted to stave off the crisis, and in 1787 an Assembly of the Notables of France, composed for the greater part of the nobles and the clergy, was convoked. Even then, confronted with the terrible possibilities of national bankruptcy, the privileged classes refused to abate one iota of their pretensions, put aside all proposals of reform, and were dismissed ( May, 1787) without having done anything to ease the situation. Finally, when no other course was open to him, Louis XVI. issued a decree convoking an assembly of the Estates General ( 8th Aug., 1788).
The Estates General was a body composed of representatives of the nobles, clergy and people of France. Not since the year 1614 had such an assembly been convoked in France. Times had changed since then, and especially, considering the excited feelings of the populace, it was fully recognised that the experiment was likely to prove a dangerous one. Nor was the danger lessened by the royal edict ( 27th Dec., 1788) arranging that the representation should be distributed on the basis of population as well as of taxation, and that the representatives of the Third Estate should equal in numbers those of the clergy and nobles combined.
(b) THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (1789-1791)
Barruel, Coll. Eccl. ou recueil complet des ouvrages faits depuis l' Ouverture des États Généraux, relatifs au clergé, 7 vols. ( 1791- 1793). Barruel, Histoire du Clergé de France pendant la Révolution ( 17941804). Jager, Histoire de l'Eglise de France pendant la Révolution, 3vols. ( 1860). Sicard, L'Ancien Clergé de France, les Évêques pendant la Révolution, 1903. Giobbio, La Chiesa e lo Stato in Francia durante la Rivoluzione (1789-1799), 1905.
The Estates met at Versailles ( 5th May, 1789). Necker, who had been re-appointed Comptroller-General, addressed the Assembly on the financial difficulties of the nation, and after his address the nobles and clergy left the meeting and retired to their different halls for deliberation. This was in accordance with ancient custom, according to which the deliberations should be carried on by orders, but the representatives of the Third Estate clearly recognised that their increased numbers would avail them little unless this old custom were broken, and unless the nobles and clergy were forced to join them in a common assembly, in which the votes of the individuals would carry equal weight. Hence, they refused to constitute themselves into an Assembly of the Third Estate, and demanded that the nobles and clergy should join them in forming a common deliberative council. The clergy were divided as to their attitude on this question, some of the curés voting for compliance with the request, but the nobles refused all concessions. At last, on the proposition of the Abbé Sieyès, one of the ablest of the Paris deputies, a final invitation was sent to the other orders, and on their refusal the representatives of the Third Estate declared themselves the National Assembly of France, and elected Bailly, the astronomer, president of the body. Soon (22nd June) about 160 members of the clergy threw in their lot with the Third Estate; on the 25th June a minority of the nobles, headed by the Duke of Orleans, followed their example; and two days later the remainder of their order and of the clergy yielded at the request of the king. Louis XVI. was now thoroughly alarmed by the turn events had taken. Necker was regarded by him as the cause of all the misfortune, for it was he who counselled the increased representation of the Third Estate. A number of regiments under the command of the Duc de Broglie began to concentrate upon Paris and Versailles. The populace in Paris resented the military preparations to overawe their representatives; a revolutionary party, encouraged by the Duke of Orleans, began to make itself felt in the capital; and some of the regular troops showed signs of insubordination. On the 12th July, 1789, the news spread like wildfire that Necker had been dismissed. Immediately the mob took possession of the streets, broke open the gunshops, seized the fire-arms, captured the Hôtel des Invalides, and carried by storm the renowned prison of Paris, the Bastille. To their astonishment, instead of the crowds of political prisoners supposed to be drooping in its dungeons, they found only seven, and these common malefactors. The king yielded before this outburst of the Paris mob. Necker was recalled to office; the regiments lying around Versailles were dismissed; and their officers, men like the Count d'Artois, the Prince de Condé, the Duc de Bourbon, and the Marshal de Broglie, fled from France. The Revolution had now begun, and these were the first of the Émigrés.
On the night of the 4th August, while the report of the committee charged to draft a new constitution was being discussed, a scene of wild excitement took place. All the feudal rights of the nobility, all the privileges of class, of town, and of province, were swept away by general consent. Henceforth all men were to be equal, and the taxes should be levied on all without distinction on the basis of revenue. On that night, too, the clergy renounced their privileges, the tithes were abolished, and no source of revenue was provided to take their place. A solemn Te Deum was chanted to celebrate the inauguration of a new era, and Louis XVI. was proclaimed the "Restorer of French Liberty." The Declaration of the Rights of Man was agreed to a few weeks later (28th Aug.).
General discontent was expressed at the slow progress made by the Assembly in its work of giving France a constitution, and it was felt that Louis XVI. would hardly be satisfied with the "suspensive veto" on legislation that had been decreed to him. The Paris mob,
* Forneron, Histoire des Émigrés pendant la Révolution, 2 vols., 1884.
idle and starving, lent a ready ear to the suggestions of the extreme revolutionary party. A mob, composed mostly of women, attacked (Oct. 5) the Hôtel de Ville, and hastened towards the royal palace at Versailles. Lafayette assembled the National Guard, but did not promptly bar the progress of the crowds. They surrounded the palace, clamouring for bread. During the night they burst through an unguarded door, killed some of the bodyguard, and the queen barely escaped with her life. In the end, the king and queen were obliged to accompany the mob to Paris, and to take up their residence in the Tuileries, where they were joined by the National Assembly, which held its sessions in the riding-school. Henceforth, the mob of Paris were the masters of both the king and the assembly.
Meanwhile, measures were passed seriously affecting the ecclesiastical property. The abolition of the tithes had been decreed on the 4th August, but it had not been determined what, if any, compensation should be made to their owners. But soon the principle began to be put forward that ecclesiastical property belonged to the nation, and that therefore the tithes, instead of being commuted or redeemed as the clergy desired, should be wiped away without any equivalent. This was combated by the Abbé Sieyès, * on the ground that such a step was against justice and expediency, that it meant a pure gift of £3,000,000 to the landowners of France, and that the only safe method was to adopt a tithe composition, capitalise the price, and apply the revenue to the support of the Church. The motion was, however, passed with unanimity, the clergy declaring themselves willing to trust the nation. The plurality of benefices, the surplice fees, and the annats were abolished.
The abolition of the usual sources of revenue and the utter disorder reigning in the country soon brought France face to face with bankruptcy. In these circumstances the principle that ecclesiastical property was the property of the nation was invoked in defence of a new
* Notice sur la vie de Sieyès, Paris, 1795.
spoliation. Talleyrand, the ex-bishop of Autun, proposed (10th October) that the ecclesiastical property producing an annual revenue of about 70,000,000 and the tithes (80,000,000 livres) should be placed at the disposal of the state, and out of this, after due provision had been made for the maintenance of the clergy and for the ecclesiastical expenses, a balance would remain sufficient to relieve the financial difficulties of the state. This was supported by Mirabeau, and opposed by the Abbé Maury, * afterwards archbishop of Paris, by Malouet, and by Sieyès, but it was carried in November, 1789. It was added that the minimum revenue of curés, exclusive of house and garden, should be fixed at 1,200 livres. Henceforth, the clergy of France were dependent upon the state for their support.
The first sale of church lands was ordered by the Assembly (20th Dec.), and the curés were commanded ( 5th Feb., 1790) to declare the amount of their revenues. The sale of ecclesiastical lands was not, however, a successful experiment, as few purchasers could be found; and it was arranged that the municipal bodies should take over the property on the strength of promissory notes. These municipal notes were guaranteed by the government, and were put in circulation (Dec.). The holder could realise them in land or money as he wished. These notes were the famous "Assignats," which were such a fruitful cause of public and private calamity at a later stage of the Revolution. †
The Assembly went still further. It declared ( 13th Feb., 1790) the monastic vows of the religious orders of both men and women antagonistic to the spirit of liberty; it consequently declared them null and void, suppressed all such orders, and forbade them to accept novices. Those who should abandon their vows and return to the world were guaranteed a pension, and those who wished to remain in community life were to be con-
* Correspondence Diplomatique et Mémoires inédits du Cardinal Maury, 1891. † Stourm, Les Finances de l' Ancien Régime et de la Révolution, 2 vols., Paris, 1885.
gregated without distinction of rules in certain houses selected by the state. These, too, were allowed support from the state, but the pensions were irregularly paid, and the enmity of the municipal authorities and of the mob made their position still more difficult. Out of the 37,000 nuns then in France only six hundred broke their vows and returned to the world, but, as it is natural to expect, there were more defections from the ranks of the 13,136 male members of French religious orders.
In its work of drafting a constitution the Assembly had decreed that the old provinces of France should be suppressed, in favour of a new partition into eighty-four departments of nearly equal size. In their hatred of the government by officials tinder the old régime the Assembly went to the other extreme, and ordained that not alone should the appointment of the departmental and communal representatives depend upon the popular vote, but even the appointment of judges and magistrates. This craze for the system of election ultimately led the Assembly into direct conflict with the principles of the Catholic Church.
The difficulty arose over what is known as the Civil Constitution of the Clergy * ( May, 1790). According to this law there should be only one bishop for each of the departments of France, thus abolishing at one stroke forty-eight episcopal sees. The number of archbishops was reduced to ten. The bishops were to be departmental, appointed by the electors, and the curés by the district councils. The bishop might on his appointment announce his election to the Pope as an evidence of his communion with the Holy See; but it was the metropolitan or senior bishop of the province who should ratify his appointment. The cathedral chapters were suppressed, and in place of the canons it was arranged that to each bishop should be assigned a council of vicars whose approval should be necessary for the principal acts of episcopal administration. The curé had the
* Sciout, Histoire de la Constitution Civile du Clergé (1790-1801), Paris, 1872- 1881.
right of selecting any priest of the diocese as his assistant without reference to the bishop; and in all cases of dispute between the bishop and his priests the ultimate decision rested with the civil authorities. Nor could the bishop or priest be absent from the diocese or parish for more than a fortnight without getting permission--the former from the departmental assembly, the latter from the district council. Besides, the stipends of the clergy were clearly fixed. The archbishop of Paris received 50,000 livres a year, the other archbishops and bishops sums varying from 20,000 to 12,000 livres, while the curés were to be paid from 6,000 to 1,200 livres, and the assistants from 2,400 to 700 livres.
This Civil Constitution of the Clergy was, as is evident, opposed to the divine constitution of the Church. The election of the parish priests and bishops by lay assemblies, the members of which might not be even professing Christians, and without reference to the Holy See, was a change that shocked the consciences of even careless Catholics. The opposition of the clergy to the scheme was, however, overborne, partly, no doubt, through the influence of the Jansenist faction, and nothing now was wanting to give the constitution legal force except the approbation of the king.
The position was a difficult one for Louis XVI. On the one hand he feared that his refusal would only supply a new weapon to the more extreme section of the Assembly, while, on the other, his conscience as a Catholic forbade him to sanction what was at variance with the doctrines of his Church. In his difficulty he turned for advice to Pius VI. The latter, who had followed with the utmost anxiety every step in the discussion of the Civil Constitution, replied ( 10th July, 1790) to the inquiries of the king by condemning the measure. This condemnation was kept a secret; and at last, yielding to the importunities of the Assembly, and the casuistry of the court theologians, the king affixed his signature to the law, and the Constitution was proclaimed (24th Aug.).
The Church of France was now face to face with open schism. All parties anxiously watched on which side the clergy would group themselves. De Boisgelin, the archbishop of Aix, soon relieved the tension of the situation by publishing his Exposition des Principes sur la Constitution civile du Clergé, in which he pointed out in strong but moderate language the schismatical nature of the law. He received the support of all the bishops of France save four--namely, Talleyrand (Autun), Brienne (Sens), Jarente (Orleans), Savine (Viviers). Three titular bishops, Gobel, Miroudot, and Brienne, also refused their adhesion. The vast body of the curés also joined in the condemnation, and it is noteworthy that the first movement of opposition to the Revolution, as, for example, the riots at Montauban, and the "federation of Jalès," was due to this attack upon the Catholic Church. *
These warnings, though significant, only emboldened the Assembly to force the Civil Constitution on the clergy and the country. On the motion of Mirabeau it was carried that the clergy should swear allegiance to the Civil Constitution under pain of expulsion from their benefices, and the king, alarmed by the threats against both the clergy and himself, attached (26th Dec.) his signature to this proposal of the Assembly. On the 4th January, 1791, the clerical members of the Assembly were called upon to take the oath. Only four of the bishops consented to do so. About 50 of the clerical deputies followed suit, and of the 670 priests officiating in Paris 236, while throughout the whole country the proportion of the priests was a little less, being about one-third of the whole. †
Some of those who made their submission were men from whom, judging by their past history, nothing better could have been expected; while, on the other hand, many who subscribed to the Constitution did so without any clear knowledge of the issues at stake, and
* Cambridge Modern History.--The Revolution, p. 197.
† Henrion, L'Histoire de l' Église, Vol. III., p. 580.
repented of their act as soon as Pius VI. made it clear that the Constitution meant open schism.
The clergy of France were now divided into two sections, the Assermentés or Jurors, and the Insermentés or non-Jurors. According to the law the latter were to be deprived of their benefices in favour of those who swore allegiance to the Civil Constitution. Talleyrand, assisted by two titular bishops, Gobel and Miroudot, consecrated bishops for Aisne and Finisterre. Gobel himself was promoted to the archbishopric of Paris, Abbé Grégoire to the bishopric of Loir-et-Cher. The best of the clergy refused to have any association with such men, and the Catholics abandoned the religious services in the churches to which constitutional priests were appointed, and followed their faithful pastors to the private houses where they officiated. The king was forced to send away from his court the clergy who refused the oath, and to accept the ministrations of the schismatics. He wished, however, to spend Holy Week ( 1791) at St. Cloud, where he might have the spiritual assistance of some loyal clergyman, but the mob barred the passage of his carriage, and he was forced to return to the Tuileries. It was this last incident that determined him to make the unsuccessful and unfortunate attempt at escape from France a short time later (20th June).
During all this time Pius VI. followed every phase of the struggle with the greatest anxiety. He perfectly understod the gravity of the situation, but he delayed the public condemnation in the hope that the remedy would come from France itself. But at last he felt that he could no longer delay intervention, and on the 13th April, 1791, he published a Bull condemning the Civil Constitution. This produced a decided effect on many of the curés who had associated themselves with the work of schism, but the eighteen constitutional bishops repudiated the papal condemnation. The other bishops published quite a different reply. They accepted fully the Bull of Pius VI., and offered to resign if such a step could secure peace. Pius VI. refused to accept their resignation, and again ( 19th March, 1792) condemned the Constitution. *
The National Assembly replied to the first condemnation of Pius VI. by annexing the old Papal states of Avignon and Venaissin. The work of annexation had been prepared by emissaries of the Paris revolutionary party. Mobs of armed men, headed by the infamous Jourdan, terrorised the country, murdering or expelling those who refused to welcome the advent of the new era.
(c) THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND NATIONAL CONVENTION (1791-1795),
THE DIRECTORY (1796-1799)
The National Assembly having completed its work of giving France a constitution, dissolved itself, and the elections for the new Chamber began. Owing to the nature of the oath required for the exercise of the franchise, the terrorism of the mobs, and the well-planned complication of the electoral machinery, moderate men absented themselves from the polls, and, as a result, the new Assembly ( Oct., 1791), consisting for the most part of untrained men, was more revolutionary in character than its predecessor had been. The Right (Feuillants), who favoured government by king and constitution, numbered about 234, the Extreme Left (Jacobins), who were bent on revolution, about 134, while the Centre or Moderates, who formed the largest body, terrorised by the galleries and the mob, were obliged to support the measures of the Clubs.
The first year's work of the New Assembly was devoted mainly to legislation against the Church, the nonjuring clergy, and the Émigrés. Measures were pro. posed according to which the Émigrés who did not return to France before January, 1792, should be condemned to death as traitors, while the clergy who did not take the oath within a week were to be expelled from their benefices. As the Jacobins expected and desired, these proposals were vetoed by the king. A law per-
* Theiner, Documents Inédits Relatifs aux Affaires Religieuses de la France (1790-1800), Paris, 1857.
mitting divorce was passed, all pious or religious confraternities were suppressed, episcopal palaces and houses of the religious were put up for sale, and finally a decree of banishment from France was issued ( Aug., 1792) against all the non-juring clergy.
Meanwhile, the powers of Europe had become alarmed at the course of events in Paris. Leopold II. of Austria and William II. of Prussia had met at Pillnitz ( Aug., 1791), and declared their readiness to intervene if their intervention were supported by the other governments of Europe. The extreme party in France also desired foreign intervention in order to put the king in a false position with his own people. The claims of the German nobles, whose feudal rights in Alsace had been abolished by the National Assembly, and the presence of large bodies of the Émigrés on the German frontier, afforded a good pretext for warlike preparations, and on 20th April, 1792, war was declared against Prussia and Austria. An army of 150,000 was quickly put in the field, but on account of the anarchy and disorder reigning on all sides they were no match for the invaders, who, under the leadership of the Duke of Brunswick, continued to advance on Paris. The proclamation issued by the Duke of Brunswick rendered the position of Louis XVI. cruel in the extreme. Was he to fight against the friends marching to his defence, or was he, in defiance of his oaths, to betray his country to the foreigner? The extreme revolutionary party soon relieved the situation. The Commune of Paris was captured by the Jacobins; the mobs were roused; an attack was made ( 10th Aug., 1792) on the Tuileries, whence Louis XVI. and his wife, Marie Antoinette, had just fled for protection to the Hall of Assembly, and despite the gallant struggle of the devoted Swiss Guards, the royal palace was carried. The Assembly, cowed by the attitude of the Commune, suspended the king from his office, a new ministry was formed from the Extreme Left, and these, together with the Paris Commune, were entrusted with carrying on the provisional government. The Reign of Terror had begun.
Danton, Marat, Robespierre, and their allies were now the dictators of France. The ordinary tribunals of justice were suspended, and watch committees, empowered to seek out and to punish all traitors, were established. When all their leading opponents had been arrested under pretence of securing Paris against the advancing Prussians, a wholesale massacre of the prisoners in Paris was arranged. The massacre began on the 2nd September, 1792, and lasted for about a week. During that time about four hundred priests and one thousand nobles were cruelly done to death in the prisons of Paris by bands of murderers. The word was passed from Paris to the mobs in the other cities to do likewise, and at Meaux, Rheims, Versailles, Lyons, &c., the same sickening scenes of carnage were enacted. The decrees for the banishment of the non-juring clergy were ordered to be enforced rigorously (26th Aug.). Many of the bishops and clergy were torn from their flocks, maltreated in prison, and then hurried across the frontiers; while others had the greatest difficulty in evading the violence of the mobs. They fled into all the neighbouring countries, Italy, Spain, England, Belgium, and Germany, and everywhere, even among the Protestant nations, these exiled clergy received a kind welcome. The Papal States alone provided a refuge for over 2,000 clergy, of whom twenty-four were bishops. In England, too, many of them found a home. It is estimated that well over 2,000 priests fled to England in 1792, and at a later period fully 5,000 of the clergy were dependent upon the generosity of the English people. Large numbers of them were lodged in the palace at Winchester. A public subscription list, opened on their behalf, found generous support, while the government relieved their wants by large annual grants. The emigrant clergy seem to have made a favourable impression on the English Protestant public, and their attitude did much to remove the current anti-Catholic prejudices. *
* Sicard, Vol. III., pp. 1-33. Ward, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival in England, 1909, Vol. II., Chapters XIX., XX. and XXVII.
The tide of war seemed to have turned in favour of France. The Duke of Brunswick retreated after the cannonade of Valmy ( 20th Sept., 1792), Savoy and Nice were occupied by the French troops, General Custine conquered Speyers, Worms, Mayence and Frankfort; while Dumouriez, having defeated the Austrians at Jemappes ( 6th Nov., 1793), occupied the greater part of the Austrian Netherlands.
In the midst of violent excitement the elections were held, and, as might be anticipated, the new Convention was entirely republican. Among the Paris deputies were such men as Danton, Marat, Robespierre, Desmoulins, and the Duke of Orleans ( Philip Égalité). The abolition of the Monarchy was agreed to unanimously. With the monarchy abolished, the Convention was obliged to decide what was to be done with Louis XVI. The debates in the Convention between the Girondists and the Mountain were bitter, but the former, though anxious to save the king's life, were without leaders of ability and determination. The trial began on the 11th December. The king was ably defended by his advocates, but in the end he was condemned ( 20th Jan., 1793) to die, and was led to the scaffold on the following day, attended by the non-juring Abbé Edgeworth. * The queen, Marie Antoinette, met the same fate (16th Oct.), as did also her sister. The fate of the young prince ( Louis XVII.) was miserable in the extreme, and after having been treated with every species of indignity he died ( June, 1795) at the age of ten. The sister of the young prince was handed over to the Austrians.
The execution of Louis XVI. roused Europe to the danger of the Revolution. Besides Austria and Prussia, which were already in the field, England declared war, and her example was quickly followed by Russia, Spain, Portugal, and the two Sicilies; Denmark,
* The Abbé Edgeworth ( 1745-1807) was born in Longford, Ireland, and was brought to France when only four years of age by his father, a Protestant rector, who had become converted to Catholicity.-- C. S. Edgeworth , Memoirs of the Abbe Edgeworth, London, 1815.
Switzerland and Sweden remaining neutral. In this emergency the need of a strong government was felt on all sides. The Girondist party were overthrown by the aid of the Commune, and the Jacobins, headed by Robespierre, held almost undisputed sway. The Committee of Public Safety was established ( April, 1793) and armed with dictatorial powers; and similar committees were established throughout the provinces. For seventeen months the country was at the mercy of these bodies. Wholesale arrests were followed by wholesale executions. The guillotine had its daily quota of victims, and no man knew when his turn might come. Well does this period deserve the title of the Reign of Terror.
Towards the end of 1793 the Hébertist section of the Jacobins was in power, and it was determined to wipe out all traces of the Christian religion. A new calendar was adopted, in which all reference to Sundays, holidays, or saints' days was omitted. The names of the months were changed, the observance of Sunday was strictly forbidden, and in its place every tenth day was fixed as a day of universal rest. Christianity was rejected, and the worship of the Goddess of Reason proclaimed. Gobel, the Constitutional archbishop of Paris, appeared in the Assembly, declared that hitherto the clergy had been deceiving the people, that for the future they knew no religion except equality and fraternity, and that as a sign of his conversion he trampled on his mitre and crozier, the emblems of his former deception. The church of Notre Dame was transformed into a temple of Reason, and there on the 10th November a solemn service to the Goddess of Reason was carried out amidst the most revolting scenes. A new onslaught was made on the clergy. Many were arrested and thrown into prison, thousands of the others fled for refuge across the nearest frontier. The churches were demolished or desecrated, the sacred vessels were melted and coined into money, pictures and statues of priceless value were destroyed, while not even the cemeteries and the monuments of the dead escaped in this universal vandalism.
But the policy of the Reign of Terror met with violent opposition in different parts of France. Lyons and Toulon rose in revolt, and were reduced only after a severe struggle. It was, however, from the district of La Vendée that the most determined opposition came. These provinces were intensely Catholic, and the most friendly relations existed between the nobles, clergy and people. The attempts to force the Constitutional bishops and priests on the people were warmly resented. The movement grew day by day till at last ( March, 1793) three thousand conscripts refused enrolment lest they should be forced to fight against their own religion. They seized the town of Saint Florent, called the neighbouring parishes to their assistance, and soon the whole district was up in arms. It was a war in defence of religion. The Convention sent against them immense armies; but at first without success. The struggle was bitter in the extreme. The Convention aimed at nothing less than the total extermination of the men of La Vendée. Numbers told in the end, especially as the leaders of the peasants were divided, and the allies afforded little assistance. But though defeated they were not completely overthrown, as Napoleon ( 1799) was obliged to guarantee to the men of La Vendée that for which they had fought, namely, liberty of worship.
The Convention, though wonderfully successful against the external enemies of France, was divided against itself. The leading Girondists were arrested ( 31st May, 1793), and the Mountain, led by Robespierre, Danton and Marat, became the masters. Their reign was, however, threatened by the Hébertists in Paris, and the guillotine had to be requisitioned ( March, 1794) to suppress their opposition. Marat had been stabbed ( 13th July, 1793), Danton and his followers were put to death ( March, 1794), and now Robespierre, having rid himself of all rivals, acted as a dictator. Perceiving that the excesses of his party were resented by the less extreme men in France, he endeavoured to introduce a policy of moderation by declaring that a belief in God and the immortality of the soul was necessary as a foundation of virtue and morality. The Convention ratified ( May, 1794) this declaration. A solemn feast in honour of the Supreme Being was held at the Champ de Mars ( June, 1794), at which Robespierre, accompanied by the members of the Convention, officiated as high priest, but this was his last great public act, for a conspiracy had been prepared against him, and he and his partisans were sent to the guillotine ( July, 1794). The powers of the Committee of Public Safety were curtailed, the suspects liberated, the Girondist deputies recalled, and men began again to breathe freely, because the Reign of Terror had passed away.
The armies of France had met with astonishing success during all this period. General Pichegru had advanced through Belgium and Holland, entered Amsterdam in triumph on 20th of January, 1795, and the Batavian Republic was proclaimed as the ally of France. General Jourdan drove back the Prussians and Austrians, and forced Prussia to demand peace ( April, 1795), while Spain, too, concluded terms some months later. Austria, England and Sardinia still maintained the struggle.
Meanwhile, a new constitution, two Chambers, and an executive Directory had been accepted by the Convention ( Aug., 1795), and by the country. The Paris sections alone opposed this plan, but they were quickly reduced to submission by the stern firmness of Napoleon Bonaparte. The Convention was dissolved, and the members of the Directory came into office.
Napoleon was selected to lead the troops operating in Italy, and never did an officer better justify his selection. Starting from Nice in March, 1796, he directed his forces against the armies of Piedmont and Austria, and taking them separately he forced Piedmont to yield up to France Savoy and Nice. He next attacked the Austrians, blocked Bologna, and forced Pius VI. to beg for an armistice. Meanwhile, the French armies operat- ing in German territory under Jourdan and Moreau were obliged to fall back, and the position of Napoleon might have become serious had he not won the battles of Arcoli and Rivoli, and taken Mantua, thus making himself master of Italy.
During the Italian campaign the Papal States did not escape. * The French soldiers over-ran the Legations, and Pius VI. was forced to sue for an armistice ( 23rd June, 1796), which was granted on condition that the Pope pay a large sum of money, surrender many valuable manuscripts and pictures, and allow France to hold Ancona and the Legations of Bologna and Ferrara. As soon, however, as Napoleon had worsted the Austrians in Italy he again turned his attention to the Papal States at the special request of the Directory. He demanded that all briefs published against France should be recalled at once, and on the Pope's refusal he seized portions of his States, threatened a march on Rome, and obliged the Pope to conclude the Treaty of Tolentino ( 1797), by which all claims to Avignon were finally abandoned, and a war indemnity of fifteen million francs was to be paid into the French Exchequer. Austria, too, concluded the peace of Campo Formio ( 1797), by which France secured the Belgic provinces from Austria, the Rhine was fixed as the eastern boundary of France, the Cisalpine and Ligurian Republics were recognised, while Austria got Venice and retained the rest of her Italian possessions.
But the Directory was not satisfied with the severe terms exacted from Pius VI. by Napoleon. They wished the complete destruction not only of the Temporal Power, but of all Papal authority. French emissaries spared no pains to encourage a revolt in Rome, and on one occasion, when the Papal troops were obliged to fire upon the mob, an attaché of the French Embassy, General Duphot, was killed. General Berthier immediately advanced on Rome, entered the city, and five days later the Roman Republic was proclaimed. The
* Duforcq, Le Régime Jacobin en Italie, Paris, 1900. Baldassari- Couture , Histoire de l' Enlèvement et de la Captivité de Pie VI., 1844.
wild excesses of the Paris mob were reproduced in Rome. It was hoped to force Pius VI. to flee from the city, but in this his enemies were deceived. In the circumstances nothing remained but to seize him by force, and take him away as a prisoner. He was first brought to Sienna, then to Florence, but the friendly attitude of the populace constituted a danger to the power of the Directory, and he was transferred to Grenoble, and thence to Valence, where he died ( 22nd Aug., 1799). In 1802 his remains were brought back to his own city, and laid to rest in the Basilica of St. Peter.
Meanwhile, Napoleon had undertaken the inglorious expedition to the East, and during his absence the Directory, divided into Royalist and Republican factions, was unable to maintain its supreme power. On his return, backed by Sieyès and the army, he drove his opponents from the two Chambers, and secured the appointment of three Consuls--Sieyès, Ducros, and himself, as a provisional government, empowered to frame a new constitution. The new constitution was ratified by the people ( 24th Dec., 1799), and Napoleon having been elected First Consul took up his residence in the Tuileries ( 19th Feb., 1800) as the ruler of France in fact though not in law.
(d) THE CONSULATE (1799-1804) AND THE EMPIRE (1804-1815)
Taine, Le Régime Moderne, 3 vols., 1901. Thiers, Hist. du Consulat et de l'Empire, Paris, 1845. Card. Mathieu, Le Concordat der 1801, Paris, 1903. Sévestre, L'Histoire . . . du Concordat de 1801, 1905. Rinieri, La Diplomazia Pontificia nel secolo, XIX.; Il Concordato tra Pio VII. e il primo console, Rome, 1902. Theiner, Hist. des deux Concordats conclus en 1801 et 1803, Paris, 1869. Séché, Les Origines du Concordat, Paris, 1895. Artaud, Hist. du Pape, Pie VII., 3 vols., 1833. Consalvi, Mémoires, 1864.
The First Consul immediately made overtures of peace to England, but they were promptly rejected. He next turned his attention to Italy, where the Austrians had shut up General Masséna in Genoa. Crossing the Great Saint Bernard, Napoleon took the Austrian forces in the rear, and inflicted on them a signal defeat at Marengo ( 14th June, 1800), while a few months later General Moreau, operating against the Austrians on German territory, was completely victorious at Hohenlinden. In consequence of these repeated defeats Austria was obliged to conclude the Peace of Lunéville ( Feb., 1801), according to which the Rhine was recognised as the eastern boundary of France, the Batavian, Cisalpine, Ligurian and Helvetic Republics were acknowledged, and the Papal States in part restored. *
Napoleon, on his appointment as First Consul, devoted himself to the internal reorganisatibn of the country, religion, education, commerce and agriculture. The religious affairs of France were in a state of complete disorder. From the overthrow of the Reign of Terror the Constitutional clergy, who had not openly apostatised, exercised their functions without any hindrance from the government. In 1797 they held a national synod in the church of Notre Dame, attended by twentysix bishops, and took measures to organise their work in France and in the colonies. A new religion was formed by those who wished to combat the evil effects of public atheism. They were of the school of Rousseau and Robespierre. The sect was known under the name of Theophilanthropists. † Its principal apostle was Révellière-Lepeaux, a member of the Directory. It began in Paris about 1796, and had its priests, its temples, its feasts, that of Socrates, Jean Jacques Rousseau, St. Vincent de Paul, &c., its liturgy, and its special prayers. The sect of the Theophilanthropists made a certain number of converts in Paris, but very few outside the capital. Through the influence of Révellière-Lepeaux, the Directory favoured the new sect, and handed over for their use some of the great churches of Paris. Their
* England continued the war, but a general peace was arranged at the Congress of Amiens in 1802, † Mathiez, La Théophilanthropie et le Culte Décadaire, 1796- 1801, Paris, 1904.
religion was, however, too cold and intellectual ever to become popular. The opponents of the sect covered them with ridicule. On the overthrow of the Directory the First Consul set his face against the Theophilanthropists, and they quickly disappeared.
Napoleon, though personally indifferent in religious matters, was strongly convinced that government without religion is an impossibility. Besides, he foresaw that the restoration of Catholicism in France might secure for him the support of the vast body of French Catholics. Hence, he opposed the Theophilanthropists, opened the churches again to public worship, set free the clergy who were detained in prison, altered the form of oath to the constitution, abolished the Decade, and permitted the observance of Sunday, as it day of rest. But these measures were only preparing the way for the act which was to restore official relations with the Holy See, the concordat, namely, between France and Pius VII.
On the death of Pius in the prison of Valence the enemies of the Holy See congratulated themselves that they had seen the last of the Popes. Pius VI. could have no successor. But their hopes were sorely disappointed. When it became known that Pius VI. was dead, Cardinal Albani summoned the conclave to meet it Venice, whither many of the Cardinals had fled to seek the protection of the Austrians. Consalve * acted as secretary to the conclave, and in that position gave proof of the great diplomatic powers which entitle him to rank among the greatest of the European statesmen of the nineteenth century.
The conclave opened in the Benedictine monastery of San Giorgio Maggiore on 30th November, 1799. There were present thirty-four out of forty-six members of the sacred college. They were divided mainly into two parties, those who favoured the pretensions of Austria, and those who wished to continue the policy of Pius VI. At last, after repeated interferences from Austria, some of the neutral cardinals, amongst them
* Alfieri, Vie du Cardinal Consalvi, Florence, 1822.
being Maury, the representative of the exiled Louis XVIII. of France, proposed Cardinal Chiaramonte as a suitable man, and on the 14th March he was unanimously elected. Out of grateful remembrance of the dead Pontiff he took the name of Pius VII. No more suitable man could have been found to meet the difficulties in which the Catholic Church then found herself. As bishop of Imola he had shown that he realised that a new era had begun in the history of the world, and that the true interests of the Church demanded that she should reconcile herself with the republican ideas that had come to supplant the old theories of royalty. * He was crowned on the 21st March and received the congratulations of Austria, Spain, Naples, Sardinia, and Russia.
Owing to the Austrian successes in Italy it was possible for Pius VII. to return to the Papal States. He immediately started from Venice on an Austrian vessel, and on the 3rd July, 1800, he made his solemn entry into the Eternal City amidst the enthusiastic greetings of the people. All parties were delighted to have a Pope again in their midst, and Pius VII. was not the man to stir up bitter memories by a policy of severity. Napoleon had vanquished the Austrians at Marengo a few weeks previously, and as a means to the consolidation of his own power in France resolved to open up negotiations with the new Pope.
The first move was made by Napoleon himself. On his way from Marengo he met Cardinal Martiniana, the bishop of Vercelli ( 24th June, 1800), and laid before him his views on the settlement of the religious difficulty in France. He requested the cardinal to submit these proposals to the Pope. This was done without delay, and having consulted his cardinals Pius VII. resolved to spare no time in arranging a concordat. Spina, the archbishop of Corinth, was selected for the work of negotiation, as he had accompanied Pius VI. to
* Nielsen, The History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I., pp. 208-210, London, 1906.
Valence, and had already made the acquaintance of Napoleon, and Caselli, a former general of the Servites, accompanied him as theologian. They hoped to have met Napoleon in Italy, but he had already set out for Paris, leaving instructions for the Papal ambassadors to follow him. Thither they followed him, and arrived in Paris in November, 1800.
The negotiations, which opened on the 8th of November, were carried on between Spina and Caselli, representing the Pope, and Talleyrand and the Abbé Berthier, representing Napoleon. The proposals outlined by Napoleon in his conference with the Cardinal Bishop of Vercelli formed the basis of discussion. After various schemes and counter-schemes had been proposed, and rejected, Napoleon at last gave his approval to one which was submitted to Rome in February, 1801. Pius VII. assembled two commissions of the cardinals to consider the terms of the proposal, but their view was that the Pope could not conscientiously accept such an offer. They prepared a new draft in accordance with the wishes of Pius VII., but Napoleon, roused by the delays, forwarded a peremptory note to Cacault, his representative at Rome, ordering him to break off the negotiations unless his terms were accepted within five days (28th May). In this serious dilemma Cacault suggested that open rupture could be avoided only by Consalvi's immediate departure for Paris. Consalvi lost no time in following the ambassador's advice, and on the 4th June he started on his journey to Paris, arriving there on the 20th of the same month. He took up his residence with Spina and Caselli at the Hotel de Rome.
Talleyrand and Berthier had at last met their match. The new Papal representative was a past master in the art of diplomacy, well able to cope with the machinations of Napoleon, and from his winning manner and persuasive powers well deserving of his title "the Siren of Rome." Unmoved by the angry mutterings of Napoleon and his threats of throwing aside the Pope, and setting up a National Church with the aid of the Constitutional clergy, Consalvi calmly proceeded to argue point after point of the proposed concordat. Several times the negotiations were on the point of being broken off, as Consalvi held steadfastly by his principles in face of exorbitant demands, but in the end the terms were agreed upon, and the nominees of both parties, Consalvi, Spina, Caselli representing the Pope, the Abbé Berthier, Cretet, and Joseph Bonaparte representing Napoleon, attached their signatures to the document ( 16th July, 1801). Consalvi immediately set out for Rome to secure its ratification by the Pope. This was no easy task, as the concordat was bitterly opposed on political grounds by Cardinal Maury, the representative of the exiled Bourbons, and on theological grounds by many of the Papal counsellors. In the end, however, the college of cardinals by a large majority declared that it was lawful for the Pope to ratify the agreement, which he did on the 15th August, 1801. Maury, the ambassador of Louis XVIII., immediately retired from the Papal Court.
The concordat consisted of a preamble which clearly laid it down that the agreement was regarded as a solemn treaty concluded between France and the Holy See, and of seventeen separate clauses. The first article guaranteed the free exercise of the Catholic religion in France, and freedom of public worship, this latter, however, being subject to the police regulations, which might be deemed necessary for the preservation of public order. Consalvi struggled hard against this restriction, as he suspected a sinister motive behind these police regulations, but, as it was explained to him that these referred only to processions and such like, and as further resistance might have meant a rupture, he at last gave his consent. As may be seen later, the suspicions of Consalvi were well founded. A new division of the dioceses was to be made by the Holy See in concert with the French Government, and to facilitate this division the Pope was to request the resignation of the exiled bishops, and proceed to fill up the new dioceses erected in France. The method of appointing to these new dioceses was carefully arranged. The First Consul was to nominate the bishops within three months after the publication of the Papal Bull, and the Holy See was to confer canonical institution according to the form arranged for France before the change of government. In case of all future episcopal vacancies the nomination was to be made by the First Consul in the same way, and canonical institution was to be conferred by the Holy See. The new bishops were to take the oath of allegiance to the existing constitution of France in presence of the First Consul, while the curés were to take a similar oath in the presence of the civil authorities.
The bishops when appointed could make, with the consent of the government, a new arrangement of their parishes. They could appoint curés, but these should be agreeable to the government. They could erect a chapter in their cathedral or a seminary for the education of their clerical students, but the state was in no way bound to supply the necessary funds; while, finally, they were to have at their disposal all the churches, cathedral and parochial, which had not been alienated, and which were necessary for worship. For the sake of peace the Holy Father renounced all claim to the ecclesiastical property that had been seized and disposed of; and, on the other hand, Napoleon assured a decent sustentation to the bishops and curés, and promised to take measures to permit people who wished, to establish new ecclesiastical foundations. Finally, it was agreed that if the First Consul or his successors should ever cease to be Catholics a new arrangement must be arrived at regarding the nomination of bishops.
Cardinal Caprara was despatched (5th Sept.) as legate a latere to carry out the provisions of the concordat, regarding the new division of the French dioceses, the resignation of the Émigrés bishops, and the appointment of their successors. Pius VII. issued a brief requesting the exiled bishops to resign their sees for the welfare of the Church, and many of them promptly responded by forwarding their resignations. Of the eighty-one bishops, however, thirty-six either refused absolutely or suggested delay. The painful duty then devolved upon the Pope of depriving them of their bishoprics. The Constitutional bishops were obliged to comply with the request of Napoleon, but the letters addressed by many of them to the Holy See were far from satisfactory (Le Génie).
The division of the dioceses having been carried out, and the legitimate and Constitutional bishops having been removed, the next question to be dealt with was the appointment of a new body of bishops. Here a great difficulty arose. Napoleon proposed to nominate a certain number of the Constitutional bishops to the new sees against the wishes of the legate and of the Pope. Cardinal Caprara demanded from such candidates at least a definite, if not a public, retractation. Seven of the twelve appointed refused to sign the formula forwarded by the Pope for signature. It was now Holy Week, and the proclamation of the concordat had been fixed for Easter Sunday. At last, it was agreed that the Constitutional bishops should make a verbal retraction before appointed witnesses, Mgr. Bernier and Mgr. de Pancemont. The refractory bishops were duly convoked, and apparently made a kind of retractation with which the legate was forced to be content. All difficulties had been removed, and the way was now ready for the official publication of the concordat in Rome and in Paris.
On Easter Sunday (18th April), 1802, the concordat was solemnly proclaimed in Paris. The Church of Notre Dame, the scene of the impieties of Robespierre and the schismatical harangues of Abbé Grégoire, was appropriately selected for the brilliant religious ceremony. Napoleon attended in state, surrounded by his old companions in arms, the officials and the diplomatic corps. De Boisgelin, the former archbishop of Aix, preached the sermon, and it was a curious coincidence that he it was who preached the oration in the cathedral of Rheims at the coronation of the unfortunate Louis XVI., nor was it without significance that in the course of his sermon at Notre Dame he drew a pointed comparison between the First Consul and the great defenders of Christianity and the Holy See, Pepin and Charles the Great. Congratulatory messages poured in from all parts of Europe, from England, Prussia, Austria, and Switzerland. Napoleon was highly satisfied with his success, and in spite of the raillery of his generals, and the attacks of the unbelievers, maintained till his dying day that the concordat was one of his greatest victories.
The concordat was solemnly proclaimed at Rome on the same day, and was enthusiastically received. But the satisfaction at Rome was considerably diminished when it became known that, together with the concordat, a series of articles, known as the Organic Articles, had been appended to the concordat, and published as if they, too, had formed part of the agreement ratified by Pius VII. The origin of these Organic Articles is not to be attributed entirely to Napoleon's love of deception. When he had concluded the concordat he found that many of his ministers, notably Talleyrand, and his generals and lawyers, were opposed to the measure of liberty he had conceded to the Church. He realised, too, that in the state of men's minds it would be difficult, if not impossible, to secure the approval of the Tribunate and the Legislative Assembly. In this juncture he bethought himself of the restriction contained in the first clause, against which Consalvi had struggled so earnestly, namely, the police regulations on the free exercise of public worship; and he resolved by an unfair interpretation of this clause to publish a series of regulations which would take away to a great extent the liberty that had been conceded in the concordat.
The Organic Articles consisted of seventy-seven clauses. The most important of them are those which forbade the publication of all Papal documents, the decrees of councils, even of general councils, the exercise of legatine powers, the convocation of a national provincial or even a diocesan synod, without the authorisation of the government. The Council of State was empowered to hear all charges of abuse of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; the bishops were hampered in the administration of their dioceses, and the curés in the work of their parishes, by all kinds of petty restrictions; the four Gallican articles were to be taught in the seminaries, and the use of a common catechism was enjoined.
The Pope protested immediately through Cacault, the French Minister at Rome, against the publication of the Organic Articles ( 12th May, 1802). * In his public allocution a few days later he renewed his protests, and again through Consalvi (25th May) and Caprara (18th Aug., 1803). When, later on, negotiations were opened to induce Pius VII. to visit Paris for the coronation of Napoleon, the question of the Organic Articles was again brought forward, and both Talleyrand and Portalis freely admited that the Organic Articles were not included in the concordat, but were laws passed by France for the carrying out of the concordat, and it was in a great measure in the hope that he might secure the repeal of these laws that Pius VII. was induced to undertake the journey to Paris. It is important, therefore, to note that the Organic Articles stood on a different footing from the clauses of the concordat. The former had merely the sanction of laws, and might, therefore, be enforced or withdrawn at will, the latter formed a solemn treaty between two great powers, and could be modified or withdrawn only with the approval of the consenting parties.
The concordat was opposed from two sides, by the royalists as a betrayal of the rights of Louis XVIII., and by the revolutionary party as a concession to the forces of reaction. The former constituted the sect known as the Anticoncordataires or Petite Église, † which was ruled at first by De Thémines, the bishop of
* Sévestre, Hist. du Concordat, pp. 502-5.
† Drochon, La Petite Église, Paris, 1894.
Blois. Later on the bishops disappeared, and the government was carried on by simple priests; but having lost its strength in La Vendée and Poitou, it gradually fell away from public notice. The revolutionary party, who detested all religion, were kept in check by Napoleon. Fortunately, too, the Catholic cause was supported by the Breton nobleman, Chateaubriand. His book, Le Génie du Christianisme ( 1802), setting forth the beauties of Christianity, though, from the point of view of apologetics, too poetical and imaginative, served as a valuable antidote to the poisonous onslaughts of Voltaire and his companions of the Encyclopedia.
For some time after the conclusion of the concordat Napoleon was generous with the Catholic Church, increasing the salaries of the cardinals and clergy, helping the clerical seminaries, arranging for due respect to the Blessed Sacrament, and even permitting the return of some of the religious orders. But all this was only a preparation for the establishment of religious as well as political despotism. He published a catechism for general use, in which obedience to the Emperor was strongly inculcated, suppressed all the clerical papers except one, which was published under strict censorship, interfered in the episcopal pastorals, placed the seminaries under the control of the Paris University, and arrested some of the bishops and cardinals who opposed him.
In 1802, Napoleon had been declared First Consul for life. Though he had concluded a successful peace with England and Austria he was still far from satisfied, and his continued interference with the affairs of the Cisalpine, Ligurian, Helvetic and Batavian Republics made it clear to everyone that these states were really tributaries of France. England naturally resented such an expansion of French power, and owing to some differences about commerce and the non-restoration of Malta, diplomatic relations were broken in August, 1803. England immediately seized all French shipping found in English waters, and Napoleon, by way of retaliation, promptly ordered the arrest of all English subjects in France. A French army quickly occupied Hanover, and an immense flotilla was got ready to carry into England the army of invasion encamped along the coast between Havre and Ostend. During the war a conspiracy was formed against Napoleon, and as a result of the conspiracy the friends of Napoleon loudly proclaimed that the stability of government could be guaranteed only by declaring Napoleon Emperor, and the succession hereditary in his family. This was passed by both Senate and Legislative Assembly in May, 1804. The dreams of Napoleon had been realised. He was to be another Charlemagne, and, like Charlemagne, though for quite a different reason, he wished his coronation to be carried out in the presence of the Pope. The benediction of the Church would legalise the position of the new Emperor in the eyes of the masses.
But unlike Charlemagne, who went to Rome to receive the Imperial Crown, Napoleon resolved to request the Pope to come to Paris for the ceremony. The request placed Pius VII. in an embarrassing position. The oath prescribed for Napoleon, namely, that he should uphold the laws regarding the concordat and the freedom of worship in France, raised a difficulty about the Organic Articles, against which the Pope had protested. Besides, Louis XVIII., backed by many of the Émigré bishops, had lodged a solemn protest against the new régime in France. But in the circumstances the sympathy of Napoleon was all-important for the Church. The difficulties about the Organic Articles were to a great extent removed by the explanations of Talleyrand, and in the hope of securing their complete withdrawal and the restoration of the territories that had been taken from the Papal states, Pius VII., in spite of the opposition of many of his cardinals, determined to accede to the wishes of the new Emperor.
On the 2nd November Pius VII., accompanied by Cardinal Fesch, * the uncle of Napoleon, and the French
* Ricard, Le Cardinal Fesch, Paris, 1893.
ambassador at Rome, set out on his journey for Paris. Everywhere through Italy and France the people crowded to honour him and receive his blessing, so that it could be well said that the Pope travelled to Paris "through a people on their knees." He was welcomed at Paris by Napoleon, by the Senate, the Legislative Assembly, the Tribunate, and the Conseil d'État, but more especially by the citizens of Paris, and was lodged in the Tuileries in a suite of rooms furnished exactly as his own apartments in the Quirinal.
The coronation took place on the 2nd December in the Church of Notre Dame. * The walls of the sacred edifice had been completely draped with costly gold embroidery in honour of the event. The Papal throne stood on the right side of the altar, while in the other end of the church, right opposite the high altar, and against the main door of the church, was erected the imperial throne. The Pope anointed the Emperor and Empress according to the ancient ritual. He blessed the crowns, sword, and rings, but as the moment approached for the coronation the Emperor took the crown from the hands of the Pope and placed it on his own head, and, taking the crown blessed for the Empress, he placed it on her head. The Emperor returned to his place on the magnificent throne. The cries of "Long Live the Emperor" resounded through the building, and were taken up by the masses outside, while the booming of the cannon over the city announced to the capital that France had its anointed Emperor.
Napoleon having secured all he desired, paid scant attention to the representations of Pius VII. In spite of all his efforts the Pope failed to secure the withdrawal of the Organic Articles, the restitution of the Legations, compensation for the seizure of Avignon and Venaissin, or the modification of the laws regarding divorce and the trial of the clergy. He found himself treated as a prisoner rather than as an honoured guest, and it was even hinted to him that he should not return
* Baille, Le Sacre de Napoléon (Correspondant, Nov., 1904).
to Rome, but should take up his residence in Paris or Avignon. Then he would have become in reality what Napoleon wished he should be, grand chaplain to the French Emperor. The devotion of the people of Paris made up for the coldness of Napoleon, and the submission of some Constitutional bishops compensated for the humiliations which Pius VII. was obliged to endure.
He notified his intention of returning to Rome, and as no advantage could be gained by opposition Napoleon interposed no obstacle. The return journey of the Pope was marked by the same demonstrations of popular respect as had been his voyage to Paris. In Florence, Scipio Ricci, the bishop of Pistoia, visited him and made his submission. At last, on the 16th May, 1805, he arrived at Rome, and was joyously welcomed by the Roman people, who had feared that when he had gone to Paris he was lost to them for ever. Excellent as were the intentions of Pius VII., and difficult as was his situation, the coronation of Napoleon can hardly be reckoned amidst the glories of his pontificate.
The good relations between the Pope and the Emperor did not last long. Difficulties soon arose regarding the extension of the Civil Code to Italy and the appointment of Italian bishops. Besides, Jerome Bonaparte, the brother of Napoleon, and the future King of Westphalia, had married an American lady named Patterson in 1803. Napoleon, who had other plans for the marriages of members of his family, requested Pius VII. to declare the matrimonial contract null and void. The Pope having made careful inquiries about the publication of the Tridentine decrees in Baltimore naturally refused to accede to this request. A little later the French troops, on their march from Naples, seized the Papal post of Ancona, and continued to hold it in spite of the energetic protests of Consalvi and the Pope.
This was only the beginning of the policy of aggression. In 1806, Napoleon wrote to the Pope warning him to keep aloof from the other powers, pointing out that the enemies of the Emperor were also the enemies of the Pope, and that, therefore, the Pope should break off diplomatic relations with the governments hostile to France, expel their subjects from the Papal States, close his harbours against them, and join the Continental blockade. With such a request, which would have involved him in war with the leading nations, the Pope refused to comply; and, at the same time, he repudiated the idea that the Papal States were in any way subject to the Emperor of France. In a short time Civita Vecchia, the port of Rome, was occupied by a French force. Benevento and Pontecorvo, two possessions of the Pope, were granted by the Emperor to Talleyrand and Bernadotte. Consalvi, who was regarded by Napoleon as his special enemy, resigned the Secretaryship of State, and Cardinal Casoni was appointed. This concession, however, did not satisfy Napoleon, who had made up his mind to seize the Papal States which lay as an inconvenient barrier between the new kingdom of Naples ruled by his brother Joseph and the French kingdom of North Italy.
In 1808, General Miollis was ordered to march as if through the Papal States to Naples, but in reality to take possession of Rome. The Pope broke off all diplomatic relations with the French Government, and in preparation for the eventful struggle which he clearly foresaw he appointed Cardinal Pacca * Secretary of State. The new Secretary, though not gifted with Consalvi's powers of diplomacy, had other qualifications which marked him out as the proper man for such a crisis. He was endowed with unconquerable determination, and in the midst of the greatest dangers he spoke and acted as a man who never knew fear.
On the 18th May Napoleon issued his famous decree at Schönbrun, abolishing the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, and annexing his territory to the Emperor. This decree was published in Rome on the 10th June; the Papal flag was lowered from the Castle of St. Angelo,
* Mémoires du Cardinal Pacca, Brussels, 1839.
and the tricolour hoisted over the eternal city. Cardinal Pacca hastened to the Pope and insisted that the Bull of Excommunication against all who had violently assailed the Papal possessions should be published. Brave men were found willing to risk their lives by affixing it to the doors of St. Peter's, the Lateran, and Santa Maria Maggiore, and before the sun went down the Romans realised to their joy that Pius VII. had thrown down the gauntlet to the tyrant of Europe. Pius VII. and Cardinal Pacca were arrested quietly, escorted out of the city, and brought to Savona, where the Pope was detained a prisoner for three years, but Pacca was separated from him and sent to Fenestrelle. The foreign cardinals had been ordered to retire to their respective countries, and twenty-six of the others were now brought to Paris, that they might be under the power of the Emperor in case of the death of Pius VII.
Napoleon had now ( 1809) reached the zenith of his power. War had been declared between France and England in 1803, and England was assisted by Austria and Russia. Napoleon by a rapid advance on Vienna and the brilliant victory over the Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz (2nd Dec., 1805) forced Austria to make peace with France at Pressburg. About the same time the expulsion of the Bourbons from Naples was decreed and Joseph Bonaparte was proclaimed king ( 1806). Another brother, Louis, was appointed the ruler of Holland. The Confederation of the Rhine was formed by which Bavaria, Baden, and the minor German States, separated themselves definitely from the Holy Roman Empire, and became united to France by an offensive and defensive alliance. Prussia declared war immediately, but Napoleon inflicted two dreadful defeats on the Prussian forces at Jena and Auerstädt ( 1806). He occupied Berlin, from which he dictated to Europe the continental blockade against England. Prussia was forced to cede Westphalia, over which Jerome Bonaparte was placed as king. The campaign against the Russians was not such a decided success, and as both sides were anxious to end the war peace was made between them at Tilsit ( 7th July, 1807).
England alone refused to make terms. At Trafalgar ( 1805) the English fleet had destroyed the naval power of France, but so long as the war was confined to the east of Europe England was naturally unable to give much effective assistance on land to the opponents of Napoleon. But now, by his ill-advised attacks on Portugal and Spain, Napoleon had given England the opportunity for which she had long waited, and it must be admitted that she made the most of Napoleon's blunder. In his efforts to enforce the blockade the Emperor was obliged to declare war on Portugal, and having captured Lisbon he turned his attention to Spain, where the disputes between the weak-minded Charles IV. and his worthless son, Ferdinand, afforded a good pretext for interference. Joseph Bonaparte, King of Naples, was now proclaimed ruler of Spain and Portugal. The people of Spain and Portugal rose in revolt, and England determined to send an army to their assistance. When Austria found that Napoleon was involved in difficulties in Spain war preparations were again pushed forward. Napoleon adopted his usual tactics of carrying the war into the enemy's country, took Vienna, and defeated the Austrians at Wagram (6th July), and forced Austria to accept a humiliating peace ( 1809). Thus, at the time Pius VII. was carried away a prisoner from Rome, all Europe except England seemed to be at the mercy of Napoleon.
It was at the conclusion of this campaign that Napoleon finally made up his mind to divorce Josephine and marry Maria Louisa, the daughter of the Austrian Emperor. * He had married Josephine, the wife of Alexander Beauharnais, after the death of her husband, on the 9th March, 1796, before the civil officials. This civil marriage had not been solemnised by any religious ceremony, though Josephine herself had
* Masson, Joseéphine Repudiée, Paris, 1901. Welschinger, Le Divorce de Napoléon, 1889. Bingham, The Marriage of the Bonapartes, 2 vols., London, 1882.
sometimes expressed a wish that their union should be blessed by the Church, but on the eve of the coronation she had an interview with Pius VII., and, as the result of the interview, the Pope insisted on a religious ceremony as a condition for his presence at the coronation. Cardinal Fesch received from the Pope all the faculties necessary for the marriage, and he carried out the ceremony in a private room of the palace without witnesses, Napoleon having refused to allow any such to be present. The whole affair was kept a profound secret, known only to Fesch, Berthier, Duroc and Talleyrand. They lived fairly happy together, but Josephine was without children, and Napoleon wished to consolidate his conquests by the presence of an heir. On his return from Austria to Fontainebleau ( Nov., 1809), in spite of the tears and entreaties of Josephine, Napoleon opened the matter to the Council of State, and it was agreed that the interests of the nation required the divorce. On account of the relations between Pius VII. and the Emperor, and the fear that the decision would be unfavourable, it was thought best not to approach the Pope on the question of the validity of the marriage contract with Josephine.
The diocesan court of Paris undertook to give a decision on this difficult question. The first marriage was easily set aside on the ground of clandestinity, but it was not such an easy matter to upset the second. On behalf of Napoleon it was contended that he never gave that consent, without which there could have been no valid marriage, and as an evidence of this defect of consent it was pointed out that he had not asked for the blessing of the Church on his union with Josephine, that when it became necessary for him to submit to a religious ceremony he had insisted on the presence of no witnesses, although he was well aware such witnesses were required for a binding marriage, and that, finally, after the marriage he had protested to Fesch, Marshal Duroc, and others, that he had given no consent. Though the faculties granted to Cardinal Fesch were probably wide enough to enable him to dispense with the presence of witnesses, still the plea of defect of consent remained, and, dishonourable as it may be to Napoleon, it is not so clear that at the marriage he had not adopted this deceitful method of ridding himself of Josephine if occasion required. The decision was given in favour of Napoleon, and he was now free to contract an alliance with a princess of the House of Habsburg.
The twenty-seven cardinals who were present in Paris were divided as to the attitude they should assume towards the marriage ceremony of Napoleon with Maria Louisa. Cardinal Fesch was to officiate, and a good number of his colleagues agreed to support him. Consalvi, however, refused to attend at the marriage ( 2nd April, 1810), and twelve cardinals followed his example. Napoleon was furious at this open defiance of his wishes. The next day he dismissed the refractory cardinals from a public reception, deprived them of their property and emoluments, and forbade them to wear the insignia of their office. Hence, these thirteen are referred to as "the black cardinals," * in contradistinction to the "red cardinals" who supported the Emperor. A little later they were arrested and scattered through different cities of France. Consalvi was sent to Rheims, where he devoted himself to the composition of his Memoirs.
All this time Pius VII. was living quietly in a poorly furnished set of rooms in the bishop's house at Savona. None of the cardinals or ecclesiastics in whom he had confidence were allowed to see him. Even his letters were opened and read by a French official before being delivered. Some bishoprics soon became vacant, and, according to the concordat, canonical institution was required from the Pope. But Pius VII. refused ( 26th Aug., 1800) to concede canonical institution to those nominated; and in spite of all the threats and harsh treatment of Napoleon nothing could induce him to depart from this attitude. Nor were the emissaries of Napoleon more successful in their attempts to secure his abdication
* Grandmaison, Napoléon et les Cardinaux Noirs, 1895.
of the sovereignty of the Papal States. Though his few faithful servants were sent away, his desks rifled by officials, his household expenses cut down to about two shillings a head, his Papal ring seized, the Pope still calmly interposed a decided negative to all the proposals of the Emperor. Cardinal Maury was appointed by Napoleon to the vacant archbishopric of Paris, but the Pope reproved the former sharply for his acceptance, and declared null and void all his exercise of jurisdiction. Cardinal Maury suggested as a way out of the dilemma the appointment of the nominees of the Emperor as vicars capitular of the vacant dioceses till a settlement could be arrived at, but the Pope promptly issued three briefs strongly condemning such a procedure.
Napoleon appointed ( 1809) a commission of seven ecclesiastics, the most prominent of whom were Cardinals Fesch and Maury, together with Abbé Émery, * superior of Saint Sulpice. The best method of filling the vacant bishoprics was the main subject of their discussions. They suggested that a clause should be added to the concordat by which the Pope should bind himself to grant the canonical institution within a certain fixed time to the candidates nominated by the Emperor, but it was well known that the Pope would never consent to such a clause. The Abbé Émery was the only member of the commission who insisted strongly that peace must be made with the Pope, and strange to say he was the only man for whom the Emperor had the slightest respect. Finally, it was decided to convene a national council in June, 1811. Hoping that the Pope might be alarmed by such a step, Napoleon despatched a deputation of bishops to Savona to secure concessions from Pius VII. The latter bluntly refused to abdicate or to accept any change in the concordat, but in the end, owing to the pressure of the prefect and bishops, his own weak state of health, and the complete absence of his counsellors, he consented that an appendix should be added to the concordat, providing that the Pope should
* Méric, Hist. de M. émery, &c., Paris, 1885.
be bound to give canonical institution within six months after the appointment, and in case he refused for any reason other than the unworthiness of the candidates, the metropolitan or senior bishop could supply the deficiency ( 19th May, 1811). The Pope refused, however, to attach his signature to the document, as it was, he insisted, rather an expression of his views than a definite treaty.
The Council * opened in the Church of Notre Dame ( 17th June, 1811). Cardinal Fesch presided, and there were in attendance ninety French bishops, forty-two Italians, and a few from the added German provinces. The opening speech of the bishop of Troyes in praise of the Pope, and the oath of fidelity taken by all the bishops immediately after, were not calculated to reassure the Emperor. Though he insisted on the presence of his own Minister of Public Worship at the Council, and threatened all kinds of penalties in case the bishops refused to meet his wishes, yet, when the form of reply to the imperial message was being discussed at the Council, Kaspar Maximilian, Coadjutor Bishop of Münster, proposed that they should insert in it a request for the liberation of the Pope, and this proposal was warmly supported. The bishops manfully refused to accept the draft of a reply prepared by the advisers of the Emperor, and Napoleon as steadfastly rejected their alterations. The concessions extracted from the Pope were then laid before the Council with a request that the bishops should confirm this agreement, but the absence of the Pope's signature, and the suspicion that his consent had been forced, determined the majority of the Council to reject the proposal. Napoleon promptly closed the Council ( 11th July, 1811), and ordered the arrest of three bishops who had prominently opposed his wishes.
Steps were then taken to secure a more compliant body. Many of the independent bishops left Paris immediately, but the more pliant members were re-
* Ricard, Le Concile National de 1811, Paris, 1894.
quested to remain. The Minister of Public Worship had a personal interview with each of these, and by threats and promises secured a promise from them to accept the Emperor's proposal. Then the Council was re-assembled (80 bishops), and it was carried that in case the Pope refused to grant canonical institution within six months the metropolitan or senior bishop of the province might confer it. A deputation was appointed to secure the approval of the Pope, and Pius VII., surrounded by imperial ecclesiastics who undertook to satisfy all his scruples, at last published in his own name a decree confirming the decision of the Council ( 22nd Nov., 1811). This Papal brief did not satisfy Napoleon, for the Pope instead of simply ratifying the decree authorised in his own name the metropolitan to confer canonical institution. He resolved, however, to delay the arrangement of this and much more till he should have returned from his Russian campaign.
The refusal of the Emperor Alexander ( 1810) to continue the continental blockade against England led to a declaration of war between France and Russia ( 1812). Napoleon made up his mind to assemble an immense army, march through Prussia, carry the war into the enemy's country, and put an end for ever to his eastern rival. He set out from Paris ( 9th May, 1812) at the head of an army of 450,000 men, and marched straight for Moscow, the capital of the Russian Empire. The first encounter with the opposing forces took place at Borodino (7th Sept.), and the Russians, though dislodged from their position after terrific slaughter, retired in good order towards Moscow. They did not, however, attempt to defend the capital, as Napoleon expected, but retreated further east, taking with them the stores and valuable property, and most of the citizens except the very lowest class fled. When the French arrived they found the city deserted, and to make their position still worse, fires broke out in different points during the night, and soon the whole city was in flames. Napoleon still hoped for some offer of peace on the part of Alexander, but in vain; and as the winter was approaching, and the French lines of communication were threatened, nothing remained except to issue the order for retreat. The march began on the 15th October. The winter as a severe one even for that climate, and the Russians hung on the rear, cutting off the foraging parties and disputing the passage at all points of special difficulty. Finally, on the 13th December, about one-fourth of the great army of invasion crossed the Niemen, and the Russian pursuit ended.
Napoleon hastened to Paris and raised a new army to attack the Russians, who were joined by William III. of Prussia. Austria, too, after some preliminary negotiations, declared war against France. On the 16th October, 1813, began the battle of Leipzig between Napoleon and the allied forces. Napoleon was completely outnumbered, and having received a severe defeat he fell back towards France, and in a few days all his conquests beyond the Rhine were lost. To make his position worse, the English, under the leadership of Wellesley, were pressing Joseph Bonaparte hard in Spain, so that instead of being able to despatch his troops to the assistance of the Emperor against the Allies, he rather required additional forces himself.
Napoleon raised a fresh army, and now ( Jan., 1814), with the allied forces in France and the English and Spaniards victorious in the Peninsula, he well realised that the issue was doubtful. Calling together the officers of the National Guard, he committed to their charge the young king of Rome, and, having appointed his wife Maria Louisa as regent, he set out from Paris to meet his fate. For weeks he held the Allies in check by a series of brilliant manœuvres, but in his anxiety to force their retreat by threatening their communications he got in the rear of their forces and left the road to Paris undefended. They hastened towards Paris without delay, leaving only a small rear guard to deceive Napoleon. When he discovered their plans he advanced with marvellous rapidity to defend the capital, but the
Allies were three clear days ahead, and when he arrived within ten miles of the capital he met one of his own generals who bore the news that the struggle was over, and Paris in the hands of the foreigner. He fell back on Fontainebleau, and even still the army would have followed him to an attack on Paris, had his marshals not declined to engage in such an insane enterprise. After some preliminary interchanges, Napoleon was obliged to abdicate for himself and his heirs the thrones of France and Italy. He was to retain the title of emperor, the sovereignty of the island of Elba, whither he was to retire, and a pension of two million francs ( 11th April, 1814). A few days later peace was made in the South of France between Marshal Soult and Wellesley, who, having driven the French out of Spain and Portugal, had crossed the Pyrenees and invaded France.
Napoleon had made up his mind starting on the Russian expedition that on his return from Russia he would put an end to the Pope's resistance and assert his supremacy in spirituals as well as in temporals. For this reason, in order to have the Pope completely in his power, he dictated an order from Dresden that Pius VII. should be brought a prisoner to Fontainebleau. The ostensible reason given for the transfer was that the English had planned to rescue the Pope from Savona. At Fontainebleau ( 16th June, 1812), nobody was allowed to see the distinguished prisoner except the "red cardinals" or other ecclesiastics equally favourable to the imperial wishes. When Napoleon returned to Paris in December, after the overwhelming defeat in Russia, he recognised that a reconciliation with the Pope was a useful, if not a necessary, policy. New Year's greetings were exchanged between Pope and Emperor, and on the 18th January, 1813, Napoleon presented himself, to the astonishment of everybody, to the Pope at Fontainebleau.
About the interviews which took place between Pope and Emperor very little definite information can ever be known. Certain it is that the Pope found himself, aged and suffering as he was, without advice or assistance, pitted against the Emperor and the court ecclesiastics ready to support the Emperor's demands by precedent or theology. What wonder, then, if in these circumstances he was betrayed into concessions, which if ratified would have been a betrayal of the Church? This agreement, known as the Concordat of Fontainebleau, was signed on the 25th January, * and by order of Napoleon the Te Deum was sung in all the churches, and the tidings of the reconciliation between Church and State travelled through France and Italy.
According to the terms of the document, which was represented to Pius VII. as only the preliminaries to a concordat, the Pope was to continue to exercise his authority in the imperial territory as his predecessors had done, and the representatives of foreign powers at the Papal Court were to enjoy the usual privilege of immunity. The Pope gave up his claims to the Papal territory that had been already appropriated in return for an annual revenue of two million francs; while with regard to the canonical institution of the bishops it was provided that if the Pope did not concede this within six months after the nomination, it might be conceded by the metropolitan or senior bishop of the province. The six surburban sees were to be re-established, and to these the Pope might nominate. The congregations were to be reconstituted, and the cardinals, bishops and ecclesiastics who had fallen under the displeasure of the Emperor during his disputes with the Pope were to be restored again to favour. As soon as the signature of the Pope had been secured an order was given for the recall of the exiled cardinals. When the "black cardinals" arrived at Fontainebleau the condition of Pius VII. was pitiable in the extreme. They found him in deep melancholy, touched with the bitterest remorse for what in a moment of weakness he had done, and refusing to be consoled. The agreement was immediately submitted to the cardinals for discussion. Consalvi, Pacca,
* Promulgated in the Moniteur, 13th Feb., 1813.
and Di Pietro declared that the concessions were impossible and should be recalled by the Pope. This view did not find favour with the imperial members of the sacred college, but in the end it triumphed, and Pius VII. set about preparing his letter to the Emperor. It was finished and despatched on the 24th March, much to the relief of the Pope, but the cardinals hourly awaited some dreadful outburst of Napoleon's wrath.
The circumstances of France, however, required moderation. He ordered the Minister of Public Worship to keep the Pope's letter a secret, the bishops were to be sent to their dioceses, and the concordat was to remain the law of France. The Pope, however, issued a brief in May, 1813, declaring all the recently appointed bishops unlawful and schismatical, and their exercise of jurisdiction null and void. As the circle of enemies steadily closed around Napoleon various attempts were made to patch up peace with the Pope. A partial restoration of the Papal States was offered by the. bishop of Plaisance, but the Pope refused to carry on further negotiations till he had been allowed to return to Rome. Finally, on the 22nd January, 1814, as the Allies were getting ready for their advance on Paris, a colonel presented himself with the order that the Pope was to start immediately for Savona. On his arrival at Savona he was treated with due respect by the officials, and on the 17th March the prefect informed him that he was free. Two days later he set out on his return to Rome. The journey to Rome was a veritable triumphal march. The people crowded to catch a glimpse of the venerable pontiff who had so bravely withstood the threats of Napoleon. He was enthusiastically welcomed by the people, and received the respectful homage of Charles IV. of Spain, Charles Emmanuel of Sardinia, and Maria Louisa, Queen of Etruria.
Meanwhile, a decree of the Senate recalling the Bourbon family, was passed in April, 1814, and Louis XVIII. set out from his residence in Buckinghamshire on the very day that Napoleon left Fontainebleau.
He arrived in his capital on the 3rd May, and proceeded straight to the Church of Notre Dame The Royalists gave him a warm welcome, but the silence of the masses should have been a warning to the new ruler A treaty with the Allies was formally concluded on the 30th May, by which France was, practically speaking, reduced to her boundaries of January, 1792. A Congress of the powers was arranged to meet at Vienna to arrange all outstanding difficulties. Louis XVIII. proclaimed a constitution according to which there should be two chambers--peers and deputies; taxes should be imposed only with the consent of the representatives, ministerial responsibility was recognised, and Frenchmen were equally eligible for all offices of state. The Catholic religion was recognised as the state religion of the nation, but all other forms of Christianity were tolerated and their ministers guaranteed state support.
The Congress of the powers opened at Vienna, 20th September, 1814. The assembly was a remarkable one, not only on account of the issues at stake and the presence of the Emperors of Austria and Russia, together with the Kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, and Würtemberg, but also because the leading statesmen of Europe were present to safeguard the interests of their different countries. Consalvi appeared as the deputy of the Pope, France was represented by Talleyrand, Austria by Count Metternich, and England by Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington. Even in such a distinguished assembly the Papal ambassador occupied no secondary place. *
The members of the Congress were well disposed towards Pius VII. They recognised that though he had suffered most he had issued from the conflict with a cleaner record than did most of the sovereigns of Europe. Besides, they began to realise that government without religion was an impossibility, and that, therefore, in defence of monarchy they must put forward the motto-religion, law, and king--against the republican formula
* Goyau, Consalvi au Congrès de Vienne ( Revue de, Deux-Mondes, Sept., 1906).
--liberty, equality, and fraternity. Hence, the claims put forward by Consalvi for the restoration of the Papal States were not received unfavourably; but while the powers were wrangling over the fate of Poland and Saxony, the news arrived ( 7th March, 1815) that Napoleon had escaped from Elba, and was already on the march to Paris.
He embarked from Elba on the 26th February with about one thousand men. The troops sent to oppose him on his arrival in France gladly joined his standard. When it became known that Marshal Ney had thrown in his lot with his old general, Louis XVIII. fled from Paris and took up his residence at Ghent. Napoleon entered Paris on the 20th March amidst scenes of the wildest enthusiasm. He raised an army of 150,000 men, and resolved to cross into Belgium and destroy the English and Prussian forces before the other Allies could come to their assistance. In Belgium his plans for preventing a junction of the English and Prussian forces proved a failure, and at Waterloo he suffered a complete defeat at the hands of Wellington and Blücher ( 18th June, 1815). Napoleon was the first to arrive in Paris with the authentic tidings of the defeat. Having learned that the Chambers were bitterly hostile, he abdicated in favour of his son, and retired towards the sea-coast, probably in the hope of escaping to America. This was impossible owing to the presence of English cruisers, and at last he resolved, like Themistocles, to throw himself on the generosity of the English people. He went on board the battleship Bellerophon, but on his arrival at Torbay he was not permitted to land, and in a few days the decision was announced to him that he was destined to spend the remainder of his life on the island of St. Helena. There he died on the 5th May, 1821.
Pius VII., in spite of all that he had suffered at the hands of Napoleon, did not forget him in the days of his adversity. In spite of the protests of the powers the mother and the other relatives of Napoleon found an asylum in the Papal territory. When the Pope learned, through Cardinal Fesch, that the confinement in St. Helena was injurious to the health of the distinguished prisoner, he instructed his Secretary of State to plead with the powers for milder treatment. Finally, he sent the Abbé Vignali to look after the spiritual interests of Napoleon, and it was consoling to the Pope to learn that, in spite of everything, Napoleon was enabled to declare in his will that he died in the bosom of the apostolic and Roman Church.
The news of the escape from Elba and return to Paris caused considerable excitement in Rome. Murat, King of Naples, asked the Pope for permission to march through the Papal States to the relief of Napoleon, but the request was refused. Pius VII., fearing an attack from Naples, left Rome and took up his residence at Genoa, where he was under the protection of the English fleet. Napoleon sent a gracious message requesting his return, but no notice was taken of this communication. Later on, when Murat had been defeated by the Austrians, Pius VII. returned to Rome ( 7th June, 1815).
Meanwhile, Consalvi had been playing a careful game at the Congress of Vienna. In several energetically worded notes to the powers he insisted on the claims of the Holy See for a complete restoration of the Papal States, and he reminded England and Russia that the Pope had lost his territories because he refused to break with the enemies of France. He demanded, too, the restoration of the property lost to the Church through the secularisation policy in Germany; and expressed a wish for the re-establishment of the Holy Roman Empire. In opposition to the wishes of Metternich, Consalvi induced the Congress to restore the Papal States, including the Legations, Ravenna, Bologna and Ferrara, almost in their entirety. His success astonished the leading men at the Congress, but, unmindful of their congratulations, he lodged a solemn protest against the concession of a small portion of the Papal States awarded by the Congress to Austria.
Louis XVIII. returned to Paris ( 8th, July, 1815), surrounded by foreign battalions. The French capital was treated by the allied forces as a conquered city, and it was only after most humiliating concessions in money and territory that France could secure their withdrawal. The Chambers were decidedly conservative, and voted for the severe punishment of those who supported Napoleon on his return. Amongst those who suffered were General Ney, who was arrested and shot, and Murat, who was tried and condemned to death in Naples.
(e) THE RESTORATION (1814-1830)
Villemain, L'Histoire de la Restauration, Paris, 1860-68. Baunard, Un siècle de l'Église de France ( 1800- 1900), 1900. Bourgain, L'Église de France et l'État au XIXe siècle, 2 vols, Paris, 1904. Debidour, Histoire des rapports de l'Église et de l'État en France de 1789 à 1870, Paris, 1898. Artaud, Histoire de Pie VII. ( 1833), de Léon XII. ( 1843), et de Pie VIII. ( 1849).
The Restoration undoubtedly produced many changes beneficial to the Church. Louis XVIII., though certainly not a zealous Catholic himself, hastened to suppress the Napoleonic festivals and catechism, to restore the Papal archives that had been transferred from Rome to Paris, to dispense the ecclesiastical students from attendance at the lycées; to permit the bishops to open free colleges, and to allow the re-establishment of the Lazarists, the Sulpicians, and the Holy Ghost Fathers. Some of the clergy were offered and accepted very high places in the government.
But Louis XVIII. was determined to wipe out all trace of Napoleon's interference in Church affairs; and, hence, he refused to recognise the concordat of 1801. He wished rather to return to the old arrangement concluded between Francis I. and Leo X.; and, on the other hand, Rome was desirous of securing a repeal of the Organic Articles. A new concordat was agreed to in September, 1816, but for several reasons Rome withdrew its consent; a second attempt, little favourable to the Church, was made in 1817; * but as the Pope had expressed his dissatisfaction, the Chamber rejected it. Finally, it was agreed that the concordat of 1801 should remain in force, and that thirty new dioceses should be created to meet the wants of the faithful. The necessary expenses of these erections were voted in May, 1821, and carried into effect during the next year. The Restoration Government showed in ecclesiastical as well as secular matters a want of decision and of a definite policy. On the one hand, it maintained the Catholic religion as the state religion, suppressed the law of divorce ( 1816), forbade all attacks on religion ( 1822), permitted ecclesiastical institutions to receive legacies or donations, broke up the monopoly of the Paris University, declared religion as the basis of education ( 1821), established a Commission of Public Instruction, accorded the bishops a voice in the control of the University ( 1821), gave them in great measure the control of the primary schools, and allowed them to open free secondary schools. On the other, it steadily refused to abrogate the Organic Articles, insisted on the seminary professors teaching the four Gallican Articles, limited the number of the students to be received in the seminaries, and suppressed the Society of Jesus.
The main policy of the Restoration Government was to keep the clergy in hand by small concessions, but at the same time to withhold all real liberty from the Church.
The truth is that Gallicanism was specially strong in France during the Restoration period. Many of the clergy, especially the higher clergy, and the bishops were open supporters of the Gallican doctrines, and were always at hand to support the government in their restrictions upon ecclesiastical administration. Mgr. Frayssinous, the author of Les Vrais Principes de L'Église Gallicane ( 1818), and the opponent of Lamennais, was the ablest representative of the party. The cause of the Church was well pleaded by such writers as Chateaubriand and De Maistre, but especially by the
* Feret, Le Concordat de, 1817 ( Revue des Quest. Hist., Jan., 1902).
latter, who was a pronounced enemy of Gallicanism, and whose work, Du Pape ( 1819) had such a decided influence on religious thought in France during the nineteenth century.
Charles X. ( 1824-1830) was personally a religious ruler, and, in imitation of his great predecessors, had himself crowned with full ceremony in the old Cathedral of Rheims ( 29th May, 1825). He published a law against sacrilege and another for the repression of infidel or revolutionary publications ( 1826). But he wanted the decision of character and foresight required to carry out his policy in face of the bitter opposition that was soon aroused. The followers of the old school of Voltaire and Rousseau displayed an alarming activity in issuing cheap editions of the leading pre-revolution literature, in winning over to their assistance the students of the university, and in declaring war against the ecclesiastical congregations. The ultra-royalist party, instead of being a source of strength, was only a cause of embarrassment to the king.
In 1827, owing to an alliance between the ultra-royalists and the liberals, M. Martignac was called to form a government. He was of the moderate Liberal party, and in accordance with its programme an ordinance was published in 1828, commanding the Jesuits to retire from their educational establishments, and enjoining on their successors in these a declaration that they did not belong to any non-authorised congregation. * By another law the total number of seminarists in France was fixed at 20,000; no extern students were to be received in such establishments, the boarders were to wear the ecclesiastical dress, and a course of two years at a university establishment was prescribed for those who wished to secure degrees in arts or philosophy. The object of these measures--namely, to take away the secondary education from the hands of ecclesiastics--was well understood by the bishops, and met with their uncompromising resistance. Charles X. dismissed Martignac, and called upon Prince Polignac (1829) to form a
* Feret, Les Ordonnances de 1828 ( Rev. de Quest. Hist., April, 1904).
new cabinet. The selection of such an ardent admirer of the Ancien Régime was a distinct challenge to men of liberal tendencies.
The Chamber, by a large majority, passed a vote of want of confidence in the new ministry, and the king having appealed to the country, the opposition secured the return of all their old members, and many new ones in addition. The king did not flinch from the contest. In virtue of the 14th clause of the charter authorising the ruler to make regulations necessary for the safety of the state he published ( 26th July, 1830) the celebrated five ordinances by which he dissolved the Chamber, introduced a new plan of election, convoked the new Chamber to meet in September, placed restrictions on the press, and appointed some of the extreme royalists to the Council of State. These decrees stirred up the enemies of Charles X. to undertake a revolution. A small group of determined republicans in Paris, and the royalist supporters of the Duke of Orleans united; the soldiers were unprepared or deserted, and soon Paris was lost to Charles X. The Duke of Orleans was summoned and consented to adopt the charter and the tricolour. He was named Lieutenant-General of the Realm (30th July). Charles X. retired to Rambouillet, and tried to meet the storm by offering to withdraw the ordinances, and even to resign in favour of his grandson, leaving the Duke of Orleans as regent, but the Chamber declared the throne vacant, and appointed Louis Philippe king of France ( 7th August, 1830).
(f) THE MONARCHY OF JULY
In addition to the works cited above, consult :-- Thureau-Dangin, Hist. de la Monarchie de Juillet, 2e ed., Paris, 1892. Crétineau Joly, Hist. de Louis Philippi, &c., Paris. 1862-63. Spuller, Lamennais, Paris, 1902. Mercier, Lamennais d'après sa correspondance, Paris, 1895. Lecanuet, Montalembert, 2e éd., 3 vols., Paris, 1900-2.
The Revolution of 1830 was marked by the same antireligious tendency as had characterised that of 1789.
The explanation of this fact lies in the close alliance between the Bourbons and the strong Gallican party, which ever since the Restoration had been carefully fostered in the Church of France. In the charter of 1830 the Catholic religion was designated the religion of the majority, not the state religion of France; the clergy could not show themselves in the streets without being insulted by the mob; the church of St. Germain l'Auxerrois, and the palace of the archbishop were sacked; the church of St. Geneviève was seized and converted into the Pantheon; the state assistance given for the education of the younger clerical students was withdrawn; the number of ecclesiastical holidays was reduced to four; and the nuncio having quitted Paris during the Revolution it was declared that there should be no longer a nuncio, but that the Pope should conduct his business in Paris through a simple Chargé d'Affaires.
This open attack on the Catholic Church was decidedly more beneficial to the progress of religion than had been the friendly, yet strangling, policy of the Restoration Government. It roused the Catholics to form a party in self-defence and to throw themselves boldly into the public life of the country; and, at the same time, it forced this party to look entirely to Rome for support. Now that the king and those in power at Paris were unfriendly the Catholics of France must necessarily look elsewhere for support, and naturally they turned to the centre of the Catholic world, the See of Peter. The Revolution, therefore, of 1830, though hostile to the Church rendered a great service in bringing about a union of the Catholics amongst themselves in their own defence, and in purifying their ranks of nearly all traces of the Gallican policy of the Restoration period.
The principal leaders in this great religious revival were Lamennais, Lacordaire, Montalembert, Gerbet and Rohrbacher. Of these the best known and the most advanced was the Abbé de Lamennais. These men recognised in the Revolution of 1830 the triumph of an anti-religious Liberalism, and they asked themselves why should Liberalism be allowed to remain antiCatholic? Why should the Church not cut herself adrift from royalty, and freeing herself from the shackles of state control, place herself at the head of the democratic movement that was likely to be the power of the future? To support this programme they decided to found the paper, L'Avenir ( 16th Oct., 1830), and to emphasise their opposition to the infidel Liberalism of the day they selected as their motto, "God and Liberty."
They recognised that the union of Gallicanism and absolutism had been the cause of the popular hatred of the Church. Hence, their attacks were directed equally against both. They proclaimed themselves at once ultramontanes and democrats. They demanded complete liberty for the Church, and the only way of securing that liberty, according to them, was by a complete separation of Church and State. They insisted that there should be absolute liberty of conscience and of the press, that universal suffrage was a sacred right that could not be denied, that the Second Chamber should be suppressed, and the whole legislative power vested in the hands of the people, and that if the government did not meet the wishes of the masses, then the masses should overthrow the government. The intentions of the party were good, but their policy was imprudent, their demands exaggerated, and their language immoderate. They denounced the concordat as a betrayal of the Church, they attacked the clergy for consenting to be the paid officials of the state; they directed their bitterest sarcasms against the bishops for their attachment to Gallicanism and to royalty; they held up to ridicule the clerical education of the seminaries, and at the same time roused the violent opposition of the University by their well-directed onslaughts. All this would have been enough to stir up bitter enmities, but when, besides, it is remembered that their leader, de Lamennais, had been already under suspicion on account of the philosophic theories advanced in the Essai sur l'Indifférence en matière de religion, it is intelligible that the new paper should arouse the attention and anxiety of the ecclesiastical authorities.
Lamennais and Lacordaire were brought into court ( 31st January, 1831) for their articles against the government. They made a brilliant defence, Lacordaire, as a lawyer, being allowed to conduct his own case, and they were acquitted. But many of the bishops, roused by the sneering charges of Gallicanism directed against them, and by the disorder that broke out in the seminaries amongst both students and professors, condemned L'Avenir, and forbade their clergy to contribute to it, or even to read it. The three principally responsible for the policy of the journal, Lamennais, Lacordaire and Montalembert resolved to put an end to the open and secret rumours of their unorthodoxy by obtaining for their policy the approbation of Rome. In November, 1831, they announced that the publication of L'Avenir would be suspended for a time, and that its editors, as "Pilgrims of God and of Liberty," were about to start for Rome to consult the Holy Father, as once upon a time the soldiers of Israel journeyed to Silo to consult the Lord.
This appeal to Rome, suggested by Lacordaire, and accepted by his colleagues, was very ill-advised. To approve a paper that had made such bitter attacks upon the ecclesiastical and civil authorities in France, and that had been censured by a large body of the French episcopate, was impossible, while, on the other hand, it was hard for Gregory XVI. to condemn men who had done so much to weaken the influence of Gallicanism, and to support the claims of the Holy See. Hence, the Pope received them kindly, but in answer to their demand for a definite decision Cardinal Pacca suggested that they should return quietly to France. Lacordaire understood the motive of this suggestion, and begged his companions to leave Rome, but Lamennais refused to return till a final judgment should be given.
Lacordaire started for Paris, but Lamennais and Montalembert remained in Rome for four months, till, at last, wearied by the delay they left for Germany, Lamennais having declared his resolve to return to France, and continue the paper and the policy. All three met at Munich, where, during the course of a banquet organised in their honour, the Encyclical, Mirari Vos, was handed to Lamennais ( 15th Aug., 1832). * Out of respect for their feelings Gregory XVI. did not mention their names, but at the same time, while sharply reproving the doctrine of their Gallican opponents, he condemned many of the principles and methods of L'Avenir. The three editors immediately published a joint note declaring their unqualified submission to the decision of the Holy Father, and their resolve to abandon the further publication of their journal; but Lamennais retired to his retreat at La Chesnaye in deep disgust, where, in spite of the kindness of his bishop and a sympathetic letter from the Pope, he still strongly adhered to his own views. Lacordaire and Montalembert saw clearly that they must make their selection between the church and their old master; and with sorrowful hearts they bade farewell to Lamennais and La Chesnaye. The publication of the Paroles d'un Croyant ( 1834) and of Les Affaires de Rome ( 1837) showed that Lamennais had definitely broken with the Church, and the breach thus made became wider and wider as the years rolled on, till at last, in spite of the touching appeals of his brother, his relatives, and of Archbishop Sibour of Paris, he died in 1854 refusing all reconciliation with the Church.
The condemnation of L'Avenir and the apostasy of Lamennais, though a sore trial to the Catholic party, did not discourage them from further effort. Their aim now was to close up their ranks, to detach themselves from the pursuit of impossibilities, and, with the sanction of their lawful ecclesiastical superiors, to direct their efforts to a renewal of the religious life amongst the
* Bullarium Romanum XIX., p. 126.
masses of the people, and a redress of their pressing grievances, especially in the matter of education.
With this object in view, a body of young men in Paris, under the leadership of Ozanam, * established the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for the relief and religious instruction of the poor ( 1833). The success of this establishment exceeded all expectation. By means of its conferences and visits to the homes of the poor, thousands of the lower classes in Paris, to whom religion was almost unknown, were brought back again to the Church. From Paris, where, in 1853, it had already founded 2,000 branches, the society spread through France, and from France through the whole Catholic world. According to the report of 1900, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul had a membership of 100,000, and distributed annually in alms for the support of the poor and for education about £800,000. The same men who established the Society of St. Vincent de Paul succeeded in inducing the archbishop of Paris to establish a course of apologetic conferences at Notre Dame, and to entrust it to the distinguished Dominican preacher, Lacordaire. The result of these brilliant sermons, especially among the educated classes, more than justified the hopes of the organisers.
But it was the educational grievances that supplied the proper programme to unite the Catholic party. Napoleon, in his efforts to secure complete centralisation, had given the University of Paris a monopoly of education, and had placed all educational establishments under the control of the university authorities. This policy was maintained after the Restoration, though Charles X. had rendered it less odious to the Catholics by giving the bishops a voice in the government of the University. Still a great many people in France resisted the monopoly, and in the charter of 1830 a clause was inserted granting liberty of education. The Catholics took their stand on this article of the constitution and demanded that it should be put into opera-
* O'Meara, Frederic Ozanam: His Life and Labours, London, 1879.
tion. Montalembert was the leading spirit of the movement. In conjunction with Lacordaire and Charles de Coux, the eminent economist, he opened ( 9th May, 1831) a primary school in Paris in defiance of the law. The three teachers were promptly summoned to appear before the courts, and, as Montalembert was a peer of France, the trial was carried on before the Chamber of peers. The speeches of Montalembert and Lacordaire in their defence created a profound sensation, and though a small fine was inflicted, the accused had succeeded in directing public attention to the Catholic grievances. Guizot appointed a Commission to examine the question of Primary Education in France, and the report brought to light such a lamentable state of affairs that a law was introduced and passed ( 1833), establishing for the first time a state Primary School System in France. This law dealt generously with the Catholic schools, allowed the same privileges to the ecclesiastical as to the secular teachers, and recognised the testimonial of their superiors as equivalent to the academic diploma otherwise required.
The war, however, was still waged round the secondary schools. Guizot tried to effect a settlement of the question in 1836, but his efforts met with no success. From 1841 the struggle between the opponents and friends of the University monopoly was waged with extreme bitterness. The bishops of France, casting aside the old self-effacement policy of the Restoration, threw themselves into the fight, and in 1842 fifty-six of them denounced the philosophic education of the French lycées. Several of the bishops and abbés were cited before the courts for their attacks on the University, but each new trial only added strength to the Catholic demand.
In 1843, Montalembert published the pamphlet, Le devoir des Catholiques dans la question de la liberté d' enseignment, which, supported by the bishops, had a great influence in France; and in the next year a league was formed for the defence of religious liberty. The party required a newspaper to ventilate their views, and fortunately the paper and the editor were at hand to second their efforts. L'Univers had been founded in 1833 by the Abbé Migne, one of the old band of L'Avenir, but its success was insignificant till 1843, when it was placed under the editorship of Louis Veuillot, one of the most influential Catholic journalists of the nineteenth century. The Catholics based their attacks on the University monopoly on the three great principles, the guarantee of the charter ( 1831), the idea of true liberty, and the rights of the parent. Meanwhile, the friends of the University were not idle. Cousin, Michelet, Quinet, Génin and Libri upheld the position of the University. In their courses at the Collège de France or in the newspapers devoted to their cause they replied to their opponents and directed the bitterest attacks against the Jesuits. They did not disdain to accept the help of the novelist Eugene Sue and his scandalous work, Le Juif Errant. Several proposals were made during the years 1846 and 1847, but for one reason or another they did not become law. Still the Catholics were not discouraged. They had now become a strong and united party. In the elections of 1846 they secured the return of 146 deputies pledged to support their educational programme, and they organised monster petitions to the government from all parts of France.
Meanwhile, the home and foreign policy of the government had aroused almost universal opposition. Louis Philippe depended entirely for support upon the bourgeoisie, who were resolved that no further concessions should be made to the masses. The first minister, M. Guizot, resisted every demand for electoral reform. In 1847 all the opponents of the government united against the ministry of M. Guizot. The men who desired only electoral reform joined hands with the republicans and revolutionaries to bring about a crisis. The foreign policy of the government, especially in its relations with England, was sharply criticised as a betrayal of national interests, while the bad harvest and the prevalent commercial depression produced much distress and unrest.
The Chambers met on the 28th December, 1847. In reply to the demands of the opposition for reform M. Guizot bluntly refused all concessions. To rouse the country the opposition undertook to organise great reform banquets in the large cities of France. One of these was to be held in Paris, but it was prohibited by the government. The rumour spread that the banquet had been abandoned, but on the morning of the day on which it was to have been held ( 22nd Feb., 1848) the mobs of Paris began to assemble, and attacked the municipal guard. The next day the National Guard joined the rioters, and the soldiers held themselves inactive. M. Guizot offered his resignation, and it was accepted. This step, however, did not satisfy the people. In a scuffle with the soldiers on the evening of the 23rd February several people were shot. Their dead bodies were brought in procession through the streets, and the masses, maddened by the spectacle, flew to arms. Louis Philippe, now thoroughly frightened, called M. Thiers, in conjunction with M. Odillon-Barrot, two leaders of the Opposition, to form a ministry. They issued a proclamation on the night of the 24th February, announcing their appointment, and the withdrawal of the military from Paris. But it was too late. The soldiers surrendered their arms to the insurgents, and the king, recognising that all was lost, abdicated the throne in favour of his grandson, and fled to St. Cloud.
The Chamber of Deputies met, and, having rejected the motion in favour of the regency of the Duchess of Orleans, appointed a provisional government. The Republic was formally proclaimed. The king with difficulty made his escape from France, and took up his residence in England, where he died in 1850 at the age of seventy-seven. The revolution in France was but the herald of the revolution in Europe, and marked the beginning of a new period in the history of the nineteenth century.
The reign of Louis Philippe was on the whole a period of religious revival in France. The concordat was accepted, and the new bishoprics established by Louis XVIII. were recognised. The public life of France assumed a more Catholic tone, and many men, not burthened with dogmatic religion themselves, were anxious to secure the assistance of religion in the preservation of public peace. In its relations with the Pope and the religious orders the government showed its anxiety to avoid all conflicts. The Benedictines established ( 1837) themselves at Solesmes under the abbacy of the renowned Dom Guéranger; Lacordaire brought back the Dominicans in 1841; the Jesuits who had been scattered in 1830 gradually came together and resumed their work, and were fortunate enough in their conflict with the University to have such an able advocate as Père Ravignan. The Trappists and Carthusians founded many new establishments, while the religious orders of men and women devoted to primary education, aided by the law of 1833, doubled the number of their pupils.
Besides, it is important to note that the French Church, which, during the Restoration had shown such a decided tendency towards Gallicanism, * took advantage of the rupture of 1830 to effect a closer union with Rome. It was only when Pius VIII. had recognised the government of Louis Philippe that the usual prayers for the king were permitted in the French churches. The founders of L'Avenir openly announced their complete opposition to the old Gallican views that had been the fruitful cause of such misfortune to the Church; the younger bishops, no longer under the influence of men like Frayssinnous, ranged themselves on the side of Rome, as is evident from the fact that nearly all the members of the hierarchy supported De Bonald in his condemnation
* Bellamy, La Théologie Catholique au XIXe, siècle, Paris, 1904, pp. 21-25.
of Dupin's Canon Law ( 1845). In addition to this, when Dom Guéranger began his campaign against the peculiar liturgies of the different French dioceses, and urged the universal adoption of the Roman Liturgy, * his suggestion was followed by the majority of French bishops, and gradually the Roman Liturgy was accepted in all the dioceses of France.
* Institutions Liturgiques, 3 vols., Paris, 1839-51.
THE CHURCH IN THE GERMAN STATES
(a) THE DISSOLUTION OF THE EMPIRE AND THE SECULARISATION POLICY
Hirsch, Gebhardts Handbuch der Deutschen Geschichte, 2 Bde., Stuttgart, 1890, Bd. II., 378-529. Seignobos, L'Europe Contemporaine, Paris, 1905, chapters XII-XIV. Brück- Kissling, Geschichte der Kathol. Kirche im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 Bde., Mayence--Münster, 1908. Schmid, Geschichte der Kath. Kirche Deutschlands 1872-74. Goyau, L'Allemagne religieuse, Le Catholicisme, 1800- 1848, 2 vols., Paris, 1905. König, Pius VII., Die Säkularisation und das Reichskonkordat, Innsbruck, 1904.
THE Peace of Westphalia in 1648 may be said to have marked the end of the Holy Roman Empire. By this peace the principles upon which the Emperors had based their imperial title during the Middle Ages were abandoned in spite of the protests of Pope Innocent X., and the power of the Emperors even in German territory was so limited that outside their hereditary states they had practically little influence. The German Confederation still recognised the ruler of Austria as the head of the league, and the House of Habsburg still clung to the imperial title; but, in reality, the central government had no controlling voice, and the individual states were practically independent.
The two leading states of the German Confederation were Austria, representing the anti-Reformation party, and Prussia in the north the supporter of Lutheranism. Prussia, under the rule of Frederick the Great ( 17401786), acquired large extent of territories at the expense of her rival, and grew more powerful year by year, while Austria, on the other hand, weakened by the wars of the reign of Maria Theresa ( 1740-80), and by the rebellions stirred up in the Netherlands and Hungary by the centralisation policy of Joseph II., was gradually on the wane.
When the French Revolution broke out both Austria and Prussia viewed the movement with alarm. The princes of the German territories beyond the Rhine, who had lost their rights by the abolition of feudalism in 1789, appealed to the Emperor for assistance, while the anti-monarchical turn which the movement in Paris soon assumed warned both Leopold II. of Austria and Frederick William II. of Prussia that unless some remedy were quickly applied the thrones of Europe were in serious danger. A meeting was arranged between the Emperor and the King of Prussia ( 1791), and a proclamation was issued announcing their resolve to intervene on behalf of Louis XVI. Before the war broke out Leopold II. died, but his successor, Francis II., continued his policy, and a definite alliance was concluded between Austria and Prussia.
In the wars that ensued Austria and Prussia were defeated. Austria lost the Netherland provinces together with the territories beyond the Rhine, and finally, in 1801, was obliged to conclude the humiliating peace of Lunéville. The provinces in the Netherlands were surrendered, the republics recognised, the German territory beyond the Rhine was abandoned to France, and the lay princes whose states had been surrendered were to be compensated from the church lands and from the free cities. This was the beginning of the secularisation of ecclesiastical property.
The policy of Prussia and of most of the minor states of Germany, in their relations to Napoleon, shows how completely the idea of a German nation seems to have been forgotten. The greed of the individual states, and their abandonment of all patriotic instinct in their anxiety to win the favour of Napoleon, and to profit by the humiliation of Austria cast a deep stain on the history of the German states in the nineteenth century. Napoleon desired to have a power beyond the Rhine on which he could rely in his wars with Austria, and, shameful to relate, he found a number of the German princes anxious and ready to assist him. In 1806, the kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the elector of Baden, the prince bishop of Regensburg, and the rulers of several smaller states, sixteen in all, came together and formed what is known as "The Confederation of the Rhine." They formally decreed their separation from the Empire, placed themselves under the protection of Napoleon, and agreed to aid him in his wars with an army of 63,000 men. The articles of Confederation were signed at Paris, 17th July, 1806, and on the 1st August Napoleon's ambassador at Regensburg announced to the Diet that the Confederation was recognised. Francis II. immediately (6th Aug.) published a declaration dissolving the Empire, released the states from their allegiance, and retired to his hereditary states with the title of Emperor of Austria. This step put an end to the existence of the Holy Roman Empire.
The Confederation of the Rhine and the king of Prussia played anything but a glorious part during the Napoleonic regime. It was only when the power of France had been broken in the Russian campaign that Frederick William II. summoned up sufficient courage to declare war. At the Congress of Vienna both Prussia and Austria received compensation for the territories that they had lost, and as a result both powers had nearly as extensive a boundary in 1815 as they had had in 1795. The compensations to the secular princes were made in a great measure from the lands of the Church.
This policy of compensating the secular princes by dividing among them the ecclesiastical territories constitutes what is known as the policy of Secularisation. By this policy the prince bishops who had played such a part in the Holy Roman Empire and German national affairs almost entirely disappeared. The ecclesiastical territories of Trent, Brixen, Salzburg, Passau, Freising, Augsburg, Constance, Eichstätt, Bamberg, Würzburg, Fulda, Osnabrück, Paderborn, Hildesheim, Münster, Breslau, together with a great many abbatial demesnes and less important foundations were taken away from the spiritual princes and handed over to the lay rulers, who were in many cases Protestant, to compensate them for the losses of the war. By this act of secularisation the Catholic Church lost 1,719 square miles of territory with a population of three and a half millions, and producing an annual revenue of well over two million pounds. Consalvi protested against this injustice, but his protests were in vain.
The different states having been satisfied, the question about the nature of the Confederation required delicate handling. The re-establishment of the Empire was impossible. In June, 1815, the princes of Germany met and signed the Germanic Confederation (Deutscher Bund) for the maintenance of peace and the security of the different states. The Confederation was to be regulated by a permanent Council of the plenipotentiaries of the different states sitting at Frankfort, and of this Council the representative of Austria was to be the president. The number of votes accorded to the different states of the Confederation was regulated by their relative importance, and for any general law binding the confederate states absolute unanimity was required The duty of this Council was to regulate the foreign and military affairs of the whole body as well as all serious questions of home policy affecting the Confederation; but in reality each individual state retained its sovereign independence, and maintained its own army, custom regulations, and diplomatic body. There was no federal court of appeal, and there were no federal representatives at the foreign courts. Each state regulated its own affairs, and the Frankfort Assembly had no real power.
In framing a new political organisation for the German States the position of the Church and the arrangements required by the political changes neces- sarily demanded attention. In the territory of the Rhine Confederation in spite of the efforts of Dalberg, prince bishop of Regensburg, to induce Napoleon to extend the concordat to German territory, many of the dioceses were vacant, and, as in France, could not be filled. The property of the Church had been seized, except the revenues for the support of the parish priests, the schools, and the religious orders devoted to charity; the cathedral chapters deprived of their means of support were dying out; the seminaries were in the same condition, and the Holy Roman Empire having ceased to exist each state treated the Church as it wished, interfering in all questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Cardinal Consalvi demanded at the Congress of Vienna the restoration of the territories of the prince bishops and abbots, as well as the restitution of the ecclesiastical property that had been secularised. The representative of the prince bishop of Regensburg, von Wessenberg, vicar capitular of Constance, strove hard to secure the foundation of a National German Church with a national primate who would direct the whole affairs of the Church, leaving to the Pope only a primacy of honour. This was the old theory of Febronius which still found many sympathisers even amongst the ecclesiastics of Germany. During the course of the discussion on the new Germanic confederation a clause was inserted in the constitution (14) guaranteeing the great religious parties equal constitutional rights, but the next article dealing with the new constitution to be given to the Catholic Church was omitted owing to the opposition of Bavaria and Würtemberg. Whether Cardinal Consalvi urged on the Bavarian delegate to resist the insertion of the clause is not clear, but, at any rate, it is certain that its retention could have done no good, and might possibly have been the cause of serious evil. Nor were the efforts made at the Assembly at Frankfort to arrive at some common settlement of ecclesiastical affairs more successful; and nothing now remained but for each individual ruler to open up negotiations with the Holy See. Hence it is necessary to treat separately the different states forming the Germanic Confederation.
In addition to the works cited above, consult:-- Ritter, Kaiser Joseph II. und seine Kirchlichen Reformen, Ratisbon, 1869. Brunner, Joseph II., Freiburg i. Br., 1869. Beidtel, Untersuchungen über die Kirchlichen Zustände in den K. K. Österreichischen Staaten, Vienna, 1849.
During the reign of Maria Theresa ( 1740-1780) the Silesian war and the Seven Years' War involved a constant drain on the resources of the country, while the cession of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia was a serious blow to Austria. Still the partition of Poland in 1772, and the concessions wrung from Turkey ( 1777) and Bavaria ( 1779) left Austria as powerful at the end of her reign as it had been at the beginning. Joseph II. ( 1780-1790) succeeded. He had been associated with his mother as regent from the death of his father in 1765, and though kept in check by the Empress and her ministers he had already shown that he was bent on imitating the policy and reforms of his great rival, Frederick the Great of Prussia. He reorganised the military and judicial system of the country, abolished most of the privileges of the nobles, rearranged the taxation, encouraged the establishment of manufacture by bringing in skilled artisans from foreign industrial centres, and reformed the whole educational system with the object of giving it a practical instead of a mere literary turn. He wished to unify his scattered territories by abolishing all natural differences and peculiar constitutions, and by subjecting the different states to one strong central government. The Latin and Hungarian languages were to be put aside in favour of German, which was to be henceforth the only recognised official language.
But it is the religious reforms undertaken by Joseph II. which have made his reign remarkable in ecclesiastical history, and which have given the name
Josephism in Germany to the policy of opposition to the Holy See which, on the other side of the Rhine, flourished under the title of Gallicanism. Joseph II. was not personally an enemy of the Catholic Church, but the philosophic ideas of the party of Enlightenment * in Austria had taken possession of his mind and urged him to undertake reforms in religious matters without any regard for the authority of the ecclesiastical superiors.
He published an Edict of Toleration in 1781 which granted Protestants and members of the Orthodox Greek Church free exercise of their religion, while the Jews received many privileges hitherto denied them. It is to be noted, however, that the Emperor was strongly opposed to the freemason order which was then striving to establish its branches throughout his Empire. He aimed, too, at strengthening the National Church at the expense of the Holy See, by establishing the Placitum Regis for all Papal briefs and documents sent into Austrian territory, by forbidding his subjects to accept Papal titles or honours, by forbidding the bishops to apply to Rome for a renewal of their ordinary quinquennial faculties or for dispensations in matrimonial cases of whatsoever kind, and by prohibiting all ecclesiastical students to frequent the Collegium Germanicum in Rome. In place of the latter he established a College at Pavia where the students might be preserved from the dangers of ultramontanism. Marriage was declared to be a purely civil affair subject entirely to the power of the state, and regulations were made re-arranging the matrimonial impediments of consanguinity, mixed marriages, the religion of the children of mixed marriages, and the important question of divorce.
The Emperor devoted particular attention to the religious orders established within his territories. He forbade them to acknowledge the authority of any superior residing outside the jurisdiction of the empire, and, thus, the Austrian religious houses were withdrawn from the authority of the generals usually resident in Rome.
* Die Aufklärung.
In October, 1781, he issued a decree that all religious orders not devoted to works of charity or not clearly forwarding the public good, should be abolished, and in accordance with this decree about 780 convents of men and women were seized between 1781 and 1786, and their revenue appropriated by the state. The money thus acquired was set aside for the establishment of new dioceses and parishes, for the better payment of the secular clergy or for education. The religious houses allowed to remain, about 1,425 in number with a membership of about 2,500, were placed under the special control of the government, and new regulations were framed to secure the proper observance of discipline.
Probably the most dangerous of the reforms introduced by Joseph II. were those affecting the education of ecclesiastical students. The episcopal seminaries were abolished as well as the clerical monastic schools. In their place central seminaries were founded for the different provinces at Vienna, Pesth Pavia, Freiburg, and Louvain, and in these establishments all clerical students were obliged to receive their education. The central seminaries were subject entirely to the control of the government, and the bishops had no voice in the selection of the professors, of the text-books, or in the framing of disciplinary regulations. The professors appointed by the Emperor were, as a rule, men who had come into conflict with ecclesiastical authority, or who had shown a decided leaning towards Liberalism, and as a result the dogmatic theology and the scripture teaching were decidedly Protestant or rationalist in their tone, and the canon law was Febronian. Had the system of central seminaries succeeded there is hardly any doubt but that the Emperor would have attained the result at which he aimed, namely, the establishment of a National Church.
The erection of these seminaries was, as shall be seen, strongly opposed by some of the bishops, and the bishops were supported by their people; but what first really roused the Catholic feeling of the laity was the
Emperor's ill-considered interference with the liturgy of the Church, and the popular forms of devotion. In 1783 a series of regulations was issued prescribing the language to be used in the different religious exercises, the number of evenings on which Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament could be given, the number of candles to be used on the occasion, and prohibiting public processions, and the usual burial ceremonial. The command that the dead bodies should be rolled in sacks and burned in quicklime led to popular insurrections in different parts of the Empire.
Though many of the bishops were too much of the court type to offer any serious resistance, yet Cardinal Migazzi, * Archbishop of Vienna, and Cardinal Bathyanyi, of Gran, solemnly warned the Emperor against such reforms, but their protests and warnings were unheeded. Pius VI. determined to seek the Emperor at Vienna in the hope that by a personal interview he might induce him to abandon his policy of aggression. With this object in view he started from Rome in 1782. His journey to Vienna was marked by demonstrations of popular sympathy and respect, but on his arrival at the capital he was coldly received by the Emperor, and his Minister, Kaunitz, nor had his representations any effect in inducing them to change their attitude towards the Church. After a stay of four weeks, which was fruitless except in so far as the presence of the Pope roused the religious loyalty of the masses, Pius VI. took his departure from Vienna. The next year ( 1783) Joseph II. returned the visit by going to Rome, when the remonstrances of the Pope were met by him with a threat of breaking off all connections with the Holy See and of setting up a German National Church. The Spanish Minister, Azara, acted, however, as mediator, and though no guarantees were given by him still from this period his policy towards the Church was more moderate and prudent.
The spirit of free inquiry bordering on rationalism prevalent at the time in the Austrian territories, together
* Wolfsgruber, Chr. Anton Migazzi, 1890.
with the adherence of many, and amongst them a large number of the bishops, to the ideas of Febronius, supplies the key to the policy of Joseph II. The Austrian canonists supported him in his innovations; while the bishop electors of Mayence, Treves, Cologne and the archbishop of Salzburg were fully determined to reduce the principles of Febronius to practice by abolishing the Papal nunciatures in German territory, freeing themselves from the jurisdiction of the Pope, and establishing a German National Church. They protested against the appointment of the nuncio, Zoglio, in 1785, and when the Pope refused to yield to their request they appealed to the Emperor, Joseph II., for assistance. *
The three prince bishops and the archbishop of Salzburg met at Ems in 1786 and published the celebrated twenty-three articles known as the Punctuation of Ems. According to this document the bishops had no reason for having recourse to Rome; the matrimonial dispensations could be given in virtue of their episcopal power; Bulls and briefs might be received or rejected by the bishop as he pleased, the revenue of the pallium and annats should be abolished, and the right to regulate the ecclesiastical discipline should be vested in the bishops.
Fortunately the Papal nuncio at Cologne, Pacca, † afterwards Secretary of State to Pius VII., was well fitted to deal with such a serious situation. He published a letter addressed to the clergy warning them that the archbishops had no power to grant the dispensations promised, and that all such attempted grants were worthless. The bishops and priests remained loyal to the Pope, and in 1787 the prince bishop of Treves acknowledged his mistake by appealing to the Holy See for faculties to dispense. In 1789, three of the electorbishops made their submission and withdrew their opposition to the appointment of nuncios in German terri-
* Stigloher, Die Errichtung der Päpstlichen Nuntiatur in München und der Emser Congres, Ratisbon, 1867. † Pacca, Memorie Storiche della Nunziatura di Colonia, Rome, 1832.
tory, and the granting of dispensations from Rome. Pius VI. sent them a warm letter of congratulation.
Meanwhile, the popular discontent against the government of Joseph II. had begun to manifest itself, especially in Hungary and the Netherland provinces. In his policy of unification he treated Hungary and Bohemia as two Austrian provinces, and put aside their special constitutional rights and privileges. All the religious reforms mentioned above were introduced into Hungary, although the Hungarian Supreme Court declared them illegal. Driven to extremes by new methods of taxation the Hungarians banded together, allied themselves with Prussia, insisted on a National Assembly ( 1789), and prepared to back their demands by force. The Emperor and Kaunitz yielded, and in 1790 nearly all the regulations passed for Hungary since 1780 were withdrawn.
The Austrian provinces of the Netherlands resented bitterly the religious and political reforms of Joseph II. Intensely Catholic as the Belgians were, they were opposed to the seizure of the monasteries, the prohibition of processions and certain other religious ceremonies, and the establishment of the imperial provincial seminaries. Cardinal von Frankenberg * boldly protested against these usurpations of ecclesiastical rights, and specially warned the Emperor against attempting to found one of the government seminaries in Louvain. In spite of these warnings the erection of the seminary was continued, and Stöger, a priest who had openly gone over to the party of the "Illuminati," and who had been dismissed from his professorship of ecclesiastical history by the Empress Maria Theresa on account of his well-known rationalist tendencies, was appointed to the new establishment ( 1786). The seminarists rose in revolt in the following December, and the troops had to be sent amongst them before order could be restored. This open defiance of their religious feelings roused the
* Cf. Theiner, Der Kardinal Johann Heinrich Graf von Frankenberg, Freiburg, 1850.
masses of the people to make common cause with their clergy, while the proclamation of a new constitution for Belgium ( 1787) robbed them of a large share of their constitutional privileges. Many of the cities refused to pay taxes; negotiations were opened up between their leaders and the representatives of Joseph II., but in 1789 martial law was proclaimed and the people rose in revolt. The clergy and nobles joined the Third Estate; Holland and Prussia encouraged the insurgents; the Austrian army was shut up in Brussels and in the few fortresses of the provinces, and the Emperor withdrew all his ordinances ( November, 1789). The concession, however, had come too late. The events in Paris encouraged the Belgians to continue their work. On the 18th December, 1789, Van der Noot, one of their successful generals, entered Brussels in triumph, and on 10th January, 1790, the independence of the "United States of Belgium" was proclaimed and a provisional government appointed. Prussia, England, and Holland immediately recognised the new Republic, and Belgium was practically lost for ever to the House of Habsburg.
The Revolution in Hungary and Belgium broke the heart of Joseph II. He died on the 20th of February, 1790. All his projects of unification had succeeded only in dividing the states of his Empire, and as he remarked himself before his death, the proper inscription on his tomb should be--"Here lies a prince whose intentions were good, but who had the misfortune of seeing all his projects prove a failure."
On the death of Joseph II., his brother, Leopold II. ( 1790-1792), succeeded. As Grand Duke of Tuscany ( 1765-1790) he had been the energetic assistant of the Emperor in all his attempted ecclesiastical reforms. Leopold endeavoured to introduce these reforms into the Church in Tuscany, and he found a willing helper in Scipio Ricci, the bishop of Pistoia, and the admirer of Jansenism and Febronianism. In 1786, the latter convened a synod of his clergy at Pistoia which was attended by about two hundred and seventy-four priests. * Several of these came from neighbouring dioceses, and all of them, like Tamburini, the wellknown Gallican professor of Pavia, were opposed to the claims of the Holy See. The Gallican Articles and the teaching of the Jansenists were approved. The matrimonial impediments were to be reduced by the Grand Duke, the oath of allegiance taken by the bishops to the Pope was to be changed, the religious orders to be reorganised, and new regulations issued dealing with liturgy, prayers, pictures, penance, and indulgences.
To put these decrees into execution it was necessary to secure the approval of the bishops of Tuscany. A synod of the bishops was convoked by the Grand Duke in March, 1787, but the assembly was far from being so pliant as had been anticipated. Of the three archbishops and seventeen bishops ruling the province of Tuscany only a few were willing to assist the Grand Duke in his reforms, and the meeting was immediately dissolved. The people showed their disapproval of the proceedings at Pistoia by attacking and destroying the palace of the bishop, Scipio Ricci ( 1787); and when the Grand Duke, having succeeded to the throne of his brother, left Tuscany, the bishop was driven from the city and obliged to abdicate. Pius VI. condemned the decrees of the Synod of Pistoia in the Bull, Auctorem Fidei, 1794, and the unfortunate bishop made his submission to Pius VII. on the return journey of the latter from the coronation of Napoleon in Paris ( 1805). †
When Leopold arrived at Vienna in 1790 he found everything in disorder. The Netherland provinces except Luxemburg were in rebellion; Bohemia and Hungary were on the verge of secession, and the attitude of Prussia and Turkey was far from friendly. Peace was soon made with Prussia and Turkey. The demands of Hungary were in part granted, and Leopold went to Pressburg where he took the oath of loyalty to the constitution and was crowned by the Primate of Hungary.
* Gelli, Memorie di Scipione Ricci, 2 vols. Florence, 1865.
† Rinieri, Napoleon e Pio. VII., Turin, 1906, Chap. I., pp. 8-10.
The attempts, however, to recapture the Netherlands by force failed owing to the presence in Belgium of the armies of France.
The ecclesiastical reforms introduced by Joseph II. also demanded careful attention. On the arrival of Leopold in Vienna, the cardinal archbishop presented a protest against the recent legislation on Church affairs, and on 21st March, 1790, the bishops presented a list of the grievances of which they complained. Their memorial dealt principally with the central seminaries, the Ecclesiastical Commission, the marriage laws, and the organisation of the monasteries. Their demands regarding the seminaries were practically granted, as each bishop was empowered to found a seminary for the training of ecclesiastical students for the secular mission, while the monasteries might establish faculties of theology. A few of the monasteries were restored, and some of the regulations regarding processions and religious services were withdrawn; but the Placitum Regis was retained, the Ecclesiastical Commission continued, and the Church funds administered under the control of the state. Open attacks on religion were, however, discouraged by a stricter censorship of the press.
Leopold II. was deeply interested in the progress of the Revolution both as a brother of Marie Antoinette and as an absolute monarch. In August, 1791, in conjunction with the King of Prussia, he issued the Declaration of Pilinitz, and in February, 1792, concluded an alliance with Prussia against France. He died in March, 1792, before war had been formally declared. He was succeeded by Francis II. ( 1792-1835). The first part of his reign was occupied entirely with the war against France. In the year 1797 a peace was arranged between the two powers known as the Peace of Campo Formio, according to which Austria abandoned her possessions in the Netherlands, ceded to France the German territory on the left bank of the Rhine, recognised the Cisalpine Republic, and obtained as compensation for her losses Venice, Istria, and Dalmatia. The war broke out again in 1799, and having suffered defeat in Italy at Marengo, and in Germany at Hohenlinden ( 1800), Austria agreed to the Peace of Lunéville ( 1801).
In 1805 an alliance was formed against Napoleon by Austria, Russia and England. War broke out the same year, and the capitulation of General Mack at Ulm, the occupation of Vienna by French troops, and the decisive defeat of the Austrians and Russians forced Francis II. to sign the Peace of Pressburg ( 26th Dec., 1805), by which he surrendered Venice to the French kingdom in Italy and the Tyrol to Bavaria, the ally of Napoleon. In the next year, on the formation of the Confederation of the Rhine, Francis II. resigned the title of Roman Emperor, and retired to his own hereditary dominions. Austria was, however, determined to wipe out the humiliation of Pressburg, and having made careful preparations declared war in 1809. The Austrians were bravely supported by the Tyrolese under their famous peasant leader, Andreas Hofer, but the second occupation of Vienna, the defeat at Wagram ( 1809), and the French victories in the Tyrol, made it necessary to accept the Treaty of Vienna in 1809. This entailed further cessions of territory not only to Napoleon, but to the allies of Napoleon among the German princes. The peace was followed by the marriage between Maria Louisa, daughter of Francis II., and the Emperor Napoleon in 1810.
With the defeat of Napoleon by the Allies in 1814, and the occupation of Paris, Austria re-acquired her possessions in Northern Italy together with Venice, and the Austrian power in Italy was confirmed and strengthened at the Congress of Vienna.
Francis II. was personally a religious man, but on account of his attachment to the memory of Joseph II. and the hold which Josephism had acquired over the minds of his advisers he made little change in the government policy towards the Church. The Ecclesiastical Commission, composed for the greater part of men without religion, controlled the ecclesiastics of the country, the Placitum Regis was enforced to prevent free communications between the Austrian bishops and the Holy See, while many of the petty restrictions on religious services were still continued. The blame for this state of affairs does not rest entirely with the Emperor or his advisers. Many of the bishops and higher clergy were in possession of extraordinary wealth, and utterly devoid of zeal in discharge of their duties. They were selected from the court favourites, and were themselves too thoroughly imbued with Josephism to permit them to risk the favour of the Emperor by untimely protests.
The results of the French Revolution fixed the attention of the authorities on the importance of encouraging a religious spirit amongst the masses. In 1802, an imperial rescript was issued in regard to the training of clerical students. The number of clergy was found too small to minister to the wants of the people, and a law was passed arranging that new clerical junior schools should be established, that each diocese should have its theological seminary, and providing large sums for the support of the ecclesiastical students. Provision was also made for the organisation of the religious orders. In the secularisation of ecclesiastical property the Church suffered comparatively little in the Austrian Empire. The territories of the bishops of Trent and Brixen were occupied by the Emperor, but the monasteries and the ecclesiastical foundations were left practically untouched.
The Emperor while refusing to abolish the regime of Joseph II. made some concessions. By the reforms of Joseph II. the Catholic schools were thrown open to all, and the schools became more or less neutral. In 1804, the primary schools were placed under the control of the episcopal consistories, but these had no power except to carry out the imperial orders. * In 1808, however, the bishops secured complete control of religious education in the gymnasia, and a strong voice in the literary education of the primary and secondary schools; in 1814, a
* Brück, op. cit., Vol. II., p. 413.
strict censorship of theological books was enforced; provisions were made for the religious wants of the university students, and the government officials were obliged to make an outward show of fulfilling their religious duties. In 1819, when the Emperor visited Rome Pius VII. presented a memorial dealing with the grievances of the Church in Austria, but the councillors of the Emperor advised the latter against attempting any change. Later on, Francis II. was anxious to meet the wishes of the Pope, and in 1833 negotiations were opened to secure the arrangement of a concordat, but without result. In his will Francis recommended his successor to abolish the remaining laws affecting the Church that had been introduced by Joseph II.
Ferdinand I. ( 1835-1848) succeeded. Like his predecessor he was personally a sincere Catholic, but had not sufficient strength of character to overcome the resistance of his officials to any grant of liberty to the Church. It is to be noted, however, that though the official government was still attached to the principles of Josephism, the public opinion was gradually veering round in the opposite direction, and the Catholic revival had one good result, namely, that the rising generation of clergy and laymen were being emancipated from the anti-Papal tradition. The Ecclesiastical Commission still controlled the bishops, and the universities continued to be in the hands of the Liberals.
The question of mixed marriages that led to such wild scenes in Prussian territory created no small difficulty in Austria during the reign of Ferdinand. In the days of Joseph II. a law regarding mixed marriages had been published according to which the children were to be reared Catholic if the father were Catholic, but if the father belonged to some other religious persuasion the boys might adopt his faith, while the girls should be reared in the religion of their mother. The priests were bound to assist at such marriages, and owing to the general carelessness prevailing among the bishops, the clergy were accustomed to assist without securing any promise from the parties that the children should be reared as Catholics.
When the controversy broke out in Prussia on this question the bishops could no longer shut their eyes to this uncanonical custom, and some of them published pastorals commanding their priests to preach against such marriages, and in case they should be called upon to bless such unions they were to insist that the ordinary guarantees demanded by the Church should be given. If the parties refused to give these, then the clergy should refuse to hold any religious ceremony. The governors of the provinces reported these new regulations to Vienna, and the bishops requested that instructions from the Holy See should be sought for either directly by the government or indirectly through the bishops.
No application was made to Rome, but in 1837, on the arrest of the archbishop of Cologne, public feeling ran so high in Austria that Metternich warned the Emperor to effect a settlement or else a conflict must certainly arise between the bishops and the government. This confession of the wily minister is clear evidence that a new spirit animated the younger generation of Austrian bishops. A commission was appointed in 1838 under the presidency of Metternich to examine the question, but no good result followed their labours. The parish priests took the matter into their own hands, and appealed ( 1838) to the archbishop of Vienna to enforce the provisions of canon law in regard to mixed marriages. The latter instructed them to demand the guarantees, and if these were refused to seek instructions from the archbishop's court. The priests were only too anxious to carry out these instructions to the letter, and the government now insisted that the bishops should punish them for their infringement of the laws of Austria.
The bishops made a personal appeal to Ferdinand to put an end to such an unseemly conflict, and they received permission to submit the matter to the judgment of the Holy See ( 1840). In May, 1841, Gregory XVI. published a brief in which he strongly inveighed against such marriages, urged the insistence on the ordinary guarantees, but in case these were refused he permitted what is called negative assistance, that is, the priest might witness the marriage but without religious service of any kind. This letter of Gregory XVI. received the imperial Placet, and was communicated to the bishops. The Consistories of the Protestant Church appealed against it, but their efforts were without avail, and the matter was quietly settled.
The demands for greater liberty of the press and reform of the constitution on the basis of popular representation were causing anxiety to all the governments of the German Confederation. In 1844, a conference of their representatives was held at Vienna, and it was resolved to refuse bluntly all further concessions. The Austrian provinces in Italy, together with Hungary and Bohemia, were showing signs of considerable unrest, and when the news of the Revolution in Paris was flashed through Europe insurrections immediately broke out in Italy and Hungary. The Austrians were partially successful in quelling the disturbances in Italy. The feeling in Vienna in favour of a constitution was, however, so strong that Metternich fled to England. A new constitution was proclaimed, but the insurrection broke out in Vienna, and Hungary, under the leadership of Kossuth, broke from Austria. The imperial troops succeeded in quelling the disturbance, but before the campaign for the reduction of Hungary was well begun Ferdinand I. resolved to hand over the difficult task of restoring peace to his scattered dominions to younger and more capable men. On 2nd December, 1848, he formally resigned the Imperial Crown in favour of his nephew, Francis Joseph, and retired into private life, spending a great deal of his time at Prague, where he died in 1875. His abdication marks the end of the absolutist policy of Metternich, and the beginning of a new era for both Church and State in the Austrian territory.
(c) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN PRUSSIA
Brück, op. cit. Gams, Geschichte der Kirche Christi im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, 3 Bde., Innsbruck, 1854. Laspeyres, Geschichte una heutige Verfassung der Kathol. Kirche Preussens, Halle, 1840. Nussi, Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis inter S. Sedem et Civilem Potestatem, Rome, 1869.
Prussia under the rule of the House of Brandenburg was a distinctly Protestant state. It was the professed patron of Lutheranism, and members of the scattered Catholic communities in Prussian territory were carefully excluded from all offices of state. During the reign of Frederick the Great ( 1740-1786) many reforms were introduced into the government; a new life was infused into every department; in the wars with Austria the large Catholic district of Silesia was acquired; and the position of Prussia as one of the first-rate powers of Europe was assured.
Frederick the Great was himself an indifferentist in religious matters, and during his reign the free-thinking movement made alarming progress among the Lutheran population. But he maintained the traditional attitude of the Prussian Government towards the Catholic Church. Even in the newly-acquired territory of Silesia, where the population was Catholic, and where religious freedom had been guaranteed, all kinds of petty restrictions were placed upon the ecclesiastical authorities. The reason was that Frederick, as temporal sovereign, claimed the same jurisdiction over the Catholic Church as he was accustomed to exercise over the Lutheran communion. He claimed the right of appointing to all ecclesiastical benefices, and even of appointing bishops without any reference to the Pope. He set up a bishop at Breslau with jurisdiction over all the Catholics of his territory, and when this prelate recognised the evil of his ways and made his submission to the Pope, he was treated by the king as a traitor to his country. He claimed the right of arranging the marriage contract, the impediments, dispensations, and conditions for civil marriage without any interference from the ecclesiastical authorities, and in his appointments to responsible offices even in the Catholic districts he consistently passed over all conscientious Catholics.
In 1794, when the Code of Common Law for Prussian territory was published, the supremacy of the secular power in ecclesiastical affairs was unmistakably enunciated. It was laid down that the state has the right to annul and condemn religious enactments which were likely to prove inconvenient, to arrange the number of holidays of obligation, to appoint bishops, to erect new parishes, to prevent any foreign ecclesiastics from exercising jurisdiction in Prussian territory without the permission of the government, to exercise a supervision over all Papal documents, and to prevent the bishops from introducing any changes in religious matters at the suggestion of a foreign superior. *
Under Frederick William III. ( 1797-1840) the same policy was continued, but on account of the large Catholic population of the Rhine districts brought under the jurisdiction of Prussia through the Secularisation the difficulty of carrying out such a policy was vastly increased. The religious institutions, monasteries, chapters, &c., were deprived of their territories, and the religious orders, except the convents devoted to the care of the sick, were suppressed. Though compensation was promised, and though Frederick William III. had expressly undertaken that he would better the condition of the clergy in the Rhinelands, erect a bishopric there, and provide for clerical education, yet very little was done to satisfy the demands of the Catholic people. While new Protestant parishes were formed in purely Catholic districts, and new Protestant schools erected, and crowds of Protestant officials sent in to help in the work of conversion, and mixed marriages likely to prove detrimental to the Catholic Church encouraged, the organisation of the church, the education, and
* Allgemeine Landrecht, 1794.
especially the provisions for due training of Catholic clerical students, were either neglected or placed under state control. The direction of Catholic affairs was committed to the Ministry for Home Affairs in 1808, and two new departments, Religious and Educational, were erected.
In 1814, Pius VII. addressed a letter to the king of Prussia reminding him of the necessity of putting an end to the disorder in ecclesiastical organisation throughout his territory. It was felt in Prussia that negotiations should be opened with Rome for the conclusion of a separate concordat, but, on the other hand, the government expressed the fear that any such arrangement was certain to weaken the power of the state in ecclesiastical affairs. When the attempts made at the Congress of Vienna to secure a common agreement with the Pope for all the German States failed, Niebhur was sent by Prussia, as its representative, to Rome to open negotiations for a concordat, though it was only in 1820 that he received definite instructions from his government. As, owing to the extravagant demands of the Prussian State, it was impossible to arrive at a definite conclusion on all the points, it was agreed that the discussions should be confined entirely to a new diocesan arrangement in Prussian territory.
The election of bishops created a difficulty even in this limited programme, for the state demanded almost complete control, but the difficulty was solved by leaving the election to the cathedral chapters, to whom the Pope was to issue an instruction forbidding them to elect any person disagreeable to the government. Finally, an agreement was arrived at on all points, and on the 16th July, 1821, Pius VII. signed the Bull, De Salute Animarum, * which was published as a state ordinance in August of the same year.
According to this agreement two archiepiscopal sees were erected, one at Cologne for West Prussia, and one at Gnesen-Posen for the eastern division of the kingdom.
* Nussi, Conventiones, XXVI.
Six bishoprics were established in addition, three of which, Treves, Münster, and Paderborn, were placed under Cologne, one of them, Culm, as suffragan to Gnesen-Posen, and two others, Ermland and Breslau, exempt from both metropolitans. In each cathedral a chapter should be established, and the number of canons was arranged for each diocese. The provost of the chapter, the dean and the canons were to be appointed in alternate months by the Pope and the bishop. In case of a vacancy in a bishopric or archbishopric the members of the chapter were to proceed to the election of a suitable candidate for the office, the only restriction being that they should select a Prussian. To help the bishops in the administration of their large territories an assistant bishop was to be appointed in each diocese. A seminary was to be erected in each diocese in accordance with the decrees of the Council of Trent. The Prussian Government undertook to make due provision for the support of the bishops, chapters, seminaries, and clergy. The prince bishop of Ermland, Joseph von Hohenzollern, was appointed by the Pope as his representative in Prussia to ensure the due execution of the provisions of the Bull. *
The work of carrying out these provisions was beset with difficulties. The Prussian Government had pledged itself to set aside permanent endowments for the support of the Catholic religion, but in order to keep the clergy more completely under control no permanent source of revenue was provided, and their salary was paid out of the common Treasury. Disputes, too, arose about the upkeep of the cathedrals for which the government was responsible, but which it tried to throw upon the shoulders of the Catholics by imposing additional taxes for baptisms, marriages, and funerals. Owing to these disputes it was only in 1825 that the provisions of the Bull could be carried out.
But even with the concordat the position of the Church in Prussian territory was still very unfavourable. The
* Brück, Vol. II., pp. 60sqq.
placitum Regis was carefully enforced on all Papal documents, and the bishops of Prussia were not permitted to communicate with the Holy See except through the state officials. The elections of bishops, though nominally free, were rarely carried through without direct or indirect interference from the government, and the same influence was at work in the appointments to parishes and canonries. The examination of clerical students was superintended by state officials, while in the positions of trust, even in the Ministry of Worship, hardly a Catholic official could be found. They were excluded from professorships in the universities, and as far as possible even from appointments in the gymnasia. In many districts of the Rhinelands the government officials were the only non-Catholics to be found. *
The most serious controversy, however, between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities regarded the difficult question of Mixed Marriages. † According to the Common Law of Prussia ( 1794) the boys born of a mixed marriage were to be reared in the religion of the father, the girls in the religion of the mother, and outsiders were forbidden to interfere in the religious education of the children so long as the parents themselves were satisfied. By a decree of 21st November, 1803, it was arranged that all the children of such marriages should be reared in the religion of their father, and no one of the married parties should try to influence the other to depart from this ordinance. This decree created a difficulty for the Catholic clergy, but it was only in 1825, when the decree of 1803 was extended to the Rhine provinces, that the crisis became very acute. The children must follow the religion of the father unless both parents otherwise agreed; all pre-matrimonial compacts on this point were forbidden, and those already made were declared invalid. Taken in conjunction with the influx of Protestant officials into the Catholic Rhine provinces this decree was meant to favour the Protestant party.
* C. fr. Pfülf, Cardinal v. Geissel, 1895. Brück, pp. 240 sqq.
† Roskovany, De Matrimoniis Mixtis, 7 Tomes, 1842sqq. Brück, op. cit., II. Bd., Chapters XIX.-XXVII.
The parish priests met this order by making no demand for guarantees regarding the religious education of the children, but if the parties themselves did not freely give sufficient assurance on this point, they refused to publish the banns or bless the marriage, nor would they grant absolution to any Catholic girl contracting such a marriage without having obtained the required guarantee, nor admit to the sacraments any Catholic married woman who allowed her children to be reared in another religion. The government accused the priests of infringing the law; the cases were tried before the criminal courts, but the prosecution failed to secure a conviction. Defeated in this plan of overcoming the resistance of the pastors they turned to von Spiegel, Archbishop of Cologne, and requested him to instruct his priests to carry out the royal ordinance.
The archbishop was anxious to avoid a conflict with the government, while, on the other hand, his conscience forbade him to sanction openly what was directly opposed to the canon law; and having vainly tried to salve his scruples by a reference to the customs of Eastern Prussia, he and his suffragans petitioned the king to allow them to submit the whole matter to the judgment of the Holy See. In 1828, Frederick William acceded to this petition, and instructed his Minister at Rome, von Bunsen, to open up negotiations regarding the mixed marriages.
The negotiations began at Rome in May, 1828, but were interrupted shortly after by the death of Leo XII. They were resumed, however, by his successor, Pius VIII., and in March, 1830, the brief, Literis altero, was addressed to the four bishops of West Prussia. In this brief the Pope went as far as possible to meet the wishes of the Prussian Government. He exhorted the priests to warn Catholics against such dangerous unions, and forbade the clergy to undertake any religious ceremony on the occasion of the marriage of parties who refused the proper guarantees; but at the same time he allowed "passive assistance" of the clergy at such functions, and forbade them to promulgate any censure against the contracting parties who refused to comply with the canonical regulations. The mixed marriages celebrated without the presence of the parish priest were declared valid. This brief was far from satisfactory to the government, and Bunsen was instructed to demand certain modifications, but Gregory XVI., who had succeeded Pius VIII., and who, besides, had himself drawn up the brief, Literis altero, replied that without betraying the most sacred duties of his office he could not accept the required modifications.
Bunsen left Rome for Berlin in 1834, having promised Gregory XVI. to bring the Papal brief under the notice of the bishops. On his arrival in Berlin, von Spiegel, the archbishop of Cologne was summoned to court, and on 19th June, 1834, a secret convention was entered into between himself and the Prussian Government. For this convention he secured the approval of his suffragans. It consisted of fifteen articles, according to which it was agreed that the bishops should publish the Papal brief, but should issue with it a commentary drawn up for them in Berlin, by which the instructions of the brief were set aside, and a line of action in accordance with the royal ordinance of 1825 laid down for the guidance of the clergy. In nearly every instance the pastors were permitted to assist at the mixed marriages with the usual ceremonies and without requiring any guarantees, and it was only in extreme cases that they should have recourse to "passive assistance."
The pastoral letters of the bishops did not settle the difficulty. Some of the parish priests accepted the interpretation of their superiors, and assisted at all marriages whether guarantees were given or not. The majority of them refused to do more than passively assist in case the required promise was not forthcoming. Von Spiegel regretted the convention he had made, but was too weak-minded to denounce openly the agreement. His death in 1835 left the Church in a better position.
Meanwhile, though the government and the bishops had kept the convention a secret, ugly rumours soon spread in Prussia, and were published in several foreign journals. From different sources Gregory XVI. learned how the Prussian Government and the four bishops had deceived him. In March, 1836, he demanded explanations from von Bunsen, the Prussian Minister at Rome. The latter promptly responded by denying the existence of any such convention. The archbishop was undoubtedly, he said, summoned to Berlin to see if the Papal brief could not be explained in a sense conformable to the royal decree. He agreed that it could; his suffragans were of the same mind; they published their pastorals; and they alone, and not the Prussian Government, were responsible.
It was necessary to elect a successor to von Spiegel in Cologne, and curiously enough the government was not unwilling to accept the assistant bishop of Miinster, Clemens Augustus von Droste-Vischering, a member of one of the oldest of the princely families in Westphalia, and a man who in his contests with the disciples of Hermes had proved that he was both able and willing to defend the rights of the Church. * He was elected by the chapter, and his election was confirmed in 1836. He was at once involved in the mixed marriages controversy. Gregory XVI. demanded of the Prussian bishops a full account of their transactions with the government. Clemens Augustus, who was in ignorance of the convention, answered that he was determined to carry out the old canonical regulations on the point, while the three bishops involved sent very unsatisfactory replies. But in January, 1837, the Pope received a letter which gave him all the information he required. The bishop of Treves was one of the parties to the convention. On his deathbed his conscience smote him for his betrayal of the Church, and he sent a letter to the Pope giving a full account of the negotiations with the government, pointing out how grievous a misfortune this agreement had proved, and begging the Pope to for-
* Maurenbrecher, Die Preussiche Kirchenpolitik und der Kölner Kirchenstreit, Stuttgart, 1881.
give him for the weakness he had shown. The Prussian Minister, von Bunsen, had a difficult task before him to explain away that letter in accordance with the previous assurances he himself had given to the Holy See.
But Clemens Augustus of Cologne was determined to carry out in its entirety the Papal instruction on mixed marriages. He communicated this order to his parish priests, and as he could not trust his vicars he reserved all cases of mixed marriages for his own personal decision. The priests supported the archbishop right loyally, except the members of his own chapter. He was summoned to Berlin, and as he refused to yield an inch the government demanded his resignation. He promptly refused to resign ( 1837), and the government now threatened to punish him for his opposition.
In 1837 he summoned the chapter and laid before them the danger, but they received the communication with cold reserve. Not so, however, the priests and the clerical students. They pledged themselves to stand by their archbishop come what may. The Catholic laity of Cologne soon learned that the archbishop was in hourly danger of arrest, and the excitement in the city was intense. On the night of the 20th November, 1837, the streets leading to the archiepiscopal palace were filled with armed men; the soldiers were held in readiness in their barracks to suppress an insurrection; the archbishop was arrested and driven quietly out of the city, and it was only the next day that the people of Cologne realised that their beloved archbishop was a prisoner.
The Prussian Government realised that such an extreme step would arouse bitter feeling all over the Catholic world. Hence they immediately issued the "Publicandum" justifying their action, and denouncing the archbishop as a traitor. They were specially anxious to justify themselves in the eyes of the Pope, and had taken care to prevent all correspondence between Clemens Augustus and Rome. But through the exertions of Cardinal Reisach and King Louis I. of Bavaria the Pope had been kept in close touch with the difficulties in Cologne, and, now, as soon as the news of the arrest reached Munich, a special messenger was despatched to Rome to put the facts before the Holy See. The Pope immediately ( 10th, Dec., 1837) addressed an allocution to the cardinals in which he denounced the arrest of the archbishop, approved entirely of his conduct, set forth the facts of the case at length, and despatched a copy of his protest to all the courts of Europe.
The arrest of the archbishop was a fortunate incident for Catholicity in Germany. It roused the Catholics to assert themselves, and to free themselves from the grip of Josephism and Febronianism. Görres, by his writings, especially by his well-known book, Athanasius, * made use of the scenes at Cologne to stir up a real religious revival in Germany. The priests of Cologne were loyal to the instructions of their archbishop, and even though the chapter proved false to him, and elected a vicar to rule the diocese, they refused to hold any communications with the chapter or its vicar. To remedy the disorder that ensued Gregory XVI. allowed the vicar to act, but only in the name of the imprisoned archbishop.
The events in Cologne had a good influence in Eastern Prussia, † where, owing to the carelessness of the higher clergy, the old canonical regulations regarding mixed marriages had been long neglected. Von Dunin was then the archbishop of Gnesen-Posen. He had followed the struggle at Cologne, and had read with interest the allocution of Gregory XVI. in 1837. He realised that he had been wrong in permitting such an infringement of ecclesiastical law, and in 1838 he issued a pastoral to his clergy forbidding them under pain of suspension to assist at mixed marriages unless complete guarantees had been given regarding the Catholic education of the children. The pastoral was received with enthusiasm by both priests and people. The government demanded
* Regensburg, 1838.
† Franz, Die gemischten Ehen in Schlesien, Breslau, 1878.
that the archbishop should withdraw his instructions, but he respectfully refused; and was supported in the refusal by his chapter, clergy and people. In 1839 the government invited him to come to a conference at Berlin, and on his arrival there, he was detained practically a prisoner. *
When this news reached Gnesen-Posen, the assistant bishop and chapter refused to carry on the ecclesiastical work until the archbishop should be allowed to return. Everything was in a state of disorder. Von Dunin learned the state of affairs, and, without acquainting the government, he quietly left Berlin and returned to his diocese where, a few nights after his arrival, his house was surrounded by soldiers and he was carried away a prisoner. When the news spread the whole diocese went into mourning. No bells were rung, no music was allowed at the masses; the flowers were removed from the altars; no solemn religious functions were held, and, in a word, a second Lent was proclaimed. In spite of all the exertions of the government to prevent this attitude of mourning it was maintained in all the churches through the year 1840.
Nor was the struggle confined to Gnesen-Posen. It spread to the diocese of Breslau, ruled by the princebishop Sedlnitzky who was a Liberal Catholic, if not worse. He did no diocesan work, issued no pastorals, and was ready to yield to every suggestion from Berlin. His clergy took a firm stand, and presented him with an address praying him to put in force the canonical regulations regarding mixed marriages. To this remonstrance he vouchsafed no reply. The clergy then turned to Rome, and in 1839 Gregory XVI. sent a letter to the bishop warning him that serious charges had been made against his administration. As this produced no good effect the Pope sent a second letter in 1840, demanding his resignation, else he should be obliged to take very painful measures for the restoration of discipline in the diocese of Breslau. Sedlnitzky promptly sent in his
* Pohl, Martin von Dunin, Marienburg, 1843.
resignation, retired from Breslau, and afterwards fell away entirely from the Church.
In 1840 Frederick William III. died, and was succeeded by Frederick William IV. The latter was anxious for peace, as he had long realised the injury done to the country by this religious war. He immediately issued a proclamation announcing that the government would not interfere in the question of mixed marriages, and that the clergy might act as they pleased. Von Dunin accepted this as a satisfactory settlement, and returned to his diocese.
But there was a peculiar difficulty in the case of Clemens Augustus. The Prussian Government had proclaimed him a traitor in all the courts of Europe, and could not, therefore, easily accept him again as archbishop of Cologne. A way of escape acceptable to all parties was proposed. Clemens Augustus was old and infirm. It was arranged that he should receive a coadjutor to whom might be entrusted the full administration of the diocese, while Clemens Augustus should still retain the title of archbishop of Cologne with his house and a competent revenue, and might reside where he pleased. The government agreed to withdraw publicly all the charges that had been made against him. He published a pastoral introducing the new coadjutor to the people of Cologne, and retired himself to his old home at Münster. He visited Rome, where he was received with great honour, and was offered a cardinal's hat, an honour which he declined. He died at Münster in 1845.
The mixed marriages controversy proved a veritable boon for the Catholic Church in Germany. As even Frederick William himself admitted, the arrest of the archbishop had given a new impulse to Catholicity in the Prussian States. * Frederick William IV. ( 18401859) was sincerely anxious to establish peace between Church and State. He despatched an ambassador to Rome to arrange for a settlement of the troubles in
* Brück, op. cit., Vol. II., p. 373. Görres, Ges. Briefe, pp. 505 sqq.
Cologne and in Gnesen-Posen, and showed his anxiety to deal fairly with the Church by allowing the Prussian bishops free communication with the Holy See ( 1841), and by withdrawing the royal Placet on all religious ordinances, and by setting up a special department in the Ministry of Worship to deal with Catholic affairs. To conciliate the Catholics of the Rhine provinces he made generous donations to the fund for the completion of the Cologne Cathedral, and issued an appeal for aid in the work of its completion.
The king had a special motive for endeavouring to win the support of the Catholics. The demands for a constitutional government in accordance with the promise of 1815 were growing each year, and to make a show of concession the king summoned a Landtag, composed not of popular representatives but of deputies sent from each state ( 1847). When this assembly tried to usurp the traditional prerogatives of the throne it was dismissed, and when the news of the Revolution in Paris reached Berlin an insurrection broke out ( 1848), which was suppressed only when Frederick William IV. promised a popular constitution. In 1850 the new constitution was proclaimed, and, in accordance with the ideas of liberty then in vogue, greater freedom was granted to the Catholic Church.
(d) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN BAVARIA
In addition to works cited above, cf. :-- H. V. Sicherer, Kirche und Staat in Bayern, 1799-1821, Munich, 1874.
Strodl, Das Recht der Kirche und die Staatsgewalt in Bayern seit dem abschluss des Concordates, Schaffhausen, 1852.
None of the German states, with, perhaps, the exception of Austria, suffered more from the false philosophic teachings and the theology of the party of Febronius than did Bavaria, once the leader of the counter-Reformation and the bulwark of the Catholic Church. As a result the higher circles of Bavaria were either devoid of religious conviction, or jealous of ecclesiastical authority, especially that of the Pope. During the reign of Charles Theodore ( 1778-1799) this party was held in some restraint, but on the succession of Maximilian IV. ( 1799-1825) all the latent hatred against the Church burst forth with such fury that for a time it threatened to overthrow completely the Catholic Church in Bavaria.
Maximilian IV. had been himself married to two Protestant ladies in succession, and his sympathies lay in the direction of Protestantism, while his chief minister, Montgelas, had been already dismissed from Munich on account of his public adherence to the sect of the "Illuminati." In 1800, Protestants were allowed to settle freely in Munich, and were, in fact, encouraged to do so; many of the offices of state were conferred upon them; they were allowed to open churches in the capital; and clandestine marriages between Catholics and Protestants were declared valid, though Pius VII. did not hesitate to denounce such unions as concubinage ( 1803).
Bavaria was one of the states that led the way in assisting Napoleon to overthrow the Empire, and as a consequence, Maximilian was especially favoured by the French Emperor. It also led the way in its brutal enforcement of the Secularisation Decree of 1803. Before this period the destruction of the religious orders, and more especially of the mendicant orders, had been plotted by Montgelas. From 1799 pamphlets began to appear attacking the mendicants, pointing out the burthen such institutions placed on the shoulders of the poor, the injury they did to the secular clergy, and the advantage that might accrue to all parties, to the clergy as well as the laity, if the goods of the orders were confiscated and applied to the support of hospitals and education. In 1802 a special commission was appointed to deal with the suppression of the orders, and during the course of that year the Franciscans, Capuchins, and
Carmelites were driven from their monasteries, and confined in special central houses set apart for their use. Here the government supported them by the grant of a miserable pension.
The monasteries, churches, church furniture, and even the sacred vessels were put up for sale. The libraries were seized, and the books and manuscripts transferred to the state libraries and archives, or sold very often to American and Russian purchasers. As a result of this campaign about four hundred monasteries were destroyed, and goods to the value of twenty million pounds confiscated for the benefit of the Treasury, to be spent by the king for the most part in frivolous amusements.
Undoubtedly the aim of Montgelas, as shown by his enactments, was to subject the Catholic Church entirely to state control. In 1808 the old Ecclesiastical Council which managed religious affairs was abolished, and a new section established in the Ministry of the Interior to deal with ecclesiastical concerns. This section was manned by two lay Catholics and three non-Catholics, and their instructions were that all matters not in themselves essentially religious questions, and which in any way regarded the state or the common weal, were to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the bishops and arranged by the civil authority.
In the decree of 1809 this principle was reduced to practice in its most extreme form. The state undertook to settle the question of mixed marriages, and the religion of the children born from such marriages. It formulated the Appelatio ab Abusu, allowing the government to cite the bishops before the courts for abuses of ecclesiastical power. It gave to the king the right to prescribe forms of prayer to be used in the churches, to call together ecclesiastical assemblies, to watch over the clergy and insist on a due fulfilment of their duties, to supervise the communications of the bishops with their priests or with the Pope; and it for bade the bishops to issue regulations regarding religious services, processions, benedictions, ceremonies, and vows until these regulations had been approved by the civil authorities.
In education the aim of the government was to free it entirely from religious influence. For this reason the universities were filled with Protestants or Catholics who had gone over to the party of "Enlightenment," which meant that they became for all practical purposes rationalists. The gymnasia were thrown open to all religions, and the same method of selecting professors adopted. The worst feature of the policy was the complete withdrawal of the faculties of theology and of the clerical seminaries from the control of the bishops. While the Protestant university at Ellwangen was allowed to continue undisturbed, the Catholic university at Ingolstadt was transferred to Landshut and packed with professors whose main qualification was their readiness to combat Catholic theology. The Georgianum seminary was also transferred to Landshut, and Matthew Fingerlos appointed director. He had distinguished himself as a disciple of the new learning in his attacks on the doctrines of original sin, the Divinity of Christ, the redemption, and the efficacy of the sacraments. For full eleven years ( 1803-1814) he was allowed to conduct the seminary and corrupt the faith of the students in spite of the protests of the ecclesiastical authorities.
The same policy of secularisation was applied to the university of Wiirzburg, and professors of any religion or of no religion were freely appointed. A Protestant faculty of theology was erected, though there were no Protestant divinity students, and the notorious Paulus, a man who had been already condemned by two Protestant consistories for his attacks on Christianity, was appointed professor. The government wished that the Catholic theological students should attend his lectures, and a few insubordinate students having insisted on following this course, the government supported them against their bishop.
When the bishop refused to impose hands upon them, and struck their names from the lists of those called to orders, the government objected to his attitude and insisted upon their ordination. It was only on a personal appeal to Maximilian that an end was put to such a scandalous contest.
But the officials were determined to overthrow the authority of the bishop. In 1804 new regulations were drawn up for the seminary arranging the appointment of superiors, the plan of studies, the discipline, and the reception and expulsion of students. The character of the new ordinances can be judged from the fact that they suppressed morning meditation, spiritual reading, spiritual conferences, &c., and that they prescribed that no student's name should be omitted from the list of those called to orders, and no student should be expelled without acquainting the civil authorities. The bishop resolved to resist the introduction of any such regulations, but a conflict was avoided when Ferdinand of Tuscany undertook the government of the territory in 1806. He restored the Catholic character of the university, placed the theological faculty under the supervision of the bishop, and dismissed the professors who were hostile to the doctrines of the Church.
In the Tyrol, too, Bavaria soon found itself involved in a serious conflict. The Tyrol had been under the dominion of Austria, but, except in the University of Innsbruck, Josephism had got no hold on the clergy or people. Francis II. was obliged to hand over the Tyrol to Napoleon in 1805, and in 1806 Napoleon conferred it upon Bavaria to whose ruler he had given the title of king. In 1806, the very year of the cession, when all the old customs of the Tyrol were being suppressed, the bishops of Brixen, Trent and Chur were forbidden to ordain any ecclesiastical student educated at Trent or Brixen until he had undergone an examination at the University of Innsbruck. In 1807 they received two new regulations, one claiming for the Crown the right of appointment to benefices, the other requesting the bishops to command their clergy to publish the regulations on religious matters sent to them from the civil authorities. The bishops of Trent and Chur took up a firm attitude, but the bishop of Brixen was less firm in his opposition. From Rome the bishops received advice and encouragement.
In 1807 the bishop of Trent was arrested and sent to Salzburg, the bishop of Chur was banished into the Swiss portion of his diocese, while many of the priests were arrested or banished. The chapter of Trent was disloyal to its bishop, and at the request of the government appointed a vicar, and endeavoured by all kinds of threats and punishments to force the clergy to obey him. In Chur, however, the clergy rallied to a man round their exiled bishop. It was then resolved to hand over the Tyrol portion of Chur to the bishop of Brixen or to the bishop of Augsburg, but both prelates refused to undertake the work. In this extremity the vicar lately appointed to Trent came to the rescue, and named as his vicar in Chur, Koch, a former professor of Innsbruck. The priests received an ultimatum in June, 1808. They were to submit to the vicar, or run the risk of being punished as traitors or rebels. Their exiled bishop appealed to their loyalty, and almost to a man they refused to acknowledge the usurper. Those of them who did not go into hiding were arrested and sent away to different parts of the kingdom. Other priests were sent to take their place, but the people refused to receive spiritual assistance from men whom they regarded as schismatics and intruders. The vicar who had been misled by the government officials refused to continue in such a false position and resigned. The Bavarian government saw the blunder that had been made in rousing the religious as well as the political enmity of the Tyrolese, and opened negotiations for a concordat with Pius VII. The latter used his influence to put an end to the religious disorders. But in 1809, when war again broke out between Austria and France, the Tyrolese rose like men in favour of their old ruler, Francis II. The war was both religious and national. At the head of the movement stood Hofer, Speckbacher, and the Capuchin friar, Haspinger. The skill and bravery of the Tyrolese, and the determination with which they fought against overpowering odds, is one of the brightest chapters in the whole Napoleonic wars. They cleared out the intruders, restored their old clergy, catholicised again the schools and gymnasia, and put an end to the schismatical policy of Montgelas. But with Francis II. unable to assist them, and face to face with the overwhelming forces of France, they were gradually driven back; their leader, Hofer, arrested and shot; and their country once again forced to submit to the yoke of Bavarian rule. Their resistance had, however, one good result; it taught the Bavarians to be more careful about wounding the national or religious feelings of their Tyrolese subjects. *
In 1816 the bishops of Bavaria made a direct appeal to Maximilian for some redress. They requested a fixed endowment for their seminaries, the right of supervising the education of their clerical students, and freedom in the administration of their dioceses. Arrangements had been going on for some time about a concordat, but it was only in this year, 1816, that the negotiations began in real earnest. The demands of Bavaria, including a recognition of state supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, were so extreme that no basis for discussion could be found. Nor so long as Montgelas remained in office was it possible to arrive at any settlement. But fortunately he was dismissed in 1817, and in the same year Dalberg, the great upholder of a German national church, was called to his reward. It was therefore possible to bring about a concordat which, after certain modifications, was finally accepted in October, 1817. †
The concordat with Bavaria contained 19 Articles.
* Brück, Geschichte der Kath. Kirche in XIXen Jahrhundert, Vol. I., p. 239 sqq.
† Nussi, Conventiones de Rebus Eccl., No. XXII.
The first of these guaranteed the Catholic Church in Bavarian territory all rights and privileges accorded to it by its divine constitution or canonical statutes. It provided also that there should be two metropolitan sees, one at Munich-Freising, the other at Bamberg, under each of which were to be erected three suffragan sees. Each archiepiscopal or episcopal see was to have a cathedral chapter. The king of Bavaria obtained the right of nominating the bishops, and the Pope was to confer canonical institution. The Pope also appointed the provost of the chapter, the king appointed the dean and the canons in the Papal months, while the bishop and chapter appointed alternately to the vacancies in the other months. In each diocese a seminary was to be erected, and the appointment of seminary professors rested with the bishop. The government undertook the support of religion. The right of supervising the religious education of the primary schools was granted to the bishops, as well as the censorship of books, jurisdiction in matrimonial affairs, and free intercourse with their priests and with Rome.
The concordat was signed by Maximilian in October, 1817, but, as soon as its contents became known, a bitter campaign was started against its publication by the Liberal Josephist party and by the Protestants led by Anselm Feuerbach. * It was published, however, in 1818 as an appendix to the new constitution of that year, but, in imitation of the Organic Articles of Napoleon, a new religious ordinance was promulgated at the same time. According to this, full religious freedom and legal equality were guaranteed to the Protestants in Bavaria, and the clergy were requested to speak respectfully of the religious convictions of their opponents. The document went further, and practically insisted on the old doctrine of the supremacy of the state even in religious matters. It proclaimed again the royal Placet, the Appelatio ab Abusu, and the right of the king to command prayers and thanksgiving festivals.
* Anselm Ritter von Feuerbachs Leben und Wirken, Leipzig, 1852.
This edict was evidently in opposition to the concordat, and was devised by the old Liberal officials to prevent a full agreement between Church and State. The Pope protested against this infringement of a solemn agreement, as did the bishops of Bavaria. Several of the bishops and clergy refused to take the oath of loyalty to the new constitution on the ground that some of the clauses were opposed to the organisation of the Church and the terms of the concordat. * It was feared at Munich that Pius VII. might find himself constrained to forbid the clergy and lay Catholics of Bavaria to swear allegiance. Negotiations were opened with Rome, and, at last, the king published ( 1821) a proclamation declaring that the oath referred only to the civil constitution, and imposed no obligation that might be in opposition to the divine or canonical organisation of the Catholic Church, and that, furthermore, the terms of the concordat remained in full force, and should be observed by the state officials. The clergy were satisfied with this explanation, and the bishops consented to take the oath.
The concordat, however, remained to a great extent a dead letter. The old officials of Bavaria had no intention of granting liberty to the Church, and hence they continued to exercise supervision over all communications between the bishops and Rome, or between the bishops and their clergy; they neglected to make any permanent provision for the support of religion in order to keep the clergy in a state of continual dependence; they interfered in the selection of ecclesiastical students; and they prevented the bishops from exercising their office of punishing public and notorious criminals.
With the death of Maximilian and the accession of Louis I. ( 1825-1848) a better era began for the Catholic Church in Bavaria. The king was himself well disposed towards religion, and wished to secure peace between Church and State. He did much to restore the Catholic
* Höfler, Concordat und Constitutionseid der Katholiken in Bayern, Augsburg, 1847.
character of the university in Munich, and brought together there such a band of Catholic scholars-Görres, Möhler, Klee, Philipps, Döllinger--that Munich was looked to as the great centre of Catholic learning. The religious orders were allowed to return to the houses from which they had been expelled; missions to the people were encouraged; the seminaries were generously endowed and manned by religious professors; the old churches of Bavaria that were fast going into ruins were restored; the cathedrals of Ratisbon, Bamberg, and Spire were finished; and several new ones, models of architectural beauty, were built.
There were not wanting, however, very serious conflicts between Church and State during the reign of Louis I. The reason was that, however well-intentioned the king might have been, he was still dependent upon his officials, and the latter retained the old notions of state supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs. Noteworthy among these subjects of contention were the disputes about mixed marriages, and the kind of memorial services to be held in the Catholic Churches on the death ( 1841) of queen Carolina, the wife of the late king Maximilian. She had been a Protestant, and some of the bishops who allowed solemn mass and prayers for the deceased were blamed severely by the Holy See, while others of them who adhered strictly to the ecclesiastical regulations incurred the warm displeasure of the king. The order given in 1838 commanding the soldiers to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament on church parades, in processions, and when it was carried solemnly to the sick, caused a great outburst among the non-Catholic party. The order was, however, modified in 1840, and finally withdrawn in 1845.
Towards the end of his life the policy of Louis I. became less favourable to the Catholic Church. He had fallen entirely under the influence of the actress, Lola Montez, and was blind to the remonstrances of his ministers and of the bishops. Through her advice the ministry of Abel, which had been specially favourable to the Catholic Church, was dismissed, and its place taken by that of Zu Rhein. This ministry was anxious to conciliate the Liberal party, and instructions were issued to the officials to supervise closely the preaching of missions through the country, the examination of clerical students, and the establishment of religious confraternities. Other ministries followed in rapid succession. In March, 1848, the news of the revolution in Paris reached Munich; the discontent of the people with their weak-minded king led to an insurrection, and Louis I. was forced to abdicate in favour of his son who assumed the title of Maximilian II.
(e) THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE UPPER RHINE PROVINCES.
Longner, Beitriäge zur Geschichte der Oberrhein. Kirchenprovinz, Tübingen, 1863. Brück, Die Oberrhein. Kirchentprovinz von ihrer Grundung bis zur Gegenwart, Mayence, 1865. Maas, Geschichte der Kathol, Kirche im Grosherzogthum Baden, Freiburg, 1891.
The Protestant states of Baden, Würtemberg, Nassau, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, &c., had received considerable additions of territory owing to the secularisation in 1803, and with the new territory a large Catholic population. In Baden the Catholics were now between one-half and two-thirds of the whole, while in Würtemberg they formed nearly one-third of the population. In all these states the Church lands were seized, the monasteries and religious orders suppressed, and the buildings handed over to secular uses, or destroyed. In Baden the famous old monasteries of St. Peter's, St. Blasien, and Gengenbach were seized, the monastic lyceums were closed, the mendicants orders were sent out as secular priests to undertake parochial work or pensioned, and the valuables were transferred to Carlsruhe. The same scenes were witnessed in Würtemberg, Hesse, Nassau, and the smaller German states.
With the universities, especially the University of Freiburg, a policy similar to that which had been adopted by Bavaria was closely followed. Men were appointed to the chairs, even in the faculty of theology, who had shown their willingness to combat the teachings of the Catholic Church, and who were committed to Febronianism and Josephism. The secondary schools were thrown open to all, and even the supervision of religious instruction in these institutions was taken from the bishops and handed over to the state officials. The primary schools, however, remained denominational, except in Nassau, and the colleges for the training of the school teachers likewise retained their religious character, but the religious training was withdrawn from the control of the bishops.
In all these states the supremacy, which the government asserted for itself over the Protestant churches, was now claimed in the affairs of the Catholic Church. In Baden ( 1803), Würtemberg, Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau edicts were issued confining the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authorities to purely spiritual matters, and reserving all other questions for the decision of the state officials. In Würtemberg all orders issued from the vicariat should bear the stamp, "By Royal Authority"; the Placet was strictly enforced; the holidays suppressed; and the matrimonial dispensations placed under state supervision, as well as the examination of clerical students. Commissions were appointed to deal with ecclesiastical affairs, and to these commissions were appointed either Protestants or Catholics who had come into conflict with their Church. In Würtemberg, for example, an ex-Benedictine, Werkmeister, who had broken from the Church, and who warmly advocated the state supremacy in religion, got a seat on the commission, while in Baden, Brunner and Häberlin received appointments although the former of these had openly joined the "Illuminati," and the latter was a well-known opponent of clerical celibacy, and a champion of divorce.
Catholics were excluded from all offices in the government or administration by the very fact that they were Catholics. So notorious was this policy in Baden, and so much discontent did it excite, that Napoleon, as protector of the Rhine Confederation, was obliged to remonstrate with the Grand Duke of Baden, and as these remonstrances were unavailing, to despatch a stronglyworded note ( 1810) insisting that the policy which was dangerous for Baden as well as for the Rhine Confederation, should be discontinued. In reply to this a Catholic minister was appointed, but he was powerless in face of the strong opposition, and in 1813, when the strength of Napoleon was broken, and when there was no longer any danger, he was dismissed.
The diocesan organisation was almost entirely destroyed by the political changes after 1803. The bishops who had been deprived of their states were to continue to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction over their old territories, but as these had been divided between different rulers, these rulers made it almost impossible for them to exercise any control, and when the old bishops died out before a concordat had been arranged, the various territories were ruled by vicars appointed by the chapters. Prince bishop Dalberg, of Regensburg, * exercised a general supervision. A great part of Baden was placed under the vicar of Constance, to which office Dalberg appointed von Wessenberg in 1801. The latter was a noted follower of Febronius in doctrine, and a zealot for the Josephist reforms. He introduced changes in the liturgy, ordered the suppression of the Latin missals, and the use of the German language in all liturgical services. These reforms were opposed by a large body of the priests and by the mass of the people; and, so great was the disturbance which ensued, that in 1811 the government of Würtemberg forbade all such novelties. In spite of this, however, Dalberg appointed him his coadjutor in 1815, and though the Holy See
* Beaulieu-Marconnay, Karl von Dalberg, Weimar, 1879.
refused to recognise him, the Grand Duke supported the appointment.
In 1817 Dalberg died, and the chapter of Constance appointed von Wessenberg vicar capitular. The Pope refused to confirm the election, but the Grand Duke still supported the chapter. Von Wessenberg undertook a journey to Rome with the hope of rousing German public opinion against the Pope, and of winning sympathy for his project of a national church. The Pope still firmly adhered to his refusal, and von Wessenberg returned to Germany disappointed in his mission. The assembly at Frankfort paid no attention to his programme, and on the appointment of an archbishop to Freiburg he retired into private life.
All efforts to conclude a common concordat for the German States at Vienna and at the assembly in Frankfort having failed, the representatives of Baden, Würtemberg, Nassau, Hesse, and a number of smaller states met at Frankfort in 1818 to discuss the project of a concordat with Rome. The selection of the delegates sent to the congress, and the tone of the opening speech, showed clearly enough that the intentions of the states were far from friendly to the Catholic Church. The aim of the governments was to secure the assistance of Rome in putting an end to the religious confusion in their territories, and having obtained a diocesan division, and the appointment of bishops, to insist by civil ordinances on the doctrine of state supremacy. To deceive the Pope they adopted two forms of agreement, one, the Declaration, containing the points which they believed Rome would accept; the other, the Organic Law, containing the regulations which Rome would certainly reject. The first only was to be submitted to the Holy See, the second was to be kept a secret till the agreement with Rome had been concluded, and then to be published by each government as a state law. This arrangement was concluded in October, 1817, and the negotiations with Rome were entrusted to Baden and Würtemberg.
The ambassadors of these states arrived in Rome in 1819, and presented a copy of the Declaration to the Pope. It contained nine clauses dealing with the erection of dioceses, the method of electing bishops and members of chapters, the erection of seminaries, and the appointments to benefices. The demands were so extravagant that the Pope could not possibly accept the terms, and though his secretary, Consalvi, displayed great politeness in his negotiations with the ambassadors, he was firm in refusing to accept their terms without serious modifications. He offered, however, to arrange the diocesan division and appoint the bishops since the necessity for these was most pressing.
The Conference met again in Frankfort in 1820, and it was agreed to accept the offer made by the Pope to erect new dioceses and to appoint bishops. The representatives, however, pledged themselves to a secret compact, the Kirchenpragmatik, in which most of the articles of the Organic Law, to which they had previously agreed, were inserted. The Pope issued the Bull, Provida Solersque, in August, 1821, providing for the erection of a metropolitan see in Freiburg with jurisdiction over the whole province of the Upper Rhine, together with four bishoprics--Mayence, Fulda, Limburg and Rottenburg. The Conference, while in its public declarations endeavouring to reassure the Pope, who was unwilling to confirm the bishops till some agreement had been arrived at on other matters, was, in reality, arranging a civil code for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs, and was endeavouring to secure a pledge from the candidates for the bishoprics that they would accept these civil ordinances ( 1822). All these promised their adhesion except von Kempff, the bishop-designate of Fulda. The Pope received news of these underhand intrigues, and refused to accept the list of candidates presented for the bishoprics. But the negotiations were not entirely broken off. The state of affairs in Baden forced the government to come to terms with the Holy See. At length, in 1826, the representative of the Pope presented an official note to the assembly at Frankfort, which was rather in the nature of an ultimatum; the representatives of the states accepted the terms with some modifications, and in 1827 Leo XII. issued the Bull, Ad Dominici Gregis Custodiam. *
This, in addition to confirming the erection of the bishoprics, fixed the method to be followed in the election of the future bishops. The candidates were to be elected by the chapters, and the government had the right of striking out the names of the men disagreeable to itself, but a sufficient number of names should be left to permit the chapter to make a genuine selection. The chapter should then elect one from the number of those acceptable to the government, and the Pope was to grant the canonical institution. Chapters and seminaries were to be established in each diocese and placed under the control of the bishop; the bishops were to be permitted to exercise their spiritual jurisdiction in accordance with the canons then in force; and their free intercourse with the Head of the Church was guaranteed. Though the Conference agreed to these terms they once more pledged themselves to a secret compact embodying the old regulations regarding the supremacy of the state in religious affairs, and withheld the publication of this till the episcopal sees had been filled. Bernard Böll was appointed archbishop of Freiburg and consecrated in 1827. The other sees were filled in 1827 or 1828, except Mayence, where the Pope and the government of Hesse did not arrive at an agreement about the selection till the year 1830.
As soon as Mayence had been filled in 1830 each state promulgated the secret convention regarding the management of ecclesiastical affairs in its own particular territory. It contained the same assertion of the supremacy of the civil power as had been already rejected by the Pope, and, if enforced, it left the ecclesiastics little better than ordinary state officials. The most unfortunate aspect of the case was that the archbishop of
* Nussi, Conventiones, No. XXX.
Freiburg and three of his suffragans rather favoured the promulgation of the convention, and in spite of the official protests of Pius VIII. ( 1830), and his sharp reproof of the neglect shown by the bishops, they persisted in their attitude of submission or secret approval. Only one of them, the bishop of Fulda, showed any firmness in opposing these exorbitant demands of the state, and the Success of his courageous resistance showed what might have been obtained had all the bishops of the province signed a joint protest to the different governments. The laymen were more zealous for the liberty of the Church, but found themselves handicapped by the indifference of the bishops and the open hostility of some of the clergy. In 1833, Gregory XVI. addressed a strong letter of reproof to the archbishop of Freiburg and his suffragans, but it was as fruitless as his energetic protest issued at the same time to the governments of Baden and Würtemberg.
By these ordinances the states claimed complete control in nearly all the affairs of the Church, and the provisions of the agreement with the Pope were quietly set aside. The free election of the bishops, which had been guaranteed, was in many cases only a farce, as is shown by the course of events in Freiburg in 1836 and in Nassau in 1840. The bishop, when appointed, was not free to rule the diocese as he thought best. He was dependent on the votes of his chapter, and the government managed in nearly every case to secure a friendly or a worthless chapter. But the bishop and chapter had very little power compared with the Ecclesiastical Commission, which was a purely state organisation, set up by each state for the management of the Church in its own territory. It controlled the pastorals of the bishop, revoked or confirmed his orders as it pleased, made ecclesiastical regulations without consulting the bishop, punished, nay, even suspended, clergymen by its own jurisdiction, and acted as a court of appeal to which priests or people might proceed against the decision of their bishop. In Baden, the government appointed to nearly every parish in the territory. The same was true of Würtemberg. In Nassau, the bishop nominated the parish priests and the government appointed, while in Hesse, owing to the resistance of the bishop, the state did not claim such extravagant powers. In some of the other states the first news the bishop got of the appointments was through the official newspapers. In Baden the Catholic laymen were prevented from struggling against these regulations as they desired by the cowardly wavering of Böll, the archbishop of Freiburg, while in Würtemberg, when the bishop, Keller, at last awakened to the necessity for strenuous resistance ( 1841), he found himself opposed in the Chamber of Deputies by the representatives of his own chapter.
The mixed marriages controversy naturally found an echo in the province of the Upper Rhine. According to the law of Baden, the parties wishing to get married in such cases might choose the parish priest of the bride or of the bridegroom, and whichever clergyman they appeared before was bound to marry them, whether they agreed to rear the children in the Catholic or Protestant religion. In 1830, the archbishop ordered the parish priests to warn Catholics intending to contract such marriages of their dangerous character, and to endeavour to secure an agreement that the children should be instructed in the Catholic faith. The Church Commission reproved the archbishop for daring to issue such an instruction without permission, and threatened him, that if any parish priest refused to assist at mixed marriages he should be severely punished. The archbishop submitted to such dictation, and the government ordinances were obeyed in Freiburg till the resistance in Cologne once more fixed public attention on the question.
In 1838, archbishop Demeter, who had succeeded to Freiburg in 1836, made another attempt to carry out the ecclesiastical laws governing mixed marriages, but he allowed himself to be browbeaten by the government, by the Church Commission, and by a section of his own chapter into complete submission to the state regulations.
When Hermann von Vicari succeeded to the see of Freiburg in 1842 he issued an injunction to his clergy that all mixed marriages were to be referred to the archbishop's court by which instructions would be issued for each particular case ( 1845). The Church Commission reproved the archbishop for such an open infringement of the law, but his only reply was a command to his parish priests to refuse to bless mixed marriages unless guarantees regarding the Catholic education of the children had been given. The most he allowed in case of refusal of such guarantees was, what had been allowed by the Pope in Prussia, passive assistance. Nor did the government or the Church Commission succeed in inducing the archbishop to change his attitude. He refused to hold any further correspondence with either party on the question, and in March, 1846, he despatched a full account of the proceedings to Gregory XVI., who highly approved of his attitude. The clergy adhered to the instructions of their archbishop, and the government by its silence accepted the situation.
In Würtemberg * the parish priest of the bride was obliged to assist at the marriages, and if he refused to assist at mixed marriages he was liable to a severe penalty. The bishop and chapter of Rottenburg accepted this regulation without any resistance. The priests who refused obedience were punished, and Mack, one of the Tübingen professors who had spoken against the government regulations, was dismissed. When in 1837 the scenes at Cologne roused the clergy and people to resistance, the bishop exhorted them to submit, and issued a pastoral against the conduct of the bishops in Prussia, who were disturbing the public peace. The bishop, however, changed his attitude, and in 1841 tried to procure a change of government policy, but he was resisted publicly in the Chamber by his own chapter. He submitted a statement of the facts to Rome, and Gregory XVI. sent an instruction on the line of conduct to be pursued in regard to mixed marriages,
* Mack, Die Kathol. Kirchenfrage in Württemberg, Schaff hausen, 1845.
and especially prohibited the introduction of any special liturgy for such a ceremony. The chapter continued their resistance to the bishop, but in 1848, the bishop peremptorily forbade the clergy to bless such unions unless proper guarantees had been given, and, in 1855, the government withdrew the law commanding the parish priest of the bride to perform the ceremony.
In the agreement concluded between the governments of the Upper Rhine and the Pope, it had been arranged that to each diocese should be attached a seminary for the education of the clerical students, and that this institution should be endowed by the state and placed under the control of the bishop. The states had no intention of permitting the clergy to be educated in seminaries. They were determined to send them to the universities, where the professors would be practically independent of the bishops, and where their education would be controlled not by the Church but by the State. The clergy of the Upper Rhine were being educated at the universities of Freiburg and Tübingen, and the seminaries of Mayence and Fulda. It was determined to suppress the two latter institutions, and for the future the students of Hesse were to go not to Fulda but to the university of Marburg where a theological faculty was erected; while the seminary students at Mayence were henceforth to study at Giessen University. * But the energetic protest of the bishop and of the municipal authorities of Fulda killed the project of a faculty at Marburg, and the seminary at Fulda remained.
The government of Hesse, however, clung to its plan of erecting a theological faculty at Giessen, where the university was almost entirely Protestant, and where there was not even a Catholic church in which the students might assist at the ordinary religious services. Though the faculty was erected in 1830, there was no Catholic church till the year 1838, and during that period a Protestant church was placed at the disposal of the
* Lutterbeck. Geschichte der Kathol. Theol. Facultät zu Giessen, Giessen, 1860.
Catholic students. In these circumstances, and especially in view of the fact that many of the professors were strongly Hermesian or Josephist, it is not to be wondered at that the bishop and chapter of Mayence were not friendly to the change, and insisted on a return to the seminary training. The laity were especially determined in their attitude, and, if they had received proper encouragement from the ecclesiastical authorities, the scheme would never have been attempted. The dismissal of one of the theological professors by the government in 1841 roused the clergy of Mayence to petition their bishop to open again the seminary at Mayence. The students at Giessen sent a pitiful appeal to the bishop to make some arrangement whereby they might escape from the dangers to both faith and morals that surrounded them at Giessen. The government, however, insisted on continuing its policy, and it was only in later years that permission was given to open the seminary at Mayence. The clerical students of Nassau were also obliged to attend the university of Giessen, but in 1848, owing to the persistent demands of the clergy of Limburg, the law was changed, and they were permitted to seek their education elsewhere.
The clerical students of Baden were bound to make their studies at Freiburg. This university, which was supported largely by Catholic endowments, suffered much from the appointment of men who had imbibed the spirit of "enlightenment," and who were either convinced followers of Josephism or disciples of the rationalist school that had developed itself among the Austrian and German Catholics. The professors were particularly determined in insisting on the abolition of clerical celibacy. The professor of ecclesiastical history, ReichlinMeldegg, took occasion in his lectures to attack openly the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and even allowed himself to go so far as to deny the Divinity of Christ. The archbishop of Freiburg drew the attention of the government to his conduct, but the government refused to interfere, and the archbishop was too weak to meet such a serious situation. It was only when the professor publicly went over to Protestantism that he was removed from Freiburg, and transferred to the philosophical faculty of Heidelburg. Schreiber, the professor of moral theology, both in his published works and in his lectures, denounced clerical celibacy as unnatural, unlawful and immoral, while the lay professor of canon law, Amann, adopted the same view, and was never tired of denouncing the usurpations of the Church and of the hierarchy. In spite of the protests of the archbishop and of the Cardinal Secretary of State ( 1833), both professors were protected by the government. It was only in 1838 that Schreiber was removed to the philosophical faculty, and in 1840 Amann was retired from his chair of canon law.
The movement for the abolition of clerical celibacy was particularly strong in the diocese of Freiburg. In 1828 a petition was presented by twenty-eight professors of Freiburg to the Chamber of Deputies demanding the abolition of celibacy, but it was rejected. The movement spread into Hesse and was brought before the Chamber of Deputies, but the government refused to take any action. Meanwhile, in Baden, a new Chamber, more liberal, or rather more radical, in its tendencies, had been elected, and the agitation was taken up with greater energy. Many of the priests, and even some of the seminary students, signed the address in favour of abolition. The Chamber of Deputies, after a warm debate, passed a motion in favour of abolishing clerical celibacy, but the government was unwilling to enforce such a resolution.
To procure the reforms a number of the clergy in Baden and elsewhere tried to force the bishops to convoke synods for the discussion of ecclesiastical affairs. To these synods laymen and clergy should be free to come; the delegates, whether lay or cleric, should be elected as deputies; and the decision should be in accordance with the vote of the majority. When the archbishop refused in 1837 and 1840 to summon such assemblies, they appealed to the government and the Cham- bers, but without result. In 1838 Kuenzer, a dean of the diocese of Freiburg, accepted the presidency of a society that had been founded to combat Ultramontanism and Romanism. It was composed of clergy and laymen, and adopted as its weapons of campaign free discussions in public meetings and in the press. Gregory XVI. sent a sharp note to Demeter, the archbishop of Freiburg, commanding him to take the necessary measures against such scandalous proceedings ( 1838). Instead of punishing the guilty clergyman himself, as it was his duty to do, he appealed to the Church Commission and then to the Ministry to put an end to the scandal, but they refused to take any action ( 1839). In October of the same year the archbishop refused to allow his priests to be absent from their parishes in order to attend a meeting of the society, and the government, though it supported his action in the particular case, warned him that he had no authority to issue a general prohibition against a society that had not been condemned by the civil authority. The founder of the society, who had been living a life of open immorality, finding that the public opinion of Lucerne was strongly against him, fled to America. On his retirement the society gradually died out.
The unfortunate weakness of the first two archbishops of Freiburg, Böll ( 1827-1836) and Demeter ( 1836-1842) contributed in part to the enslavement of the Church in Baden as well as in the whole province of the Upper Rhine. But with the appointment of Hermann von Vicari a new era began. He had been rejected already by the government in 1836 as being likely to be disagreeable, and his after-career as an archbishop justified the nervousness of the civil authorities. He was persistent and unflinching in his demands for fair treatment for Catholics and for the Church. The Grand Duke, Leopold, was anxious to remove some of the pressing grievances of the Church in Baden; but the Chamber of Deputies and the Ministry were too strong and too intolerant to accept this policy of conciliation. The results of the exclusion of the Church from the universities, and the revolutionary education given to the school teachers of Baden, made themselves felt in the spread of revolutionary ideas all over the state. In 1848, the outbreak that had long been feared took place; the Grand Duke fled; a provisional government was formed; and it was only by the interference of Prussia and Austria that the rebellion could be suppressed. These events, as shall be seen, were not without their influence on the Catholic Church.
[ Main Contents | Next ]