The law is

constitution of the Church

Concordat, separates itself from the Church, it was due the latter naturally to let it enjoy its independence and rights in peace and in the liberty ostensibly conceded to it. Now nothing has been further from the facts: we note in the law several exceptional measures which are odiously restrictive and place the Church under the dominion of the civil power. It has indeed been a source of bitter sorrow to us to see the State thus invade the exclusive province of the ecclesiastical power; and we grieve the more, since, forgetful of equity and justice, it has thus placed the Church in France in a critical situation, subversive of its most sacred rights.

The provisions of the new law are, in effect, contrary to the contrary to the constitution on which the Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Scriptures teach us and the traditions of the fathers confirm it, that the Church is the mystic body of Christ, a body ruled by pastors and teachers, — hence a body of men in the midst of whom are found those leaders who have full power to govern, teach, and judge.1

The refusal to The law suppressing the appropriations for public worship pay the clergy frees the State from the obligation of providing for the exis unjust penses of religious worship, but it at the same time repudiates an engagement contracted in a diplomatic agreement, and seriously violates the principles of justice. On that point there can indeed be no possible doubt, and historical documents themselves bear witness to the fact in the clearest fashion. If the French government assumed in the Concordat the burden of assuring to the members of the clergy a salary which would enable them to provide in a suitable fashion for themselves and religious worship, it did not make this as a gratuitous concession; it pledged itself to do this by way of indemnification, partial at least, to the Church whose property the State had appropriated during the Revolution. On the other hand also, when the Roman Pontiff in the same Concordat and for the sake of peace engaged in his own name and that of his successors not to disturb the holders of property which

1 Here the Pope enumerates his objections to the associations of laymen (associations cultuelles), in whose hands the Law of Separation placed the administration of the various local churches.

had been thus taken from the Church, it is certain that he only made that promise on one condition: that is, that the French government should agree for all time adequately to pay the clergy and provide for the expenses of divine worship.

Finally and how can we well be silent on this point? The law -aside from the interests of the Church which have been in- disastrous to France jured, the new law will be most fatal to your country. There can be no doubt that it will in reality destroy the union and harmony of souls, and without that union and harmony no nation can live and prosper. That is why, especially in the present situation in Europe, this perfect harmony is the most ardent wish of all those in France who, truly loving their country, have its welfare at heart. As for us, following the example of our predecessor and inheriting his very special partiality for your nation, we are unquestionably compelled to maintain the religion of your ancestors in the full possession of all its rights among you; but at the same time, and always having before our eyes that fraternal peace of which religion is certainly the strictest bond, we have labored to strengthen all in unity.

of the law

Accordingly we, remembering our Apostolic charge and Sweeping bound to defend against every attack and to maintain in condemnation their absolute integrity the inviolable and sacred rights of the Church, by virtue of the supreme authority which God has conferred upon us, we, for the reasons given above, reject and condemn the law passed in France for the separation of the Church and State, as profoundly insulting to God whom it officially denies by making it a principle that the Republic recognizes no religion. We reject and condemn it as violating natural law, the law of nations, and the public faith due to treaties, as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church, to its fundamental rights, and to its liberty, as overturning justice and trampling under foot the property rights which the Church has acquired by manifold titles and especially by virtue of the Concordat. We reject and condemn it as grievously offensive to the dignity of this Apostolic See, to our person, to the episcopacy, to the clergy, and to all the French Catholics.

An appeal to

France

Consequently we protest solemnly and with all our strer the faithful in against the proposal, the passage, and the promulgation this law, declaring that it could never be impleaded so to annul the imprescriptible and immutable rights of Church.1 . .

As for the defense of religion, if you desire to undertake in a worthy manner, to carry it on without error and wi success, two things above all are important: you should co duct yourselves according to the precepts of the Christia law, so faithfully, that your acts and your entire life may be a honor to the religion which you profess. You should also remai in strict union with those to whom it properly belongs to guard religion here below, with your priests, your bishops and especially with the Apostolic See, which is the center of Catholicism and of everything which may properly be done in its name. Thus armed for the struggle, advance without fear to the defense of the Church, taking care that your confidence rests entirely in God whose cause you uphold, and in which he will help you. Implore him without ceasing. As for us, as long as you may have to struggle against danger, we shall be heart and soul in your midst; labors, pains, sufferings, we shall share all with you; and, addressing ourselves at the same time to the God who has established the Church and who heeds our humblest and most earnest prayers, we supplicate him to look down on France with compassion, to rescue her from the billows raging around her, and to give calm and peace to her soon through the intercession of Mary the Immaculate.

As a sign of these divine favors, and in order to assure you of our very especial good will, we most affectionately grant our apostolic benediction to you, venerable brethren, to your clergy, and to the entire French nation.

Given at Rome near Saint Peter's, February 11, 1906, the third year of our pontificate.

PIUS X

1 In the passages which follow, omitted here, the Pope encourages French Catholics to be steadfast in the midst of their adversity, trusting in Jesus Christ and their own faith.

In the early years of the Third Republic the principal political parties were the Republicans, and their monarchical opponents, the Legitimists, the Orleanists, and the Bonapartists; but gradually the monarchists diminished in number, while the Republicans broke up into many groups on questions of social reform. The Radicals and Socialists have become especially prominent, and in 1906 the former came to power under the leadership of M. Clémenceau, who early stated his cardinal doctrines in a long debate with the socialist leader, M. Jaurès. An extract from M. Clémenceau's argument is given here.

...

Radical

programr

socialism

The Socialist party has issued a programme for the use of all 288. The its candidates. Nothing could be more natural. This programme contains two sections: a declaration of principles, and contraste a statement of immediate reforms which may and ought to be with demanded from this present legislature. It would be well if each one in this assembly should set himself to inquire what are the topics which it is his duty first to bring before this tribunal. I find in this manifesto, in the first place, a statement of doctrine: "There is only one way of emancipating yourselves; it is to substitute collective property for capitalist property." I find no explanation of the consequences of this statement, no suggestion of the means of carrying it out. But at least it contains an affirmation of principle. What reforms, then, are to follow from it? Here they are:

"Limitation of the working day to eight hours.

"Extension to all employees of the State, the Department, and the Commune of the right to form unions.

ee

General insurance against sickness and unemployment.

The practical demands of socialists accepted

by Radicals

Socialism

too dogmatic in spirit

What a terribly bourgeois programme. When M. Jaurès, after expounding his programme, challenged me to produce my own, I had great difficulty in resisting the temptation to reply: "You know my programme very well; you have it in your pocket, you stole it from me." I am in principle for the eight-hour day. I do not suppose that any of you would run the risk of an economic crisis by suddenly changing the eleven-hour day to eight. I could not; but I am ready to put things in train as quickly as possible for an ultimate eight-hour day. I am in favor of a progressive income tax. But M. Jaurès, you voted against it in 1885; and it is in the name of this shifting infallibility of yours that you are surprised at my remaining true to my convictions! Truly that will not bear examination. I affirm, then, that this practical programme is ours; I am for the restoration to the nation of the great monopolies which are now in the hands of private industry. But we must understand each other. I do not want you to put into my words a sense they do not bear. If you think I mean to say that I am prepared to bring in a bill to-morrow for the restoration of all these monopolies, you deceive yourselves; that is not my idea. What I mean is, that I am quite ready to begin the work this very day, for example, by the repurchase of certain of the railways. I have no authority from the Cabinet to make that statement. I must avow it in loyalty to the Chamber; but you must not make much of it; only I know the opinion of most of my colleagues, and I know that they will not contradict me. . . .

Having said so much, I am bound to recognize that you have set up an organization from the principle of which my bourgeois soul recoils. I mean what you call unification. Unification to my eyes is nothing but a kind of catholization of socialism. It is the heavy hand of a governing oligarchy laid on a democracy of workmen who are struggling for freedom. It is the introduction of that ancient state of mind, which, in order to secure the triumph of the gospel, has turned a message of liberty into a most terrible instrument of authority over the free expansion of the individual. But it is not only the Pope of Catholicism who was beaten at the last election; it was the spirit of oppression, the dogmatic spirit, in all fields of human