New-York tribune., 1904-09-04
BISHOP GEAY At ROME.

The spnearance of Bishop Geay Of Laval at
Rome and his resignation of his blshoprlc'
form a new and interesting feature OF the
FrancOPapal controversy. 1t was Bishop "eay'
perhaps more than any other one man. VINO pro-
yoked the rupture between the Third Republic
and the Vatican. He is that Bishop of Laval
who. on January 26, 1900. was invited" by
Leo XIII Immediately to resign his office. in
'Order that more extreme steps might not be
.'necessary." This Invitation" was given by the
Pope. through Cardinal Parocchi. because or
facts reported and unhapply proved beyond
disnute" which certainly demonstrated the i'm
possibility of the bishops further exercise or
his episcopal functions with becoming authority
and efficacy To this the bishop replied, ON
February 2, unequlvocally and unhesitaungly
resigning his office. But little later he with
drew his resignatio and made it conditional
upon his being translated TO another diocese
To this the Vatican would not and could not
logically assent because the circumstances
which made Monsignor Geay unsuitable to be
Bishop of Laval made him equally unsuitable TO
be bishop of any other diocese. SO the matter
lay at deadlock until May II, 1904 more than
four years after the opening of IL, when the in
yitation' to resign Internationally was renewed
by Plus Y, through Cardinal Serafino Vannu-
teIl more urgently than before. Then, seeing
the French government had got somewhat at
loggerheads with the Vatican over the congre-
cations and schools, the bishop made appeal to
it, under Article Y of the Concordat, with the
result that the government supported him in
his refusal to resign, holding that the Vatican
could neither appoint nor remove a bishop
without the approval OF the government OF the
republic.
Now the dates we have cited indicate clearly
that the charges against the Bishop of Laval
and the demand for his resignation and pres
= foY.r nHo&o tf.a
beginning of NJ. COmbes's anti-clerlcal cam
paign, and similarly antedate any alleged
change OF policy on the part of Plus Y The
case against Monsignor Geay was fully made
up while Leo XIII was Pope, and while Wal
deck Rousseau was Prime Minister and while
peace and tho status quo ante still prevailed
unbrokeh between the republic and the Vatican
That case had in its inception absolutely moth
ing TO do with the controversy over the congre-
cations. This circumstance also gives the color
OF truth TO the contention hitherto made by the
spokesmen Of the Vatican that there was no
political motive whatever in the summons to
the bishop, and that be was invited" TO re-
sign not at all political grounds, but entirely
personal ecclesiastical and moral grounds
OF course. If this latter be fully stablished the
case Of the Vatican is materially strengthened,
assuming that the intent of the Concordat was
TO give the French government authority over
ecclesiastical appointments for the sake of the
political integrity of France, and not to enable
the civil government TO meddle with questions
of faith and morals
Nevertheless even If the sundering of rela-
tons has, as some thus argue been made on
mistaken grounds never contemplated by the
makers of the Concordat, it may yet be that It
is for the best for both parties concerned. 1t
is to be noted that Bishop Geay has now
obeyed the summons to Rome He has done so,
he declares, because the severing of diplomatic
relations between Paris and the Vatican has
left him free to do so. We shall see whether
Bishop lie Nordez of Dijon follows the example
OF his brother of Laval. The two cases are
somewhat alike, save that that of Bishop lie
Nordez is much more recent, having arisen
as late as last March. 1t will also be inter
esting to see whether the disposition of the
case of Bishop Geay win have any effect