Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-12-14

protested against this high-handed manner of dealing were deprived of their just income. In September, 1904, M. Combes boasted that out of 16,904 schools he had closed 13,9O4, and the very day on which he re- signed he procured the suppression of 500 more, making in all 14,4O4 schools closed Catholics naturally protested against such an invasion of their rights; but can such protest, by any conceivable stretch of the im- agination, be distorted into disloyal- ty? Let us suppose that the United States were to thus forcibly close the parish schools, would protest on the part of American Catholics be an act of disloyalty to our govern ment? No fair minded American citizen but would recognize that we would have an inalienable right to protest against such unjust legisla- tion prejudicial to our interests. But the French anti-clericals sought not for justice to bolster up their cause. They had one object in view, the complete laicization of France, and that object was to be accomplished by fair means or foul.
 The Episcopal Nominations.
 The next pretext seized upon by M. Combes was the Episcopal nomina- tions. A somewhat lengthy explana- ton is necessary to understand this phase of the difficulty. By article V of the Concordat there was given to the first consul and his successors the right of nominating bishops to the vacant sees, Rome. however, to con fer canonical institutions. In all the bulls of conservation appeared the words that became bone of conten- tion, "nobls nominant." (has named to us), used by the various rulers of France from NapoleOn's day in peti- tioning for the institution of a bishop. In said petition the ruler (president or other) states that he names and presents the candidate to his holiness in order that it might please his holiness to install him in said bishopric. The rejection of the candidate named was always held as the right of the Holy See until M. Combes challenged that right. Deem- ing it an insult to his government that Rome should in any case reject the nomination of the president of the Republic, M. Combes contended that with the president lay the right of appointment and that the pope's approval was only meaningless ceremony. The Holy See insisted upon its right to create bishops and that it could not yield that power to any civil authority. Was there any just cause that the French govern ment should take umbrage at this? Since the source of episcopal juris- diction in the Catholic church is the papacy, had not the pope, as head of the church, the right to say who should, or should not, be bishops? Was any and every rascal that men like M. Combes might propose to be entrusted with the spiritual af- fairs of thousands in diocese? It is strange that M. Combes should take offense at the policy which pre- cluded the revival of an old charge made against the Roman See, viz: that it allowed unworthy incumbents to be intruded into church benefices. There is no concordat between the United States and Rome, but Presi- dent Roosevelt has as much right to create bishops as had the president of the French Republic. ~
 In other words M. Combes set'hiin- self up as the pope of France and ar rogated to his government rights that never existed. In his mind bishop was bishop simply because he wanted him to be such, and Rome had no rights whatever in the matter that he considered himself bound to re- spect. Acting on this arbitrary and unfounded interpretation of a priv ilege, NJ. Combes proceeded to desig- nate two candidates for vacant sees, and, without even consultation, haughtily informed the papal nuncio that "the government had deter mined upon the following nomina- tions." In one case the candidate had several times been rejected for reasons entirely satisfactory to previ- ous cabinets. The second case was that of one already bishop, who could not be transferred to another diocese without serious cause. Con- corning these and four other cases the vatican maNe several courteous to reach an amicable under standing. But NJ. Combes would have none of it and threatened that "the nuncio could have no idea how he was resolved to go unless his can didates were accepted" No man in the position of the pope. unless he betrayed the trust con