The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-14

that were bound In the long run to call fors
protest.
The protest came in the form OF Q personal
letter from Pope Leo XIII. to President GrSvy
In May. 1883. which was answered courtcousiy
enough. indeed, but the answer was q mere
waste Of time and paper 90 far a. results were
concerned.
In spite Of the Pontt1's reasonable objeo-,
tions the Injurious laws were passed. Az
far az possible God and religion were banished
from the schools and hospitals. the oath de-
prived Of its religious charaotsr. and olerios
impressed into theimiltary service.
Next, IN 1901. the Law Of Associations was
passed. q law which. as Interpreted and ue-
cuted by combes. caused untold misery 90
thousands. By n the schools i'm charge Of
religious orders were forced ott Of existence.
The members Of the different religious con-
gregations. not only male. but female a. we'll.
were sent forth. cast out upon the world and
obliged either to exc out an existence a. best
they could in their own native France or to
go into exile. Many of these wero old men or
old women who had spent a lifetime within
the convent walls and were now driven out.
no longer able to begin q new career and with
no means OF support. Finally, In December.
1905. the Concordat was dissolved and separa-
ton Of Church and state proclaimed.
THK C%oScoRDAT A CONTRACT.
Il Ia essential TO bear in mind that the
Conoordat was q genuine contract, and that
this contract was annulled by one Of the
parties. the French Government. with no
regard TO the wishes OF the other party.
The Sovereign Pontiff was in no wise con-
suited and utterly ignored In every stage Of
the proceedings.
Perhaps the feature Of the situation that
will surprise us most and call for our Just
Indignation az Americans Ia the French
Governments absolute disregard OF the
property rights OF the Church. She has been
despoiled of the salaries granted to the minis
tiers OF religion as a compensation for the
funds which the Church relinQuished under
that express condition.
We say il not in tho heat OF passion. not as
partisans. but simply as lovers Of Justice.
What should we think II our own Govern
ment had seized on the friars' lands in the
Philippines without giving any compensa-
ton. or after having pledged solemnly n
compensation should afterward refuse to
keep its part OF the contract
Furthermore. suppose the American Gov
eminent had left to the Filipinos merely the
use and not the ownership Of their churches
and only under conditions laid down by
itself and even that their very use we're
liable to be revoked at any time.
In addition, the provisions OF the new law
entirely ignore the constitution and laws OF
the Church. a situation that has no parallel
in our American method Of keeping Church
and State separate. Here there is due recog-
milton of the laws governing every lawful
society. while under the recent French la W
provisions are made obligatory for Organiz-
ing Catholic worship without any preference
to the duly authorized officers Of the Church.
the Bishops and priests.
This is the point to which the Holy Father
has objected most strenuously. The prOvi-
sion for associations of worship ions
- s-t
organizations. which nave in fact in a few
cases been already attempted. II places the
Church at the mercy Of the Judgment Of the
Council Of State, whose decision in these
matters ia final. Should the Church accept
the present law she has before her the very
likely prospect Of gradual extinction by due
process OF law.
CHURcH CAN'T TRUST FRANCE,
She has learned by long and sad experience
TO place no trust in the promises OF the French
Government. She knows the spirit that ami
mates II. She remembers that NJ. Waldeck-
! Rousseau was ready enough TO interpret
literally the law Of associations. but his
successor. NJ. Combes. showed himself by
no means willing to follow in his footsteps.
The law Of separation. IL accepted. will
inevitably lead to the destruction OF religious
liberty. Just as the law Of associations led
to the destruction of religious congregation.
= OIL 60 \.
II the separation oi Snuron snu o,a'e III
france meant Just "nA. means ~ 'ue
united ota.es .nerc No"lu ave oeeH no
nucn nue. anu cry l sans ~ 81
Hkely 10 many Nouu "S'' Oee" ny "'
means uhuesiraore.
bW the S,uatonS are nv ~ an ana'osou9
for PROOF Oh 'nls' ave onIy 10 ON 70 ne
isct that OF seVeIS' VcesSlons soIhe o 'he
Ieaulhs rrench 's'"''o Pu' o'u"'F pu'
Vhe QUESTION .
why 90 you hot give us sepaIa,on o.
Churcn ana otaVe such AZ NE ~ nIner,ca'
me resI nature Oh uhe sepaIa''on mas peeh
well expressed IN Vne'e "orus Oh q FRENCH
priest
ine SoncoIu'S "nsn' ,. ~ =
! sonisd rho Husband and The church the wife
To-day they are separated, but the separation
has simply consisted in the husband Danish
ing the wife from her home. keeping all the
fortune for himself and preventing her from
acquiring any other by mana ging himself
the little income which he allows her to gain,
and likewise in exercising a Jealous watch
over all her words and actions"
IL il not separation alone. therefore. thai
the Holy Father is repudiating. but tyranny
in the Quise of seDaration. Hence IL was