The Irish standard., 1907-10-12

reverted to the state; and only one
way of retaining property devoted to
public worship directly was left-the
organization of associations cultueles.'
Catholics could not form these 'asso-
ciations.' So what was there left ?
Nothing. To keep their churches they
must give them to the government
it amounted to that: and if they did
not submit they lost them anyway.
1T seemed a plain case of lose for
the Catholics, no matter how they
went about it; for even if they did
form associations cultuelles' to retain
the churches only, they would have to
contest their right with rival .associa-
tions,' and you can see what the result
might have been. So there you have it.:
To keep their churches the Catholics
must submit to the Law of Separation;
and whether they did or not, all their
seminaries, asylunss, t5rtests's snds bish-
ops houses, ETC., were seized. Make
that clear, for 1t. is@a. feature of the
law which has not been understood by
the people in America. -
"Now, q question, Monsieur lAbbe:
Would it not have been better for you
to have taken a chance on contesting
with rival Associations and submitted
to the law? You say, Catholics could
not why?"
"The Pope forbade It. In fact, the
people would not have it. Only a
small minority of the Catholics OF
France were in favor of it. The clergy
and all the influential Catholic pa
pers were opposed to it from the be-
ginning. Still, a minority believed that
q compromise was possible
-. But this point of the question has
been much discussed, Monsieur rAbbe
Has 1t not been claimed by Minister
Brand that before the Encyclical We
hementer Nos of last August was is
sued, concerning the association cul-
tuelles,' the French bishops had voted
to submit to the law and had recon-
mended the formation of associations? ?
And has this not been denied at the
Vatican, where 1t has been stated that
the French bishops almost unanimously
disapproved of the association"
| "That is all true," the Able replied
Here are the facts: 1t is now known
on unimpeachable authority, and it has
been admitted in, a letter written by
the Archbishop of Besancon, that the
bishops by a practically unanimous
vote, :72 to 2, declared the associations
proposed by the Separation Law to be
Impossible of acceptance. This was a
question of principle; but OH the ques-
tion Of whether canonical associations
could be formed that would at the same
time be legal, the vote stood 4s to 2s
in favor of the proposition, and the
second 56 to 1s. There is some doubt
about the number of votes cast in the
matter. but no doubt at all about the
result Of the vote. SO that the Pope
was right in saying that the French
bishops rejected: the association Gull
tuelles,' yet they had voted in favor OF
the formation of some sort of associa-
tions that would be at the same time
canonical and legal The Pope pro-
nounced against the formation of such
associations and that pronouncement
Twas unqualihedly accepted by all. even
by those who had thought it possible tc
effect some sort of compromise
"And what is your opinion on q com:
promise?".
Perhaps it is just. as well that nc
compromise was attempted" was the
reply. With SO many opposed to it
it would have been next to impossible
to carry out any plan Of compromise
proposed. Even had the Pope pro.
nounced in favor Of 1t, 1t is not likely
that French Catholics would have heed.
led his advice any more than they heed.