The Irish standard., 1907-11-23

Under the title "Loss and Gain in
France" i'll the October number of the
american Catholic Quarterly Review"
the Abbe Hermeline, of Paris, gives
most valuable and interesting resume
of the results of the first years opera
ton of the law which divorced Church
and State. Months of comparative
calm, following the fateful December Of
1906, have served to dull public appre-
citation Of the monlentous changes ef-
fected by the new legislation. The
superficial observer has permitted him.
self to believe that the disturbance was
only temporary, after all; that the
worst is over, and that soon everything
greater error, as the Able Hermeline
shows.
At the outset the abbe deals with
what belongs to the credit side Of the
Church's account in the transaction.
Looking at the situation exclusively
from the point Of view Of liberty, owing
partly to some provisions of the law
itself, partly to the action of the Pope.
which nullif1ed great part of the
other dispositions, the author says that
nothing but gains, up to the present,
have to be registered.
The law has given us three important
liberties. The nomination of the Blsh-
ops is no longer in the hands of the
State, and this is evidently a great
gain.
A second liberty gained by the law
is the right for the Bishops Of assem-
bling together and holding councils. Ii
may seem strange to American citizens,
but this right did not exist in republic
can France till two years ago. 81
The third liberty is this: 1t is lawful
chapels as he likes on his own prem
ises, without asking leave Of the gov
ernment. This was prohibited till now,
even if your private sanctuary was for
your own use, although the interdiction
was not enforced in all cases.
The Darker Side.
It is impossible to enjoy liberty with
out having means to live. Thus the
property question springs up, being
closely linked with the other, and on
this point we have nothing but losses
to register.
Who was to be the owner Of the
churches after the separation? They
have been built for Catholic purposes
with Catholic money, aided by State
contributions. It is easy to see how
many considerations might be brought
into the discussion Of this point: Is
there no distinction to be made between
the old churches, already conf1scated at
the time Of the Revolution, and new
ones built by donors who generally did
not mean to make a present to the
State? But, in fact, there was
no discussion, only declaration by the
government that they are ours; we
cannot allow them, said the govern
anent, not to be our property. renewing
the reasoning Of a famous robber on
the French stage. who, finding a trunk
full of valuables, says to his band:
"This trunk ought to be ours; ergo, it
IL ours"
It should be noticed that this hap
pened Independently of any action of
the Pope. Even If the Pope had ac-
cepted the law, all the churches were
declared to be the property of the State,
or the commune, which is nothing but
branch of the State.
These edifices were to have been let
out to the associations for formal
rent of one franc. This was made i'm
possible by the decision Of the Pope,
and yet the government would by no
means close the churches; so the most
absurd of situations has developed The
priest is still In the church, but as an
occupant sans titre, delightful
formula which means that hs is there,