The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1907-01-05

crty accordingly. He pointed out tl,e
well-known fact that the Catholic
Church throughout the world rested on
its Bishops-not only in matters OF
doctrine. but in the management of
It's temporal possessions: that the
State should not interfere with this
liberty and that, therefore, no new as
sociation should be regarded as lesa,
by the Council of State unless it had
tho appreciation Of the Bishop. lie.
therefore. asked the Minister of Pub
lie Worship il that was his understand
ing of the law.
The Minister replied that it was.
and said: 1--WE do not wish any one to
be able to accuse us Of having laid y
trap for the Church"
But that was exactly what they were
doing, for afterward an attempt was
made to amend the law in the Senate
by making the vague words of the law
clearly express what the Minister said
was its meaning. On November g.
1905. an amendment was offered in the
Senate, to the effect that in the fornna-
tion of these associations the rules OF
the hierarchy should be followed. This
amendment was voted down. On
the next day an amendment was Of
fered that the associations should be
| t@I I,, t1,o s.L I,
voted down.
Then Senator Lamarzelle called the
attention of the Minister of Public
Worship to the answer he had given to
NJ. Ribot in the Chamber of Deputies
and to the contradiction involved In
the answer and the voting down OF
these amendments.
No impartial person can read the an-
swer of the Minister of Public Worship
/. Clemenceau. which followed and which
appear in the Senate proceedings for
| November %, 1905, without coming to
the conclusion that the words Of the
law were purposely made vague and
general so that the Council of State
would have and would exercise tho
lr;alt r. dGtc.1ciuc against the Bishny.
whether the members of Catholic as.
sociation claiming church property
were Catholic or not.
Here, therefore. is the vital ques-
ton on which all the Catholic church
property in France depends.
The State says in the bill. in effect,
you can continue to have and use all
this property, provided you consent to
alter your internal organization and
let the State determine through its
Council of State who are Catholics"
The Pope replies that this is inn
possible-we cannot accept the prop
erty, even though it is rightfully ours,
under such a condition. The. State has
the brute power to take away the
property. The Pope has no such pow
er, but is standing on the principle OF
liberty of conscience. This involves.
as we have already seen, the right
OF every ecclesiastical body to deter
mine it's own organization without III
terference from the State.
Looking to the character OF the gov
ernment, it seems quite clear to me
that the bill was drawn in this way
with the knowledge that it could not be
accepted by Catholics, so that the net
result would be that the Church would
lose all it's property and yet seem to
be losing it by its own fault In not
favoring the now associations
The right of every religious organ-
cation to govern itself in all that per-
tains to worship is part Of the dunda-
mental, constitutional law of the Amer
lean people, and is well understood. In
this conflict with the French Govern
ment the Pope is standing for that
principle and should have the sympa-
thy of every American citizen OF what
ever denomination. That principle Is
so vital that tho Pope will see the
French Government take all the church
property, prohibit public worship and
imprison the Bishops and priests rather
than yield.
This objection is So vital that there
is no necessity for considering the
others. The bill is full OF unjust and
vexatious provisions, which have been
pointed out by others.
Paris Clergy Not to Take Pay.