CLERICALISM AND ANTI-CLERICALISM IN EUROPEAN POLITICS.
MR. CONYBEARE, the publicist who did such excellent and self-sacrificing service in exposing the methods and tactics of the men who had sent Captain Dreyfus to the Devil's Island, and desired to keep him there, has just republished a number of his articles in the National Review, in a book entitled " Roman Catholicism as a Factor in European Politics" (Skeffington and Son, 3s. 6d.) The aim of his book is, in his own words, " to initiate my countrymen into the methods openly pursued by the Latin Church in France in its eternal campaign against civil liberty, against freedom of conscience, against a true and spiritual Christianity." His work, in fact, is intended as an apology for the action of the French Government in introducing legislation intended to curb, if not actually to suppress, the work of the monkish Orders, especially in the matter of education. He tells us that these attempts deserve the sympathy of English- men, and he deplores the fact that "even in intelligent journals like the Spectator we already meet with denuncia- tions of the religious intolerance of French Republicans." We have, of course, no complaint to make against Mr. Conybeare's protest—a protest as courteous as it is doubt- less sincere—against our attitude, and we gladly welcome the opportunity it gives us to state once again our attitude on the whole problem. The moment is timely, when the French Assembly is dealing with the Associations Bill, and when in ■:.pain the Liberal party is profoundly moved by hostility to the Jesuits and to clerical obscurantism generally.
Before, however, we give our reasons for believing that the extremer elements of Latin Roman Catholicism can only be effectively fought and overcome by a truly liberal policy—by discarding, not by copying, the campaign of oppression which the French Clericals desire to apply to the Jews, to the Protestants, and to Liberalism generally— we desire to state most emphatically our dislike, nay, detestation, of the aims and actions of the more violent sections of Latin Clericalism. We cannot find words strong enough to express our loathing, not only of the writings of men like M. Drumont, but of those who have thought it consistent with their professions of Christianity to let the outrageous outpourings of the anti-Semite and pro-Clerical Press pass by without any real or effective protest. The things written by these defenders of the Church as Roman Catholics to Roman Catholics should have raised a protest that would have rung throughout Europe. Instead, the leaders of the Roman Church have been dumb, and dumb, alas! in the spirit of a friendly neutrality. Almost the only expressions of Roman Catholic indignation that have been heard have come as a faint whisper from a few insignificant and obscure, if upright, priests and laymen. Here are some extracts from the Libre Parole which Mr. Conybeare uses to support his case against Clericalism. They are messages written by correspondents of that paper who sent subscrip- tions to the funds raised by the Libre Parole, and were pub- lished by it, needless to say, not with disapproval, but as ex- pressions of sympathy for the work the paper was doing:- " St. Bartholomew's night saved France from dismember- ment, 2 francs." "A. B and one of his friends, who would like to see 100.000 Jews and other traitors to the country guillotined, 100 francs." "For the widow of Henry, for the extermination of the Jew and the Huguenot, 1 franc." "A group of officers who impatiently wait for the order to experiment with the new explosives and new cannon on the 100,000 Jews who poison the country, 25 francs." " One who begins to understand St. Bartholomew's in view of the anti-patriotic attitude of the Protestants, C. L., 0 francs 50." "An aggrige of the university who begins to understand St. Bartholomew's and the 18th Brumaire, 2 francs." " A licencie in history who finds the Inquisi- tion to be an institution of public utility, and St. Bart holo- mew's a work of national purification, 5 francs." " Hurrah for a Jewish St. Bartholomew's, M. A. Poisson, 3 francs." One might have imagined that M. Drumones publica- tions would have been placed on the Index, and that every Bishop in France and every priest would have denounced such atrocities to their congregations. Yet as far as we know no mark of disapprobation by the Vatican or by the French ecclesiastical authorities was shown. And all the while the Roman Church in France and on the Continent assumes to itself the duty of directing men's consciences in questions of morals as well as of faith. Truly may we say of this wicked indifference, in Cromwell's words, "This is a thing God will reckon for."
We will go further in Mr. Conybeare's direction, and admit that he has much reason on his side in his condemnation of Jesuit aims and Jesuit methods. We think he makes too much of Jesuit plots and schemes, and losing touch with the spirit of liberalism and moderation, falls into the error of assuming that there is a Jesuit conspiracy, just as M. Drumont thinks that there is a Jewish conspiracy. The nonsense talked about "the Syndicate" should be remembered by all those who are tempted to imagine a Jesuit plot and to get the Jesuits ou the brain. The Jesuits are, no doubt., closely organised, while the Jews are not organised at all, but there is no more a Jesuit Syndicate than a Jewish. But while admitting that there are individually many Jesuits who are not only personally good and devout men, but who have done and are doing excellent religious work, we cannot profess to admire the Order. It is too " wooden," too self-important, too self-centred, and as a whole far too material, or rather too unspiritual. Though Clough, like all satirists, went too far for justice, there was a touch of truth in his denunciations of the Jesuits in Italy, with their "emasculate pupils" and their "gimcrack churches," their " pseudo-learning " and their " metallic beliefs and regimental devotions."
But granted all this, and granted that not merely the Drumonts and the extremists of La Croix during the Dreyfus trial, but the whole of the Clerical leaders in France, and even the Vatican itself, have played a most deplorable part during the past few years ; and granted, further, that the French Clericals have shown themselves incapable of leading a great nation in the paths of truth and justice, incapable, that is, of doing the very task that their master has set them—the essential work of Christianity—we still maintain that no good will or can come from copying the policy and the methods advocated by the Libre Parole and its followers. By talking of conspiracies, by clamour. ing for measures of suppression, by meeting violence with violence, and persecution with persecution, we shall only develop the worst elements in Continental Roman Catholicism—British and American Roman Catholicism are in a perfectly different category, and have in reality no more to do with European Ultramontanism than have the Maronites or the Catholic Armenians—and give to the Clericalism that supports the Anti-Semites, and calls for a new St. Bartholomew for the Protestants, a force which it could not otherwise possess. The Roman Church on the Continent, and especially among the Latin races, is a great corporation strongly influenced by the sense of esprit de corps. But in it there are many and diverse elements,—some better, some worse. There is the spirit of militant Clericalism which desires the restoration of the Inquisition, and the punishment of heresy and scepticism as a crime, and which is willing to inflame the passions of the mob against the Jews. But there is also a very large section which views matters political and religious very much as the majority of Roman Catholics view them here. At heart they are on the side of tolerance, and though they may scout the name of Liberal their views are in many respects liberal. There are plenty of such Liberal Catholics in Germany and Austria. For example, only this week we read of the feeling that is rising in Austria and Hungary against the continued Italianisation of the Papacy, with the consequent narrow. nese and provincialism of the Vatican as an institution. The notion that the majority of the Cardinals must be Italians is beginning to be strongly challenged. Look, again, at what is happening in Spain. The Spanish people are no doubt as religious and as Catholic as ever they were, but they are beginning to show their dislike of extreme Clericalism. The same thing is true of France in a still greater degree. There is a section, though a small one, of sincere Catholics whose natural tendencies are in a liberal direction. Now in our opinion it is certain that if these elements in Con- tinental Roman Catholicism can get free play they will greatly affect, and affect for good, the whole body of the Roman Church. But if resort is had to the perse- cuting action of the French Government, the Roman Church will at once rally to a common centre, and that centre is the extreme form of Clericalism. The moment the Church is believed to be in danger, all sections of loyal Catholics must inevitably close up their ranks. They argue We are against Jesuit methods and aims, we are against extreme Vaticanism, we are against Anti- Semitism, and against a new St. Bartholomew for the Jews and Huguenots ; but when the Church and the monks are attacked, as they are being attacked, we have only one course open to us. We must sink our differences and stand shoulder to shoulder. In a time of persecu- tion there is only one question,—the Church or its assailants ? '
There is in truth one way, and only one, of meeting Clericalism, and that is by Liberalism, by applying to the Clericals the principles which they refuse and reject, and which they admit that they would not apply to Liberals if they had the power. If the Clericals were in power it might be, and no doubt would 'be, wise and right to meet any attempts at tyranny on their part with every possible form of force. But the Clericals are not in power, and whatever action they take is voluntary. The fact that the Jesuits educate boys who afterwards get into the Army and Civil Service may be regrettable, but it is surely a mon- strous infringement of liberty to forbid the Jesuit fathers to teach, and the parents to send their children to learn, in Jesuit schools merely because those schools are too successful in the State examinations. Cannot the State provide schools which will be able to compete with the Jesuit schools, or else alter the system of examination ? Surely either of these ways would be better than inter- fering with liberty of association and entering upon a campaign which, disguise it as they will, is opposed to liberal principles. It is idle to say that no outrage on liberal principles is involved because the men who will be touched by the new legislation entertain noxious and illiberal ideas. True liberty consists in the right to think as one pleases, to hold what opinions one likes, and to con- vince others, if one can, of those opinions. It involves the right to hold opinions which other people hold to be wrong, as well as those which they hold to be good. Action is, of course, another matter. Actions cannot be as free as thoughts, or the world would be a pande- monium. But even here the minimum of interference must be allowed to the State. The policy of the Bill before the French Chamber is, in effect, to take away rights from monks and members of religious Orders which will be allowed to laymen. That is a policy which is, in our opinion, as unsound in theory as in practice. It is illiberal and it is inexpedient, and it cannot produce the [results desired. As long as French parents want their children taught by Jesuits and Assumptionists they will contrive to get them taught by members of those Orders. The Jesuits may, and will, disappear some day through internal decay, but as long as they are persecuted they will flourish. When the Order was dissolved by the Pope it was at its weakest owing to the deadening influences which always attach to old and rich corporations. The stimulus of a world-wide persecution restored the Order to vigour. The French Government have themselves bad experience of this fact. The Orders are far more power- ful to-day than they were before the Ferry Bill. For ourselves, we dislike the Bill because we believe it will strengthen what we so greatly detest, the extreme form of Clericalism in the Roman Church on the Continent. It will tend to destroy the beginnings of liberal reform within the Roman Church, and will still further strengthen the influences which are placing the destinies of that Church in the hands of the Ultramontanes. The form of Christianity favoured by M. Drumont is not one which we can see spread and strengthened with any pleasure. The true way to meet Clericalism is by the preaching and practising of a nobler and higher creed both in the political and in the spiritual world.
Previous page
