« AnteriorContinua »
of public resort, to recall it to mind, except a comical little statue, which still exists, in the hat and plume of the days of the Directory. The town is now a perfect museum in her honour, and in the Place du Martrois, where the Germans kindled their watch-fires, there stands an equestrian statue of the most poetical of all the heroic figures in Christian history. In its obituary article on Dupanloup, the best written paper in France pointed to his panegyric on Joan of Arc, and to his discourse in memory of Lamoricière, as showing that he ranked among the greatest orators of his time: 'Il arrivait souvent à produire les effets de la grande éloquence,' said the Journal des Débats; . . . il y a dans ses discours de magnifiques pages, qui seront rangées parmi les modèles.'
When the future biographer of Dupanloup considers the history of this remarkable episcopate of thirty years' duration, he will not be able to shut his eyes to the fact, that it is part of the general history of our time. A short sketch like this must confine itself to indicating the very extraordinary activity displayed during it, by alluding to the twofold struggle against the extreme party in his own camp, as well as against the efforts made on the opposite side, which the Bishop regarded as directed against Christianity; upon his defence of the Papacy, and upon the part he took in the Council.
The beginning of the contest with Veuillot must be dated back to the truly incredible campaign which a certain Abbé Gaume opened against the use of the classics in schools, and which was continued by the Univers in the most passionate manner. The Abbé maintained that the study of the classics undermined Christianity, and perverted the religious sense.24 The Bishop was less shocked by this ridiculous proposition than by the attempt to abuse liberty of education. When his arguments remained ineffectual, and when a number of journals adopted the tone of the Univers, the Bishop, who had been himself personally attacked, issued a prohibition to the clergy of his diocese to take in that paper. He did not yet stand alone. His views that the Univers was endangering religion were shared by the Paris provincial synod of 1850, by Archbishop Sibour, who declared 'that bishops and priests were being insulted under the pretext of avenging the Holy See,' and by a considerable number of the French bishops. The position of the extreme party was one of danger. Abbé Gerbet, one of its most determined champions and formerly joint-editor of the Avenir, pointed this out in February 1853, in a most remarkable document. This future Bishop of Perpignan and joint-author of the Syllabus added further:
At Rome it must best of all be known, that just at this very moment the Holy See is all-powerful against Gallicanism; that no French bishop dare venture, without instantly being annihilated by the public opinion of the clergy, to defend himself; and that, from reasons easily understood, the Government would not wish
24 See Abbé Gaume, Du Paganisme dans l'Education.
to run counter to the Holy See. The Univers is the only religious paper of importance, favourable to the new Government. Rome can do anything now: later on things may change.25
On the 21st of March 1853, a fortnight only after the arrival of his letter at Rome, a Papal Encyclical recommended the French bishops to take the Catholic press under their protection. Louis Veuillot had once more repeated his tactics of appealing direct to Rome over the heads of the bishops, and this time successfully. Sibour was obliged to retract his condemnation, and at the express wish of the Pope, the Univers continued its existence.26 This moment was chosen by Montalembert for making a last attempt to obtain again the leadership of the Catholic party by publishing 'Les intérêts Catholiques au XIXme Siècle.'
In this work such extreme concessions were made to the absolutist party in Church and State that De Tocqueville speaking of Veuillot and Montalembert remarked, Ce sont les nuances qui se querellent, non les couleurs.' 27 This was nowhere so clear as in the attack on the Gallican Church.
Let any one go back to the views of the most pious of thirty years ago (a passage runs) when De Maistre's book on the Pope appeared, and let him judge the distance travelled from that time till now, when his ideas are the common property of the young Catholic generation. Gallicanism was not destined to end in indifference and in silence; it had to be stifled by the contempt of the faithful, and, thanks to those who last defended it, to be numbered amongst the worst attempts made against the Church.
The Univers, however, felt strong enough to say similar things unaided, and the peace offering of Montalembert was rejected. This was his last concession; the decided change in the latter part of his life dates from that time.
Meanwhile the net was drawn over the whole of France. The Roman Ritual gradually took the place of the native, and often very ancient, Liturgies. In all the seminaries the hitherto approved textbooks were replaced by such books as Gousset's Moral Theology, Gaume's Catechism, and the History of the Church by Rohrbacher! Dom Guéranger, the Benedictine abbot of Solesmes, revised the Breviary, the devotional books of Nicolas or Ségur supplanted the writings of Bossuet and Fénelon. Dupanloup's ecclesiastical home, St. Sulpice, underwent, under Archbishop Morlot, in spite of his protest, a complete transformation in accordance with express orders from Rome.29 Archbishop Darboy, soon after his nomination, was taken severely to task by Rome for not conducting the simplest of his
25 See Vie de Monseigneur Gerbet, par l'Abbé de la Doue, a letter dated February 23, 1853, to Monseigneur de Salinis, his bishop, who was then at Rome.
25 See L. Veuillot, Le parti Catholique, pp. 140-144.
27 See Senior's Journal and Conversations with De Tocqueville, vol. ii. p. 177.
28 See Rouland's speech in the Senate, Moniteur of March 11, 1865.
official duties in a manner corresponding to the predominant tendency. Religious liberty and toleration were daily declared to be the worst of evils, and the most exorbitant pretensions were revived. As early as 1856, Montalembert, Cochin, Falloux, the Prince de Broglie, and Dupanloup felt it their duty to erect a bulwark against this growing deluge of frantic fanaticism. With this view they undertook the direction of the Correspondant, which up to 1870 represented in politics the ideas of the so-called Liberal Catholics. Although their position was extremely difficult from the very outset, the danger of failure arose far less from opposition to the Ultramontane school than from those questions upon which they stood on more or less common ground with it. Of these the most important were the controversies regarding the temporal power. Dupanloup alone published during their course, beginning from the Roman expedition in 1849 down to the taking of Rome by the Italians, more than twenty-four different publications, pamphlets, and speeches. Montalembert and all his friends cast the weight of their influence into the scale, and yet they did not succeed in hiding the fact, that all this time they were faithless to their own principles.
Catholic Italy, which crowded round the liberal Pope of 1847-48, and fully shared with Gioberti, Balbo, Rosmini, Rossi, Azeglio, and even Manzoni, in the enthusiasm for reform and confederation; politicians, who, agreeing with Thiers and De Tocqueville, saw in the maintenance of the Papal rule a guarantee for European law and the balance of power; Napoleon the Third himself, who wished to give a pledge to the Conservatives by the Roman expedition; the Catholics who accepted that pledge,-all and every one of these held firm to the view, that the government of the States of the Church needed reform, and that no crime on the part of the mob, no excesses of the Revolution, could release the Pope from his obligation to carry out this reform.
In the same degree, however, that the mere maintenance of the temporal power became the chief object of Papal policy, the point of view from which they started, faded from the sight of the Liberal Catholics, and they sacrificed to this darling idea of Pius the Ninth one position after another. They approved, or at least passed over in silence at Rome, what they condemned at Naples, and refused to the Romans what they demanded for the Poles. With the exception of a single man, Lacordaire, who remained true to himself to the end, they forgot that, in 1849 and in 1850, it was only under certain conditions, that they desired the restoration of the temporal power. They forgot that, by the mouth of Cochin and others, they declared an appeal of the Pope to arms to be totally beyond the range of possibility, and they instituted collections for the purchase of fire-arms for him, and thereby strengthened his delusion that soldiers could help It was the faithlessness of the French Government, and the
Italian Revolution, which provided occasions for noble and indignant protests against the gross violation of international law and the perfidy of the Emperor Napoleon. A still stronger incentive to these protests, however, was internal discord.
The Liberal Catholics were quite as anxious as their Ultramontane adversaries to preserve the approbation of the Pope, who had ceased to be accustomed to the language of independence. As their feelings for Pius the Ninth animated them with the desire to be surpassed by no one in their devotion to his cause, so they were forced to sacrifice their better convictions on the Roman question, in order to save the last remnant of their independence as Catholics. But the weakness of such compromises, injuring truth in the interest of utility, gives strength to the adversary. In a very different way, self-conscious and consistent, did the Ultramontane party, with the Civiltà Cattolica at its head, move on to the goal for which it was striving, and showed to the world, in 1864, how nearly it had reached it. The Encyclical appeared. Montalembert wrote to one of his oldest friends:
I was at Paris when the Encyclical appeared, and I can only compare the general consternation of honest men to that which reigned among them on the morrow of the catastrophe of February. . . . C- was my consolation during the first days which followed the Encyclical, but I was less in want of it then than now, for reflection and solitude have only served to aggravate my sorrows.29
A Curtius was ready to sacrifice himself for the ill-advised Pope, and this Curtius was Dupanloup. Down to the very last the Nessus shirt of temporal power was to remain inseparable from all the great and vital questions of this pontificate, and Dupanloup, in his new work, masked his interpretation of the Encyclical by an attack upon the convention of the 15th of September.30 L'Evêque a fait un tour de force,' Montalembert again wrote, mais ce n'est que cela ; c'est le chef d'œuvre du subterfuge éloquent. Il a voulu nous sauver, et il a fait pour cela un effort surhumain, sans compter qu'il y a dans son écrit des pages vraiment pathétiques et généreuses.31
In England, Germany, and even America, the sincerely liberalminded part of the Catholic writers and journalists did not fail to see the uselessness of making any further efforts under these circumstances. In France alone they shut their eyes to a fact evident to every one, and the Correspondant continued to appear, just as if no change had taken place in the mental atmosphere of the Catholic world.
The struggles, fears, and dangers endured in common by Montalembert and Dupanloup tended to knit them together in the most intimate friendship. In the years 1863 and 1865 they succeeded by
29 Letter dated La Roche-en-Breny, January 30, 1865.
* Dupanloup, La Convention du 15 septembre et l'Encyclique du 8 décembre,
Montalembert, letter of January 30, 1865.
their united strength, at the Catholic Congress at Malines, in winning their last battle, and once more shed the lustre of their brilliant talents on the union of liberty and the Church. Soon afterwards, Montalembert was struck down by mortal illness, but his friend continued the combat against the excesses of fanatics, the reform of education of the Imperial Government, the Christology of his former pupil Renan, the Positivism of Littré, the result of the policy of Cavour, and not less eagerly against the want of all policy on the part of the Emperor.
As soon as one organ in the Press was used up for his object, for instance the Ami de la Religion, which he had taken up in 1848, he seized upon another; when the Empire was trying the effect of liberal reforms in 1869, he started the Français, and subsequently, after the catastrophes of 1870-71, made for himself a more pliable instrument in the Défense Sociale et Religieuse.
In the wear and tear of so active a life, which was sacrificed daily and hourly to the pressing wants of the moment, there was no time for serious study or continuous scientific work. The Bishop was always hastening from one threatened point to another, and was constantly in the breach, and in this way powers however great could not but finally be dissipated. Thus he had grown sixty-seven years old, when the greatest and most difficult task of his life came upon him. The Council was summoned. Undoubtedly Dupanloup wished and recommended the meeting of a general council. His frequent private journeys to Rome, where he had a number of friends, as well as the solemn occasions on which Pius the Ninth assembled the Episcopate, led him into intimate intercourse with the Pope. The Pontiff always received the most brilliant of his defenders in the most affectionate manner. But whether he ever took him into his confidence may well be doubted from the fact, that Dupanloup looked above all to the Council, to reconcile those differences which he still designated as 'misunderstandings' on the eve of its assembling. Notwithstanding this, however, since 1867 he could scarcely have remained in doubt as to the object of this Council. The personal infallibility of the Pope, claimed in the first encyclical of Pius the Ninth,32 practically tested by the dogmatic definition of 1854, and taught in the new Catechisms, was already in 1867 on the very point of obtaining its recognition from the bishops then present in Rome. The Archbishop of Kalocza and the Bishop of Orleans were amongst those who frustrated this attempt, by inserting the definition of the Council of Florence into the address to Pius the Ninth.33 On the 6th of February, 1869, the Civiltà Cattolica published a correspondence from France, in which it was pointed out that the task of the Council would be, to raise into dogmas the doctrines of
32 Of November 9, 1846.
"Friedberg: Aktenstücke zum Concil, pp. 64, 217. VOL. V.-No. 24.