Documentary Exposition

Of tliC

Rupture of Diplomatic Relations

between

Che Roly See

and tbe

Trench Government

ilntrrnatumal (Eatljnlir Qlntttj §>ortetu

ARBUCKI^K BUIIyDING

BROOKIyYN-NKW YORK CITY

Cable Address : “ Veritas,” New York

Price, 5 cents



%



AtQ009/

DOCUMENTARY EXPOSITION

OF THE

RUPTURE OF DIPLOMATIC

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

THE HOLY SEE

AND THE

FRENCH GOVERNMENT

ilntmuttiimal (Eatfjnlir (ttrutfj

SrnnklQjt, N. f

.

1004





Introduction

(Contents.
Page

.. 6

Documents.

I. The Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office to the Bishop of

Laval (Rome, Jan. 26, 1900) 14

II. The Bishop of Laval to His Holiness Leo XIII. (Laval,

Feb. 2, 1900) 14

III.^The Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office to the Bishop of
Laval (Rome, May 17, 1904) 15

IV. The Charge d’ Affaires of France to His Eminence the

Cardinal Secretary of State (Rome, June 3, 1904) 16

V. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Apostolic Nuncio in

France (Rome, June 10, 1904 17

VI. The Bishop of Laval to the Holy Father (Laval, June 24,
1904 21

VII. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Bishop of Laval

Rome, July 2, 1904 22

VIII. The Bishop of Laval to His Eminence the Cardinal Sec-
retary of State (Laval, July 6, 1904 23

IX. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Bishop of Laval

(Rome, July 10, 1904) 24

X. The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence the

Cardinal Secretary of State (Rome, July 23, 1904 25

XI. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Charge d’Affaires

of France (Rome, July 26, 1904) 27

XII. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Apostolic Nuncio

in Paris (Rome, March 10, 1904, 8.30 p. m.) 31

XIII. The Apostolic Nuncio at Paris to the Bishop of Dijon

(Paris, March 11, 1904) 31

XIV. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Bishop of Dijon

(Rome, April 24, 1904), 31

XV. The Bishop of Dijon to His Eminence the Cardinal Sec-
retary of State (Dijon, May 3, 1904) 32

XVI. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Bishop of Dijon

(Rome, July 9, 1904) 33

XVII. The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence the

Cardinal Secretary of State (Rome, July 15, 1904) 34

XVIII. The Bishop of Dijon to His Eminence the Cardinal

Secretary of State (Paris, July 19, 1904) 35

XIX. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Bishop of Dijon
(Rome, July 22, 1904) 38

XX. The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence the
Cardinal Secretary of State (Rome, July 23, 1904) 39

XXI. The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Charge d’Affaires
of France (Rome, July 26, 1904) 41

XXII. The Concordat of 1801 between Pius VII. and the
French Government (Paris, July 5, 1801) 45

XXIII. The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence the
Cardinal Secretary of State (Rome, July 30, 1904) 48

XXIV. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of France to the Apos-
tolic Nuncio at Paris (Paris, July 30, 1904) 48





Note.

'“pHE International Catholic Truth Society believes
*

that it will confer a real service upon its members

and the public generally by publishing the entire corre-

spondence between the Vatican and the French Govern-

ment in the affair of the Bishops of Laval and Dijon.

A careful perusal of these letters will convince the fair-
minded reader that not only is the Holy See free from

blame in the rupture of diplomatic relations with France,

but all praise and admiration are due to the Vatican for

its defense of Christian morals. Non-Catholic editors,

who are not slow to call attention to moral delinquencies

in the Catholic Church, might be supposed to applaud the

Holy See for its efforts to remove all obstacles to the

spiritual welfare of its children, the incumbents in the

Sees of Laval and Dijon. Instead, we have witnessed a

general tendency to throw odium upon the Vatican by

representing its action in these cases as a sort of petty

reprisal for recent acts on the part of the French Govern-

ment. Let the reader judge from the text of the corre-

spondence whether political considerations or the sacred

cause of morality actuated the Holy See in asking for

the resignation of the Bishops of Laval and Dijon.



Stttrnimrtton.

S
EVERAL times, particularly during the past months,
some members of the present French cabinet mani-

fested a determination to gradually bring about a rupture

of relations with the Holy See. A decisive step in this
direction was the leave or the recall of the Ambassador

from Rome. Finally, then, taking as a pretext certain

letters which, by order of the Holy Father in the fulfill-

ment of the duties incumbent upon his apostolic ministry,

were directed to the Bishops of Laval and Dijon, the

French Government, in spite of the satisfactory explana-

tions and benevolent dispositions of the Holy See, judged

opportune the moment to break off diplomatic relations

with the same. On which side is the right in the develop-

ment of events which lead to this result will appear evident

from a true and documentary exposition of facts. The

responsibility for such exposition and publication of the

various documents which the Holy See out of delicacy

would willingly have preferred to keep entirely secret

were it not necessary to put things in their true light,

rests upon those who have rendered the same inevitable.

From the very beginning of his episcopate grave charges

of a nature purely ecclesiastical and altogether foreign to

the political and religious questions agitated in France,

were made at Rome against Monsignor Geay, Bishop of

Laval. After an investigation these charges appeared

such that the Holy Father desired the Sacred Congrega-

tion of the Holy Office (Docum. I) to. counsel the above

bishop to voluntarily resign his diocese, as it was no longer

possible for him to govern the same with sufficient au-

thority or efficiency. By so doing he would have saved



The Holy See and the French Government. 7

both himself and the Holy See the pain of a trial with

accompanying scandals, and, on the other hand, he would

have been in a position to easily save his own reputation

by covering up his resignation with some plausible excuse.

Monsignor the Bishop accepted at first the counsel given

him (Docum. II)
;
but immediately afterwards appended

to his resignation the condition that he be transferred to

another diocese, no matter if it be, as he said, the last in

France.

The charges, however, which were made against Mon-

signor Geay did not arise from local or external difficul-

ties, but were of an entirely personal nature, and hence

rendered impossible the acceptance of such a condition.

With that patience which is characteristic of the Church

and also in the hope that the future would make the past

forgotten, the Holy See delayed for four years, but this

patience and this hope were in vain
;
the charges became

such as to permit no further delay, nor was the situation

changed by a brief visit to Rome of Monsignor Geay in

1900, which did not permit the Holy See to proceed to

a formal trial. Hence the Sacred Congregation of the

Holy Office, by order of the Holy Father, wrote again,

and in the same tenor, the 17th of May, of the present

year (Docum. Ill), repeating the counsel given, and

adding that, if in the space of a month he did not resign

his diocese, the Sacred Congregation would be under the

necessity of proceeding further, according to the prescripts

of the sacred canons.

The bishop took the liberty to communicate this letter,

of its nature secret, to the French Government, which,

in a note of June 3 (Docum. IV), demanded its with-

drawal, supposing that the Sacred Congregation intended

to proceed to the deposition of the bishop, provided the

resignation did not take place within the space of a month.



8 The Holy See and the French Government.

The Holy See in a dispatch sent to the Papal Nuncio,

ioth of June (Docum. V), a copy of which was given

and left with Signor Delcasse, hastened to give the most

ample explanations, declaring that the words progredi ad

ulteriora, which were read in the cited letter of May 17

as well as in the preceding letter of January 26, 1900,

according to the phraseology peculiar to the Sacred Con-

gregation of the Holy Office, did not signify any intention

to depose the accused from his office or to inflict upon him

any other disciplinary penalty, but only to submit him to

a regular process according to the sacred canons. Hence,

in other words, the Sacred Congregation in the cited letter

merely said to the bishop that, if, within the space of a

month, he had not followed the counsel given him to

resign of his own free will, he would have been called to

Rome and invited to defend and justify himself from all

the charges made against him. If the bishop succeeded

in refuting them, the Holy Father would have been most

happy to proclaim his innocence; in the hypothesis then

of a deposition or of a voluntary resignation the concordat

would have been scrupulously observed on the part of the

Holy See.

These explanations seemed to satisfy the Minister; at

all events they had no reply and hence the Holy See, with

reason, considered them accepted. For the rest, the Papal

Nuncio had on various occasions informd the French

Government, both during the present and the preceding

ministry, of the painful situation in the diocese of Laval,

insisting upon the necessity of applying some remedy.

In the meantime Monsignor Geay directed a letter to

the Holy Father under date of June 24 (Docum. VI), in

which, without making any reference to that of May 17

and of the communication given to the government, an-

nounced that he was to come in the month of October,



The Holy See and the French Government. 9

not having yet collected, as he said, all the Peter’s Pence

which he desired to bring personally, and his traveling

companion being an old man of seventy-five years, Mon-

signor Chartier, a Canon of the Cathedral. The answer

to this letter can be read in Docum. VII
;
the bishop re-

plied as in Docum. VIII
;
and finally the Cardinal Secre-

tary of State in a letter of the ioth of July (Docum. IX),

communicated to him the order of the Holy Father and

of the Sacred Congregation to be present in Rome the

20th day of the same month; adding to it the penalty

usual in such cases and demanded by the grave obligation

of obedience, that is, suspension, ipso facto

,

and without

need of further declaration, ab exercitio ordinis et juris-

dictionis; a penalty which was to be inflicted only in case

of disobedience and which ceased by the very act of

obedience. So that the Bishop of Laval, conformably to

the explanations given to the French Government, was

called to Rome solely in order to give explanations of his

conduct and to justify himself if possible from the grave

charges laid against him.

So much for the Bishop of Laval; the case of Mon-

signor Le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon, is similar.

Against him were also made to the Holy See serious

charges of a purely ecclesiastical nature which were caus-

ing disturbances in his diocese. Among these we should

not omit to mention a fact known to everybody, namely,

that some young seminarians in February past refused to

receive ordination at his hands, preferring to be expelled

from the seminary together with almost all of their col-

leagues. A delay of the sacred ordinations was neces-
sary; the Cardinal Secretary of State then by a dispatch

of March io (Docum. XII) requested the Papal Nuncio

to inform the Bishop of Dijon of the wish of the Holy

Father that he suspend sacred ordinations until further

orders. The Nuncio wrote in this sense to Monsignor

Le Nordez under date of March n (Docum. XIII).



10 The Holy See and the French Government.

This letter of Monsignor Lorenzelli was communicated

to the French Government; which in a note of July 15
(Docum XVII) declared that it held the same null and
void, because in substance it was opposed to the

concordat, and in form irregular, since the Pontifical

Nuncio had no right to correspond directly with French

bishops. Now it is scarcely necessary to point out that a
merely prudential measure, demanded by the circum-

stances and imposing no penalty recognized by Monsignor

Le Nordez himself as perfectly just and opportune, is not

and cannot be opposed to the concordat. Moreover, that

the Nuncio cannot correspond directly with French bish-

ops is something which the Holy See has never admitted,

and, in fact, has never been observed.

The painful incident of the sacred ordinations suffi-

ciently revealed the abnormal situation existing in the

diocese of Dijon. For that reason the Cardinal Secre-

tary of State by order of the Holy Father requested Mon-
signor Le Nordez to present himself in Rome as soon as
possible

(pregandolo a prevenirlo del suo arrivo, append

avesse determinate) il giorno della sua partensa), not in-

deed to be deposed or to receive any other disciplinary

penalty, but only, as in the case of the Bishop of Laval, to

justify and defend himself from the charges which were

made against him, and which would be made known to

him in their entirety. Monsignor Le Nordez replied that

towards the middle of the coming month of June he would

place himself at the disposition of the Holy Father.

(Docum. XV).

The entire month of June having gone by to no result,

the Cardinal Secretary of State, by order of the Holy

Father, in a letter of July 9 (Docum. XVI), commanded

him to come within the space of fifteen days under penalty

of suspension lata sentential ab exercitio ordinis et juris-



11The Holy See and the French Government.

dictionis. In the case of the Bishop of Dijon, as
also in

that of the Bishop of Laval, the penalty thus held
only in

case of contumacy and immediately ceased in
case of

obedience.

Monsignor Le Nordez communicated this command to

the government, compelled, as he affirmed, to do so
by the

government itself ; and replied with the letter
of July 19

(Docum. XVIII), directed to the Cardinal Secretary
of

State. The latter answered on July 22 (Docum.
XIX)

;

hence it is evident what little foundation is there
in the

reproach made to the Cardinal Secretary of State of hav-

ing written a fresh letter to the Bishop of Dijon
whilst

the notes of July 23 were yet pending.

The French Government in these threatening notes

(Docum. X and XX) repeated that it considered null and

void the letter of March 11, sent by Monsignor Lorenzelli

to the Bishop of Dijon, and demanded the recall of
the

letters which the Cardinal Secretary of State
had ad-

dressed on July 9 to the Bishop
of Dijon and on July 2

and 10 to the Bishop of Laval, holding them injurious
to

the rights of the Power with which the Holy See
had

signed the concordat and contrary to the concordat
itself.

But, in the first place, bearing in mind the legitimate
dis-

tinction between the concordat and the so-called
organic

articles

,

which are a one-sided act of the French Govern-

ment against which the Holy See has always
protested,

it is easy to prove the inexactness of
this position, it being

impossible to find any opposition whatsoever
between the

above-mentioned letters and any article of the concordat

(Docum. XXII). In order to prove that the
Holy See

sanctioned implicitly the organic articles,
together with

the concordat, it is customary to cite the
words of the first

article of the concordat : “Cultus publicus erit
habita tamen

ratione ordinationurn quoad politiam, quas gubernium
pro



12 The Holy See and the French Government.

publica tranquillitate necessarias existimabit
,,—regulations

(
ordinazioni

)
which would be precisely the organic arti-

cles. But the plain sense of the words cited as well as the

whole history of the concordat of 1801 prove beyond all

doubt that these words refer solely to measures of police

for the good order and public exercise of religion. Be-

sides, the Holy See, as shown a little before, had good

reason to believe that the government accepted the ex-

planations given in the letter of June io and thereby ad-

mitted the calling of Monsignor Geay to Rome to defend

himself
;

so far as the threatened suspension was con-

cerned, it could present no difficulty, inasmuch as it, as

already stated, could take place only in case of contumacy

and during the continuance of the same, it being the cus-

tom to annex such penalty not only to similar personal

summons, but also to general laws very well known to the

French Government, which had never before raised any

difficulty thereupon. Finally it is difficult to understand

how the French Government could logically deny to the

Holy See without previous agreement the right to counsel

a bishop to voluntarily resign his diocese or to forbid him

the performance of an act of his ministry as a purely

prudential measure demanded by circumstances or to sum-

mon him to Rome even under provisional penalty to jus-

tify himself from serious charges, whilst it (the govern-

ment), without any understanding with the Holy See, took

to itself the right to suppress the salary due the bishops

by explicit disposition of the fourteenth article of the con-

cordat. On the other hand, the recall of the letters spoken

of would have meant the subordination of the Pontifical

authority over the French episcopate to the will of the

government, as well as the complete surrender of all ponti-

fical authority over the bishops of France; hence the Holy

Father was utterly unable to accede to the demand of the



The Holy See and the French Government. 13

government without failing in the mission confided to

him by the Divine Redeemer over the entire Church.

The Holy See made this known in the conciliatory and

kindly answers to the French notes of July 23 (Docum.

XI and XXI), showing itself for the sake of conciliation

not averse to prolonging for a month the term assigned to

the two bishops, provided these in the meantime came to

Rome to defend themselves, and in case of refusal or

inability to justify themselves the government would be

disposed to treat with the Holy See in order to provide

for the administration of the diocese. All was in vain.

(Docum. XXIII and XXIV).

History will say that the French Government broke off

civil diplomatic relations with the Holy See, because the

latter, acting entirely within the limits of its competency

and after having notified the same government, summoned

two bishops to clear themselves from the grave charges

made against them.



14 The Holy See and the French Government.

Document I.

His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office

to Monsignor Bishop of Laval.

Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir:

Many things have of late been brought to the attention
of His Holiness which, supported by reliable testimony,

clearly show that Your Lordship can no longer discharge

the episcopal ministry with becoming authority and effi-

ciency. His Holiness, reflecting upon these things with

heartfelt grief in the presence of the Lord, for your own

welfare and that of the flock committed to your care, has

commanded me in his name and by his authority to
invite you to resign at the earliest possible opportunity,

willingly and freely, the care and rule of your diocese.

If this be done, strict silence will be religiously observed

in the whole matter to protect the honor of your name

and character. I earnestly beseech that the affair may

thus proceed, lest, which may God avert, it be necessary

to take further measures (ad ulteriora progredi).

While, therefore, with pain and grief I discharge the

commands of the supreme authority and beg from Your

Lordship a prompt reply, I salute you in the Lord.

L. M. Card. Parocchi.

Rome, January 26, 1900.

Document II.

The Bishop of Laval to His Holiness Leo XIII.

Holy Father:

I have the honor to place in the hands of Your Holi-

ness my resignation of the See of Laval.

Prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, I beg you to

accept the expression of my respectful and filial gratitude.

Peter Joseph, Bishop of Laval.

Laval, February 2, 1900.



The Holy See and the French Government. 15

Document III.

His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office

to Monsignor Bishop of Laval.

Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir:

On a former occasion letters were given to Your Lord-
ship by which in the name of the Holy See you were

invited to resign willingly the care and rule of the diocese

committed to you. Since, therefore, the very grave rea-

sons for this action yet obtain in their entirety, at com-

mand of their Eminences the Cardinals, together with

the Inquisitors General, I am obliged to repeat that invi-

tation in express terms, earnestly begging that you will

not make it necessary for the Holy Congregation to take

further steps (ad progrediendum ad ulteriora), which

will certainly happen, quod Deus- averbat, unless you will

present yourself within a month from the date of these

letters. May God’s assistance be with you.

S. Card. Vanutelli.

Rome, May 17, 1904.



16 The Holy See and the French Government.

Document IV.

The Charge d’Affaires of France to the Cardinal

Secretary of State.

(Note.)

By a letter under date of May 17, 1904, and signed by
Cardinal Vanutelli, the Bishop of Laval has been invited

to resign his functions within the space of one month

under pain of grave measures.

The Government of the Republic is obliged to protest

against such action undertaken without its consent.

The Bishop of Laval has been regularly nominated

and appointed under the conditions provided by the 5th

article of the Concordat of July 15, 1801, which is thus

stated : “The nominations to Bishoprics which shall in

the course of time become vacant shall equally be made

by the First Consul
;
and the canonical institution will be

given by the Holy See.”

As with the nomination, so ought it be with the de-

privation and forced dismissal. The powers of a Bishop

cannot be conferred on him or withdrawn without a

decision of the Government of the Republic.

In exercising, therefore, without the knowledge of the

French Government and through the intermediary of

authority, which the French Government does not ac-

knowledge, an act of undisguised pressure on the Bishop

of Laval to compel him to hand in his resignation, the

Holy See assails the right which belongs to the State

under the 5th article of the Concordat. Therefore has

order been given to the undersigned to make known to

His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State that if

his letter of May 17 be not annulled the Government will

be led to take measures which such a derogation of the

pact that binds France and the Holy See demands.

The undersigned Charge d’Affaires of France embraces

this opportunity of assuring the Cardinal Secretary of

State of his deep respect. Robert de Courcel.

Rome, July 3, 1904.



17The Holy See and the French Government.

Document V.

His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State to Mon-

signor the Apostolic Nuncio in France.

Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir:

M. De Courcel by order of his government has for-

warded to me a note, copy of which is appended to the

enclosed sheet. Inasmuch as the affair concerns the

conduct of a bishop, the Holy Father desires that the

smallest possible number of persons be drawn into it,

and for this reason, instead of replying directly to M.

De Courcel, I hasten to furnish Your Excellency with

opportune explanations, which you are hereby authorized

to communicate to this Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In order to properly understand the sense and purport

of the letter addressed May 17, 1904, to Monsignor Geay,
Bishop of Laval, it is necessary to bear in mind the fol-

lowing considerations : No one is ignorant that the most
grave duty of the Roman Pontiff—a duty intimately con-
nected with his primacy of jurisdiction over the Catholic

Church—is to watch with tireless solicitude over the con-
duct of individual dioceses in the Catholic world, in order

to promote their progress in good, and prevent, where

necessary, spiritual decay. It is likewise known that in

the discharge of this important duty the Supreme Pontiff

is assisted by the Roman Congregations, among which

the first place is assigned to the Supreme Congregation

of the Holy Office, upon which devolves a most impor-

tant and vital responsibility in the Church—namely, that
©f protecting the integrity of faith and the purity of

morals among the clergy and in a particular manner

among the bishops. It is for this reason that this Con-

gregation is honored by having as Prefect the Supreme

Pontiff himself and a Cardinal as its Secretary.

As far back as the year 1899, by express order of the

Supreme Pontiff, Leo XIII., this Congregation of the

Holy Office was obliged to examine seriously the grave

charges against Monsignor Geay and the consequent re-

ligious and moral condition of his diocese. Examination

of the case quickly showed that only two courses of



18 The Holy See and the French Government.

action were possible—either a regular canonical proceed-
ing, not neglecting due consideration for the terms of the

Concordat, or an appeal to the conscience and personal

interests of the Bishop, inviting him to a free and spon-

taneous resignation. After mature consideration and

with the desire to avoid talk and scandal, and at the same

time to protect, as far as possible, the reputation of the

Bishop, and to spare him and the Holy See the affliction

of a canonical process in such a delicate matter, this latter

alternative was adopted, the more so because it would not

be difficult for Monsignor Geay to give plausible reasons

for his resignation.

Following this advice given him January 26, 1900, in the

name of Leo XIII., Monsignor Geay took the trouble to

answer in the following letter, dated from the Archdio-

cese of Bourges, February 2, 1900:

“Most Holy Father.—I have the honor to place in the
hands of Your Holiness my resignation from the see of
Laval. Prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, I beg you

to accept the expression of my respectful and filial devo-
tion.”

Thus it seemed the time had arrived for the Holy See

to treat of the matter with the French Government in

compliance with the Concordat
;
but, unfortunately, the

above letter was followed by several others, all intended

to show that the resignation was conditional
,
or subject

to a transfer to another diocese in France, though it

should be the humblest and poorest, as he said.

It was impossible to grant the wish of Monsignor Geay,

inasmuch as the determination to have him resign was

not at all dictated by local or external difficulties, but by

private and personal reasons which were calculated to

besmirch the dignity and reputation of the Bishop.

It was, therefore, decided to repeat the advice
;
but, in

accordance with the patience and indulgence of the Holy

See, there was a delay in reopening the matter in the hope

that perhaps Monsignor Geay would have recognized for

himself his fatal and painful situation in the See of Laval.

When this hope failed, the present Pontiff, Piux X.,

moved solely by a sense of the duty belonging to the

Supreme Apostolate and mindful of the account he should



The Holy See and the French Government. 19

have to give to God, ordered the Sacred Congregation of

the Holy Office to resume the painful subject, and hence

the letter of May 17 last.
The tenor of this letter is altogether similar to that of

the other one sent January 26, 1900; only it adds that if

the Bishop did not follow the advice to resign within a

month, the Sacred Congregation would be obliged to take

further measures
(
progredi ad ulteriora). In the phrase-

ology used by the Sacred Congregation, the expression

progredi ad ulteriora does not signify, as the French Gov-

ernment seems to believe, that if the bishop did not resign

within a month he would be at once deposed, or deprived

of his diocese, or otherwise punished. It merely means

that if the resignation did not take place the Sacred Con-

gregation would be obliged to adopt the first alternative

mentioned above—namely, it would have to call Monsignor
Geay to Rome that he might obtain exact knowledge of the
various charges which were made against him in the

moral and ecclesiastical order, and give the case all the

explanation he might deem necessary and calculated to

give the judges complete information. If Monsignor

Geay succeeded in clearing himself entirely in this trial,

so hard on himself and the Holy See, he would return to

his diocese without any reproof whatever
;

if, on the con-

trary, the charges against him were proved in whole or in

part, the situation would become much more serious and

troublesome.

I trust that this authentic explanation of the views and

facts may modify the severe judgments of M. Delcasse

concerning the letter of May 17. To find in the proceed-
ing used toward the Bishop of Laval any violation of the

Concordat agreement, one would have to maintain that

the French bishops were become by virtue of that Con-

cordat mere state officials, entirely freed from those bonds

which bind through the divine institution the Catholic

episcopate with the Supreme Head of the Church, so that

the Roman Pontiff could not, even in the face of serious

moral and religious reasons, without the previous consent

of the government, either advise a bishop to resign freely

and of his own accord for his own personal good and to

the advantage of his diocese, or call him to Rome to clear



2© The Holy See and the French Government.

himself of charges made against him. Everyone can see

how far this would be opposed to the truth; it would

amount to saying that the French bishops were placed

outside the Catholic Church by the Concordat.

I am sorry to have had to enter into details which af-
fect the good name of a bishop, and I have done so only

after having received a special dispensation from the Holy

Father from the strict secrecy of the Holy Office, and

resting all the responsibility on Monsignor Geay, who

allowed himself to make public a letter in itself most pri-

vate. At the same time I feel confident that M. Delcasse,

unbiased as he is, will recognize in these explanations a

new token of the lively desire of the Holy Father to see

the friendly settlement of all the difficulties existing be-

tween the French Government and the Holy See. You

are authorized to permit him to read this dispatch, and, if

necessary, to leave him a copy of it.

With feelings, etc.

Rome, June io, 1904.

R. Card. Merry del Val.



The Holy See and the French Government. 21

Document VI.

The Bishop of Laval to the Holy Father.

Laval, June 24, 1904.

Holy Father: Permit one of your children, on the oc-

casion of the Festival of St. Peter, to express to you his

sentiments of profound veneration and absolute devotion,

together with pious wishes for your health and happiness.

As I had the honor, a few months ago, of writing to

Your Holiness, I entertain the hope of prostrating myself

soon at your feet and bearing to you the expression of my
filial devotion.

This year 1904 is that which naturally should bring me
to the Confessional of St. Peter, there to offer prayer and

to render to the Head of the Church an account of my
episcopal administration.

If I were to listen only to my heart's impatience I would
advance by months the date which I had fixed and pointed

out to Your Holiness. Before October, however, I shall

not have collected the full tribute of Peter's pence, which

I shall bear with me.

Moreover, as I am to be accompanied by one of my
chapter, Monsignor Chartier, an old man of seventy-five

years, he has entreated me to await the close of the

warm weather before undertaking the long journey.

In the meanwhile I pray Your Holiness to believe that

no bishop is better disposed to follow your instructions

than the humble Bishop of Laval, who has already suf-

fered for his scrupulous obedience to the commands of

Leo XIII. of happy memory. God has been pleased to

bless him in giving him the love of His entire people and

the persecution of those in power.

But, thanks to God, peace reigns and the name of Jesus

Christ is more and more glorified.

Deign, Holy Father, to accept the most filial expressions

of my homage, the most respectful devotion of one of the

bishops of France.

Peter Joseph, Bishop of Laval .



22 The Holy See and the French Government.

Document VII.

His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State to

Monsignor Bishop of Laval.

Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir: The Holy Father,

having received the letter which your lordship directed to

him on the 24th of last June, has ordered me to communi-
cate it to the Supreme Congregation of the Sacred Office

of which he is Prefect
;
and their Eminences the Cardinals

Inquisitors General in the Congregation of June 30 have

issued the following decree, which was afterwards ap-

proved in audience by His Holiness : “Raspondendum per

coninentissundse Cardinalem a Secretes Status fixta

mentem, idest.”

The Holy Father is sadly surprised to learn from the

letter of Monsignor Geay that he has not yet obeyed the in-

junctions of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy

Office, that he has failed to give them sufficient atten-

tion
;
his dispositions remaining unchanged, you will in-

vite him to come to Rome within fifteen days from date

of letter to present himself formally before the above-

named Sacred Tribunal to answer the various charges

brought against him under pain of suspension ( latce sen-

tentice) from the exercise of order and jurisdiction. This

censure will be incurred ipso facto , if, on expiration of

prescribed term, he shall not have acted.

Whilst discharging the duty committed to me by the

Holy Father through the Sacred Congregation, which is

the organ of his decrees in matters of importance, I em-

brace the opportunity, etc.

Rome, July 2, 1904.

R. Card. Merry del Val.



The Holy See and the French Government. 2>

Document VIII.

The Bishop of Laval to His Eminence the Cardinal

Secretary of State.

Laval, July 6, 1904.

Your Eminence: As is the duty of every French

bishop, I sent yesterday—5th of present month—with my
own hand to my government the letter which Your Emi-

nence did me the honor of writing in reply to that which

my filial love placed at the feet of the Holy Father.

I have, at the same time, asked the Minister of Public

Worship for authorization to go to Rome at once in con-

formity with the order of Your Holiness.

I regret to inform you that the said authorization has

been absolutely refused to me under the head of Article

20 of the law de germinal and under penalty of conse-

quences.

If Your Eminence has any objections to make in that

matter it will be well to address them to the French Gov-

ernment. I shall hold myself bound to what may be ar-

ranged between the latter and the Holy See.

I hope to send to you from here the greater part of the

Peter’s pence, which I would have been delighted to bear

in person.

Deign, most eminent sir, to accept my regrets and

humble homage.

^Peter Joseph, Bishop of Laval.



24 The Holy See and the French Government.

Document IX.

His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State to the

Bishop of Laval.

Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir: In consequence of

the letter sent by your most illustrious and reverend lord-

ship on the 6th of the current month, and in obedience to

the orders of the Holy See and of the S. R. and V. In-

quisition, I have the painful duty to call your attention to

the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” and warn you to con-

sult your conscience (“consulat conscientiae suae”) in con-

formity with the content of such document. Also, by

command of His Holiness and of the above-mentioned

Supreme Office, I hasten to again inform you of the de-

cree issued June 30 by the above-mentioned Sacred Con-

gregation with regard to you and to enjoin you to present

yourself at Rome on the 20th day of the current month,

notify you as well that, in case you allow this time limit

to expire without result, you will incur, without need of

further declaration, suspension latce sententite ab exercitio

ordinis et jurisdietionis.

Having fulfilled this disagreeable duty, I pass, etc.

Rome, July 10, 1904.

R. Card. Merry del Val.



The Holy See and the French Government. 25

Document X.

The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence the

Cardinal Secretary of State.

(Note.)

In reply to the note sent on the 3d of last June to His

Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State protesting in

the name of the government of the republic against the

injunction addressed by the Holy See to the Bishop of

Laval, asking him to resign his functions within the space

of one month, His Excellency the Nuncio Apostolic gave

to M. Delcasse the following explanations, confirmed by

him a few days later in communicating the text of the

letter under date June 10, which he had received on the

subject from Monsignor Merry del Val.

The notice forwarded to the Bishop of Laval did not

mean, according to Monsignor Lorenzelli, that if that

prelate did not resign with the space of one month

measures would be taken to depose him without further

formality. It meant solely that if the suggested renun-

ciation did not become realized the Congregation of the

Sacred Office would find itself obliged to bring Monsignor

Geay to Rome, there to justify himself against the im-

putations brought against him.

The Cardinal Secretary of State repelled the charge of

wishing, “without observing the Concordat,” to engage in

a procedure that could lead to the suspension of a bishop

or to his deposition. And His Eminence added that he

felt confident it would be seen “in the explanations

given a fresh assurance of the ardent desire of the Holy

See to see all the difficulties existing between the French

Government and the Holy See amicably settled.”

Contrary to these assurances, His Eminence the Cardi-

nal Secretary of State wrote directly on July 2 to the

Bishop of Laval, threatening him with suspension if,

within fifteen days, he did not present himself in Rome
before the Tribunal of the Sacred Office. And as the

Bishop of Laval had not acquiesced, he received a new

letter dated from the office of Secretaryship of State of

His Holiness on the 10th of this month, and signed by

Merry del Val, telling him that, if he did not present him-



26 The Holy See and the French Government.

self in Rome on the 20th of July at the latest, he would
thereby incur, no further declaration being required, sus-

pension latce sententice from the exercise of order and

jurisdiction.

After the notice contained in the above-mentioned note

of the 3d of last June, and as the charges made against

the Bishop of Laval go back several years, it is impossible

to mistake the nature of these urgent and repeated sum-

monses.

In calling directly to Rome, and without the knowledge

of the government, a bishop who in his character of ad-

ministrator of a diocese derives authority from the Min-

ister of Worship, the Holy See took no cognizance of the

right of the power with which it signed the Concordat.

In threatening this bishop, if he go not to Rome, with

pain of suspension, and in warning him that if he did not

present himself in Rome on July 20 at the latest he

would thereby and without need of further declaration

incur suspension lat sententi from order and jurisdic-

tion, the Holy See disregarded the disposition of the Con-

cordat, from which it results that a bishop cannot be sus-

pended or deposed without the consent of the two authori-

ties contributed to its creation.

Such attitude dictates the conduct of the Government

of the Republic. For this reason the undersigned has

been ordered to declare to His Eminence, the Cardinal

Secretary of State, that if his letters of the 2d and 10th of

July to the Bishop of Laval be not withdrawn, if execu-

tion be given to the threats which have been expressed,

the French Government shall be led to understand that

the Holy See is no longer solicitous about her relations

with the power, which, fulfilling the obligations of the

Concordat, is bound to defend the prerogatives which the

Concordat confers upon it.

And the Government of the Republic leaves to the Holy

See the responsibility for the measures which it shall be

forced to adopt.

The undersigned Charge d’Affaires of France takes

this opportunity to assure His Eminence, the Cardinal

Secretary of State, of his lofty consideration.

Rome, July 23, 1904. Robert de Courcel.



The Holy See and the French Government. 27

Document XI.

His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State, to the

Charge d’Affaires of France.

(Note.)

The undersigned Cardinal Secretary of State has not

failed to give his whole attention to the note under date

of the 23d of the present month of July with which the

Charge d*Affaires of France, after having noted the ex-

planations contained in the dispatch sent to the Nuncio

at Paris (June 10), as well as the directions given July 2

and 10 to the Bishop of Laval, observes that the Holy See

by calling to Rome a bishop without the knowledge of the

government, '‘disregards the rights of the power, together

with which it had signed the Concordat,” and by menacing

the bishop with threat of suspension in case he did not

come to Rome, "disregards the dispositions of the Con-

cordat, according to which a bishop cannot be suspended

or deposed without the mutual agreement of the two au-

thorities which contributed to create him.” After these

statements the Charge d’Affaires, in the name of his gov-

ernment, declares that if the two above-mentioned letters

directed to Monsignor Geay be not withdrawn, and if the

threats therein contained be carried out, "the French

Government would feel bound to consider that the Holy

See no longer has interest in the relations with the power,

which, in the fulfillment of the obligations of the Con-

cordat, is in duty bound to defend the prerogatives con-

ferred upon it by the Concordat.

In order to properly answer these observations it will

be useful to give a short exposition of the exact state of

the question.

For reasons of a nature strictly ecclesiastical and alto-

gether foreign to the political questions which are agitated

in France, the Holy Father in the fulfillment of the duties

incumbent upon his apostolic ministry over the whole

Church, judged it opportune to counsel the Bishop of

Laval to voluntarily resign his see, since in such way he

would have spared himself and the Holy See the pain of

further procedure.

Bishop Geay, not heeding this prudent and fatherly ad-

vice, repeated several times, the Holy See made known



28 The Holy See and the French Government.

to him that it found itself under the imperative necessity

to call him to Rome, so that he might make the necessary

explanations of the grave charges that were brought

against him. There was no question, therefore, of depo-

sition, in which case the Holy See would have informed

the government; nor was there question of other punish-

ments, but a simple call to Rome to justify himself. If
he had come to Rome, he would have been made acquaint-

ed with the charges brought against him, with full liberty

to examine them and defend himself
;
and if he succeeded

in refuting them the Holy See would have been most

happy to proclaim the baselessness of the charges.

All this the Holy See formally set forth in the telegram

sent to the Papal Nuncio at Paris the ioth of June, which

was read by him and a copy of same sent to M. Delcasse

in answer to the note of the 3d of the same month, which

had been referred to the Cardinal Secretary by the French

Charge d’Affaires. The explanation given seemed to sat-

isfy the Minister; certainly no answer was made to it,

and so the Ploly See rightfully considered that it was

accepted. Moreover, the Nuncio at different times had

brought to the attention of the government, both under

the preceding and under the present ministry, the sad

condition of the Diocese of Laval, showing the necessity

of remedying that condition. This being the state of

affairs, and always with the intention above indicated of

giving him a chance to justify himself, the order to betake

himself to Rome was sent to Bishop Geay, together with

the canonical penalty demanded by the gravity of his duty

of obeying, a penalty that is added only in case of con-

tumacy, and which ceases with the act of obedience. In

the above-mentioned dispatch of the ioth of June to the

Nuncio, the Cardinal Secretary said that certainly, on the

supposition that proceedings were instituted, the require-

ments of the Concordat would not be neglected. This

referred to the hypothesis of deposition or spontaneous

resignation, and not that the Holy See would refrain from

calling to Rome Bishop Geay, obliging him in conscience

to obey even with the threat of canonical punishment.

To this are to be referred also the letters of the 2d and

ioth of July to the Bishop of Laval, of which the French



The Holy See and the French Government. 29

Government demands the withdrawal, judging them to be

violations of the Concordat; but it is easy to show the

inexactness of this judgment. In fact, in the first place,

the Concordat is altogether distinct from the later organic

articles
,
which are a one-sided act of the French Govern-

ment, against which articles the Holy See has never

ceased to protest; and in none of the seventeen articles

of the Concordat, whether we consider the spirit or the

letter of the articles, do we read that the Holy See can-

not, without the previous consent of the government,

advise a bishop to resign his see, for his own advantage

or the gain of his diocese, or to call him to Rome to

furnish an explanation of his conduct. The Holy Father

could not concede this without being wanting in his sacred

duties as Supreme Pastor of the Church, since if no one

questions that the bishops of France ought to have the

necessary relations with the government defined by the

Concordat, yet, as regards their jurisdiction, they depend

on the Roman Pontiff, who confers this jurisdiction on

them by means of canonical institution and maintains it

when conferred, and the Roman pontiff cannot make this

dependence subordinate to the consent of civil authority.

In fact, that the Roman Pontiff, even after the Concordat,

maintained his full authority over the bishops of France

appears clearly even from the solemn and special oath of

which the French Government is not ignorant, as it forms

part of the canonical institution which is united to the

Bulls, and with which the bishops bind themselves to

submissively receive and faithfully execute the injunc-

tions of the Roman Pontiff. Mandata apostolica humil-

iter recipiam et quam diligentissime exequar. And in

particular that the Pope, even after the Concordat, may

call to Rome, even under pain of incurring excommunica-

tion ipso facto

,

the bishops of France, to give an account

of their work, is confirmed by the well-known law, that

certainly the French Government knows, and that without

any consent of the government obliges the bishops of

France, as well as the bishops of the other countries of

Europe, under pain of excommunication, latce senteitice,

to betake themselves to Rome every four years, or at least
to send a representative for the purpose chiefly of making



30 The Holy See and the French Government.

known to the Pope the condition of their dioceses and of

receiving from him instruction, advice, commands. After

these considerations, it is to be hoped that the French

Government will be convinced that on the part of the Holy

See there has been no violation of the Concordat, and

that, animated by a spirit of equanimity, it will not insist

on a withdrawal of the letter in question, thus saving

France grave religious disturbances. This withdrawal,

in fact, would be equivalent to a complete abdication of

the authority of the Pope over the episcopate
;
an abdica-

tion that is not in the power of the Holy Father and can-

not be in the intention of the Government of the Republic.

Only to give a fresh proof of his conciliatory disposition

and to show that in all these painful happenings he is

moved always and only by a feeling of duty, the Holy

Father would not be unwilling to put off for one month

the date assigned to the Bishop of Laval, provided that

he, in the meantime, betake himself to Rome to justify

himself, and if he refuses to come or fails to justify him-

self, let the government show itself disposed to come to an

understanding with the Holy See in providing for the

administration of the diocese.

From this act of deference it can be easily seen how

much interested the Holy See is in maintaining cordial

relations with the Government of the Republic, relations

founded on the exact observances of the disposition of the

Concordat. The Holy Father, with a particular affection,

which, following the example of his illustrious predeces-

sor, he cherishes for the noble French nation, would view

with great sorrow, that the Government of the Republic,

for the sole purpose of impeding the course of justice in

the case of a bishop with the proper authorities, would

allow itself to undertake measures of hostility that are

not justified, for which the Holy See would not bear any

responsibility either before God or man.

The undersigned Cardinal Secretary of State in asking

the Charge d’affaires to bring all that has been written

above to the knowledge of his government, takes the op-

portunity of assuring him of the distinguished esteem in

which he holds him. R. Cardinal Merry del Val.

Rome, July 26, 1904.



The Holy See and the French Government. 31

Document XII.

His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State, to the

Papal Nuncio in Paris.

(Telegramme.)

Rome, March io, 1904, 8.30 P. M.

I beg Your Eminence to signify immediately to the

Bishop of Dijon that it is the wish of the Holy Father

that he suspend ordinations until further order. Send the

answer of the bishop. Card. Merry del Val.

Document XIII.

The Apostolic Nuncio at Paris to Monsignor Bishop of

Dijon.

Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Sir

:

Ordered by

the Holy Father, I hasten to make known to your lord-

ship, that the Holy See wishes, until further dispositions

are made, that you suspend ordinations. Always ready

either to transmit to Rome whatever message your lord-

ship may wish to send, or to serve you in any other way

that is in my power. With fraternal affection and esteem
I remain, Your most humble servant,

^Benedict Lorenzelli Arch Sard,

Apostolic Nuncio to France .

Paris, March 11, 1904.

Document XIV.

His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State, to the

Bishop of Dijon.

Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Sir: The Holy

Father has placed on me the duty of inviting your lord-

ship to come to Rome as soon as possible. In fulfilling

this revered commission of the Holy Father, I beg of you

to let me know of your coming as soon as you have fixed

the day of departure. Meanwhile I take this opportunity,

etc. R. Cardinal Merry del Val.

Rome, April 24, 1904.



32 The Holy See and the French Government.

Document XV.

The Bishop of Dijon to His Eminence, the Cardinal

Secretary of State.

Dijon, May 3, 1904.
Your Eminence: I have the honor to express to Your

Eminence the lively regret I experience in delaying my
answer to the letter I have received from you.

I wished, in fact, to add to my letter a report which
Your Eminence can show to the Holy Father, and I have

had to spend the last two days on it. On Saturday I
begin my round of confirmations; all the parishes are
ready, all the children are prepared, and the official an-

nouncement was made a month ago.

My absence and my departure for Rome would cause
great trouble, and the effect of it would be deeply re-

grettable, at this time particularly, when calm again reigns.

My visitation will end towards the middle of June, and I
will be then at the disposition of the Holy Father.

In the midst of the sufferings I have undergone my
thoughts have often turned to the Holy Father; I desire

most ardently to prostrate myself at his feet, and also, I

do not hide it, to make myself known to him. For has

not an attempt been made to turn him against me and to

depict me to him in colors that are not true?

I dare to beg Your Eminence to submit to His Holiness

the note that I append to this letter. If a month since I

wrote to His Grace, the Apostolic Nuncio at Paris, that I

desired to enlighten His Holiness by precise and sincere

report; I have been late in doing it. I beg Your Emi-

nence to accept the homage of my profound respect.

Albert, Bishop of Dijon .



The Holy See and the French Government. 33

Document XVI.

His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State, to the

Bishop of Dijon.

Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Sir: By order of

the Holy Father, I hasten to signify to your lordship that

His Holiness is sorrowfully surprised in seeing that your

lordship, after having promised to come to Rome after

the end of June, has not kept your word. His Holiness,

therefore, commands you to come to Rome within fifteen

days from the date of this letter, under pain of suspension,

latce sententice ab exercitio ordinis et jurisdictions
,
to be

incurred ipso facto as soon as the time has to no purpose

expired.

In fulfilling this Pontifical duty, I am, etc.

R. Card. Merry del Val.

Rome, July 9, 1904.



34 The Holy See and the French Government.

Document XVII.

The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence, the

Cardinal Secretary of State.

(Note.)

From information received by the President of the

Council, the Minister of the Interior and of Worship, of

which M. Combes has been obliged to and has been able

to verify the truthfulness, it seems that His Excellency,

the Apostolic Nuncio at Paris, has transmitted, on the

nth of March last, to the Bishop of Dijon, an order from

the Holy Father, to suspend ordinations in his diocese

until further notice.

The Government of the Republic is obliged to protest

against such an order given without its consent, for the

reason that every measure of this kind tends to diminish

the prerogatives of a bishop and to inflict on him in some

sort a partial deposition, and is in opposition to the Con-

cordat; and against the form of the order, since the

Nuncio of the Pope has not the right to correspond di-

rectly with the French bishops.

For this reason an order has been given to the under-

signed to make known to Your Eminence, the Cardinal

Secretary of State, that holding itself to the spirit and

the letter of the Concordat, the Government must con-

sider as null and as not having been sent the letter of

March n.

The Charge d’Affaires of France, the undersigned,

takes this occasion to assure His Eminence, the Cardinal

Secretary of State, of his highest consideration.

Robert De Courcel.

Rome, July 15, 1904.



The Holy See and the French Government. 35

Document XVIII.

The Bishop of Dijon to His Eminence, the Cardinal

Secretary of State.

Paris, July 19, 1904.

Your Eminence: I have received at the very end of

the north of France, where I was taking a rest, the letter

Your Eminence has addressed to me. It arrived July 12

at midday.

The day before its arrival, M. Bizouard, pastor of St.

Benignus of Dijon, the principal promoter of the troubles

of which my diocese, for the last seven months, has been
the theatre, declared to the priests of his deannery assem-

bled in conference, "that he had received a letter from the

Pope announcing that measures had been taken against

me,” and "from Your Eminence another letter, declaring

to him that the seminarians of my diocese need not worry
about their sacred orders which would be conferred upon

them in September in my cathedral by a strange bishop.”
I have not hesitated for an instant to consider as false

the sources of information alleged by M. Bizouard. But

I am astonished to see the decisions of the Holy See in my
case known to this ecclesiastic before they are made

known to me.

Some minor official has, without doubt, wrongfully

made the matter public
;
this is the source to which I at-

tribute the articles in the press, published in France during

the past eight days, and I have thought it wise to inform

Your Eminence of it. As for myself, I have kept secret

the letter I received from you.

Compelled by the French Government to give up this

letter, I believed I did not have the right to refuse. I

have revealed its contents this morning, passing through

Paris on my way to my diocese. I had the honor to write

to Your Eminence a little over two months ago. I am

anxious to place myself before the Holy Father, to pay to

him the debt of my profound respect, to assure His Holi-

ness of my attachment to the Holy See, which attachment



36 The Holy See and the French Government.

no person or thing can weaken. I am anxious to be
known by the Pope, because I am sure that half an hour
would suffice to gain his esteem, his confidence, and to

dispel the prejudices that hatred, lies and calumny have

inspired in His Holiness against me.

But after seven days of reflection before God, I feel it

my duty to declare to Your Eminence that I believe I
cannot go to Rome under the conditions under which I
have been invited.

I am deeply grieved. I see the evils that threaten the
Church in France, the deplorable complications that this

incident adds to the state of religion already so gravely

compromised. But I can do nothing.

For seven months I have been the object of attacks as

odious as they are scurrilous, on the part of some of the

priests of my diocese. They have stirred up against me
the young clerics of my seminary, devout young laymen
and pious and credulous women. They have recently used

lies, threats and money to induce the children to refuse, at

my hands, the sacraments of confirmation.
They have based their action on the accusation as hate-

ful as it is foolish, that I belonged to a society of which I

have never known even a member, and the name of which

I would even blush to write. I have remained silent. I

have borne everything calmly, awaiting the day of truth.

Because of this charge, my enemies have declared a thou-
sand times that I have been denounced to the Holy See,

and for the last six months they have been saying daily

that I was about to be deposed.

The Holy See has never, by the least word, made known

to me that an accusation of this nature was made against

me. I declared five months ago, through the Apostolic

Nuncio, that I was wholly at the disposition of the Pope

for all explanations and justification, but nothing was

asked of me.

Two months ago I had the honor, through the medium
of Your Eminence, to send to His Holiness a report in

which I dare to say neither clearness nor sincerity left

anything to be desired. I ended it by declaring myself

ready to add all the details that His Holiness could desire.

No one has yet asked for them.



The Holy See and the French Government. 3 7

To-day, Your Eminence, I received the order to go to

Rome, under pain of suspension from my See. And this
is the only communication which has been vouchsafed to

me, the only support that is given to me in the fight I am
patiently and bravely sustaining for the defence of justice

and of that episcopal character with which God and the

Holy See have clothed me. And all this is disclosed,
given to the press and to popular feeling to feed on.

How guilty must I then seem to be? How am I
judged as a bishop? My life of solitude, of labor, of
devotion to the Church and to my diocese, does it deserve
this condemnation? I dare to say that, in all France,

there is no bishop more strongly attached to the Holy See

than myself. Whoever will attack it will find me ready

for the defence. But must I, therefore, sacrifice my
person and my sacred character? No, this cannot be.
Falsehood cannot triumph thus. Piux X. is just and

good, as well as firm. He will not treat in this manner

a bishop such as I.

I await then, Your Eminence, a definite notification of

the censures with which I am threatened. Furthermore,

the Holy Father may rest assured that never will I hesi-

tate to give to my clergy an example of respect for au-

thority which I have so often preached to them.

I beg Your Eminence to accept the expression of my

sentiments of profound respect.

\[ ; ;
' ^Albert, Bishop of Dijon .



38 The Holy See and the French Government.

Document XIX.

His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State, to the

Bishop of Dijon.

Your Lordship: I have just received the letter which

your lordship wrote to me the 19th of the present month,
and immediately made its contents known to the Holy

Father. In the most formal manner, I can assure you

that the Holy Father has not written a single word to the

Abbe Bizouard, and I have never had any communica-

tion with him on the subject of the ordinations at Dijon.

If M. Bizouard has allowed himself to make the asser-

tions reported to you, he must answer for them to the

proper authorities.

But, Your Lordship, independently of all this, I am

charged by the Holy Father to again call your attention

to the extreme gravity of your present position. After

having been invited by the Holy Father to come to Rome
in the first half of the month of June, you promised to

present yourself here the latter part of last month, and

you told him that the delay was caused by reason of the

fact that your round of confirmations was already an-

nounced. You did not come, but you set out for Paris

and the north of France. The Holy Father waited until

the 9th of July, and then sent you the formal order, under

pain of suspension, to come to Rome within fifteen days.

Your lordship, you yourself have said that you com-

municated this letter to the government without taking

into account the requirement of the Bull “Apostolicae

Sedis.” You tell me, your lordship, that a half hour

would be enough to explain your position to the Holy

Father to gain his esteem, his confidence and to dispel the

prejudices that hatred, lying and calumny have inspired

in the Holy Father against you. You should have

granted him this half hour, particularly as the Pope called

you to him, but instead of obeying and keeping your

promise, you went to Paris. The Holy Father has not

pronounced any judgment on the facts brought to his

notice, and it is precisely because he did not wish to pass

judgment on them without hearing you and giving you a

chance to gain his confidence and dispel all these accusa-



The Holy See and the French Government. 39

tions, that he called you to Rome. You preferred to

remain in France, and to communicate to the civil au-

thority, an order which was addressed to you by the Holy

Office, in the name of the Holy Father himself. I am
charged by His Holiness to invite you to-day to do your

duty and to consult the welfare to your own conscience,

now particularly, since the allotted time is on the point

of expiring.

Your lordship declares “that there is not in all France

a bishop more strongly attached to the Holy See than

yourself,” and that “whoever attacks it will find you ready

for the defence.” The Holy Father does not wish to

doubt your statements, but will be compelled to do so if

you fail now in your duty. The notification that has been

given to you is definite. Permit me to add, monsignor,

on my own part, that I write to you with a heart much
afflicted, and that I would willingly have spared you this

letter could I have done so without disobeying orders.

I conjure you to act as a bishop, as a French bishop sin-

cerely attached to the Apostolic See, and not to add to the

bitterness that the heart of the Holy Father, at this mo-

ment, feels, that all share
;
a bitterness shared by all who

love the Church and France.

R. Cardinal Merry del Val.

Document XX.

The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence, the

Cardinal Secretary of State.

(Note.)

His Excellency, the Apostolic Nuncio at Paris, having

forwarded under date of March n past to the Bishop
of Dijon, an order of the Holy Father, to suspend ordina-

tions in that diocese until further advice, the under-

signed has made known to His Eminence, the Cardinal

Secretary of State, in a note of the 15th of this month,

that the Government of the Republic, holding to both the

spirit and letter of the Concordat, protested against such



40 The Holy See and the French Government.

action, taken without its consent, and feels obliged to

consider as null and void the letter of Monsignor Loren-

zelli under date of March n.

Despite this protest, His Eminence, the Cardinal Secre-

tary of State, renewed to M. Le Nordez, in a letter directly

addressed to him on July 9, in the name of the Holy

Father, the injunction to present himself at Rome within
the space of fifteen days from the receipt of this com-

munication, under pain of suspension, latce sententice ab

exercitio ordinis et jurisdiction™
,
to be incurred ipso facto

on the expiration of the time limit assigned.

In summoning directly to Rome and without the knowl-

edge of the government a bishop, who in his character as

the administrator of a diocese depends upon the Minister

of Worship, the Holy See disregards the rights of the

power with which it had conjointly signed the Concordat.

In enjoining upon this bishop to present himself at

Rome, within the space of fifteen days, under pain of

suspension, latce sententice ab exercitio ordinis et jurisdic-

tion™, to be incurred ipso facto upon the expiration of the

time assigned, the Holy See disregards the ruling of the

Concordat, according to which a bishop cannot be sus-

pended nor deposed without an agreement of the two

authorities who mutually contributed to create him.

A parallel atttitude directs the conduct of the Govern-
ment of the Republic.

For this reason the undersigned is ordered to declare to

His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State, that if

the letter of July 9, to the Bishop of Dijon, is not with-

drawn, if the case results in the threats therein expressed,

the French Government feels bound to consider that the

Holy See ignores his relations with the power which, in

fulfilling the obligations of the Concordat, is in duty

bound to defend the prerogatives conferred upon it by

the Concordat.

And the Government of the Republic leaves to the Holy

See the responsibility for the cause thus forced upon it.

The undersigned Charge d’Affaires of France takes

this occasion to assure His Eminence, the Cardinal Secre-

tary of State, of his highest esteem.

Rome, July 23, 1904.
Robert de Courcel.



41The Holy See and the French Government.

Document XXI.

The Cardinal Secretary of State to the Charge
d’Affaires

of France.

(Note.)

The undersigned Cardinal Secretary of State has
given

due attention to the note of the 23d of the
present month,

in which the Charge d’Affaires of France, after
having

noted the order given the Bishop of Dijon,
under date of

July 9, to present
himself in Rome, affirms that the Holy

See, by citing a bishop directly without
consulting the

government “ignores the rights of the power with
which

it made the Concordat,” and by threatening
the bishop

with suspension ignores the provision
of the Concordat,

according to which a bishop cannot be
suspended or de-

posed without the consent of both authorities
which con-

tributed to its creation.”. After these
statements, the

Charge d’Affaires declares, in the name of his
govern-

ment, that, if the letter cited July 9 be
not withdrawn,

and if the threats contained in it be
continued, the

French Government will have to believe
that the Holy

See is no longer interested in its relations
with the power

which, in complying with the obligations
of the Concordat,

should defend the prerogatives which the
Concordat gives

it.”

The Cardinal Secretary does not stop in
the first place

to show again that, when addressing the
letter of Jul> 9

to Monsignor Le Nordez, he evidently
could not take no-

tice of the protest sent him by the Charge
d Affaires, on

the 15th of the same month. Apart from
this observation,

the undersigned Cardinal goes on
to answer what con-

stitutes the substance of the last
note.

The painful incidents which occurred
in the Diocese ot

Dijon during last February are fresh
in the memory of

all when the young seminarians refused
to receive orders

at ’the hands of Monsignor Le Nordez,
preferring rather

to be expelled from the seminary,
followed by nearly all

their companions, who declared for them.
The ordination

was postponed, either to examine into
the reason for this

unwillingness on the part of the young
men, or to give



42 The Holy See and the French Government.

‘°r reflection and «ta"ess
; whereforethe Aunao made known to the Bishop of Dijon in aletter

thp hr^ "v**
14 Was the wil1 of the Holy Father that

tehe'r Notice' TU?™ S
called for under thl •

W3S & simple
’ prudent measuretauea tor under the circumstances, which did not imnlv

+
1

^

^^ 5
p

.

e barges which were being made againsthe Bishop of Dijon kept on growing to such an extfn as

g
render necessary some explanation. Therefore theHoly See invited him to go to Rome; but inasmuch as he

j”
t

Sp

T

lte of
,

hls Promise to be in Rome the second half

ta afcWv' o
,he OTd

,
er WaS a®ai" Siven hima letter ot July 9, to come, and it was added that the

canonical threat required by the gravity of the obligationto obey, a threat, however, which would be carried outonlvin case of contumacy, and would cease with the very actof obedience Therefore, there was no question of deDosi-tion for if there were, the Holy See would have informed

?mprcan tol
0
'V110-1- °f^ P-ishme„Ts,"ut Si

JvSS
to

f
to glve an exPHnation of the chargeswhich were alleged against him. When he would hfve

ha7J

6

h

m Ror
?
e,

,

ttie charges which concerned him wouldhave been made known to him, with full liberty and op-portunity to examine them and defend himself; and if theywere successfully refuted, the Holy Father would havebeen most happy to declare the hollowness of the accusa-

The French Government considers as null and as nothaving been received, the letter of Monsignor Lorenzelli

SeletteSof^he^Hol S n femands the withdrawal of
pronouncing both contraryV Concordat tat i iseasy to show the inaccuracy of its judgment. Indeed

1

inthe first place the Concordat is entirely distinct from the

French'
artlcles

> which are a one-sided act of theFrench Government, and against which the Holy See hasnever ceased to protest. In none of the seventeen articles
of the Concordat, be it in spirit or in so many words, do



The Holy See and the French Government. 43

we read that the Holy See cannot, without the previous

consent of the government, order a bishop, as a prudential

measure demanded by circumstances, to refrain temporar-

ily from some function of his ministry, or to summon him

to Rome to furnish explanations of his conduct. Nor

could the Roman Pontiff grant such a thing without fall-

ing short of his sacred duties as Supreme Pastor of the

Church
;
for, although no one disputes that the bishops in

France should have necessary relations with the govern-

ment defined by the Concordat, still they depend for their

jurisdiction upon the Roman Pontiff, which he conferred

on them, and keeps for them by means of canonical insti-

tution, and the Roman Pontiff cannot make this depen-

dence subordinate to the consent of the civil authority.

That the Roman Pontiff reserves his full authority over

the bishops of France, even after the Concordat, appears

clear also from the solemn and special oath of which the

French Government cannot be ignorant, since it forms

a part of the canonical institution, which goes with the

Bulls, and by which the bishops bind themselves, without

any restriction, to receive, with submission, and to execute

most faithfully, the injunctions of the Roman Pontiff:

Mandata apostolica humiliter recipiam, et quam diligen-

iissime exequar. Moreover, that the Roman Pontiff, even

after the Concordat, can call the bishops of France to

Rome, even under pain of censure, to be incurred ipso

facto, to render an account of their work, is confirmed by

the well-known law, of which the French Government

surely is aware, and which obliges the bishops of France,

as of other countries of Europe, without being subject to

the consent of the government, to go every four years to

Rome, under pain of censures, tales sententicc, or at least

to send their representative, for the express purpose of

laying before the Roman Pontiff the state of their dioceses,

and to receive instructions, counsels and commands.

After these animadversions, it is to be hoped that the

French Government will be persuaded that there has been

no violation of the Concordat on the part of the Holy

See, and that, inspired by sentiments of moderation, it

will not insist on the withdrawal of the letter in question,

thus sparing its own nation serious religious disturb-



44 The Holy See and the French Government.

ances Such a withdrawal, indeed, would be equal to a
complete abdication of the Papal authority over the epis-
copate; an abdication which is not in the power of the
loJy rather, and cannot be in the intention of the Gov-

ernment of the Republic.

Merely to give a new proof of his conciliatory attitude
and to show that in all these trying incidents he has been
always and solely inspired by a sense of his own duty,
the Holy Father would not be averse to postpone, for a
month, the time given to the Bishop of Dijon, so that in
such extension of time he might go to Rome to justifv
iimself. But should he refuse to go to Rome, or should
ne tail to justify himself, the Government should be will-
ing to come to an understanding with the Holy See for
the administration of the diocese.

From this act of courtesy it can be easily seen what
importance the Holy See attaches to the maintenance of
friendly relations with the Government of the Republic
rounded upon the exact observance of the terms of the’
Concordat. The Holy Father, because of the very par-
ticular affection which, after the example of his illustrious
predecessor, he cherishes for the noble French nation,
would see with profound grief that the Government of
the Republic, merely by preventing the justification of a
bishop before the proper authority, would permit the tak-
mg of hostile measures, which are not called for, but for
which the Holy See could not bear any responsibility
neither before God nor man.
The undersigned Cardinal Secretary of State while

praying the Charge d’Affaires of France to bring the
foregoing to notice of his Government, takes the oppor-
tunity to assure him of his most distinguished esteem.

R. Card. Merry del Val.
Rome, July 26, 1904.



45The Holy See and the French Government.

Document XXII.

The Concordat of 1801 between Pius VII. and the

French Government.

The Government of the Republic recognizes that the

Roman Catholic Apostolic religion is the religion which

by far the greatest part of the citizens of the French

Republic profess.

The Supreme Pontiff, in like manner, recognizes that

this same religion has received very great help, and very

great credit, and honor, and at this very time enjoys a

continuation of them.

Art. I. The Roman Catholic Apostolic religion will

be freely exercised in France. It shall practice public

worship, due regard, however, being had to regulations

of policy which the Government may consider necessary

for the public peace.

II. The dioceses of France shall receive new bound-

aries from the Apostolic See, in consultation with the

French Government.

III. The Supreme Pontiff shall inform the titular

bishops of French churches that he shall with confidence

look for all concessions from them for the public weal

and unity, excepting the resignation of their
episcopal

SC6S.

This statement being made, if they should refuse
to

grant this concession, which the good of the Church re-

quires (but that such should be the case, the
Supreme

Pontiff does not believe), provision shall be made for the

Government of the French churches, with new limits by

new heads in the following manner

:

IV. The First Consul of the French Republic
shall

name, within three months following the promulgation
of

the Apostolic Constitution, the archbishops
and bishops

to be placed over the dioceses newly
designated. The

Supreme Pontiff shall give canonical erection,
according

to the forms fixed for France before the
change of Gov-

eminent.



46 The Holy See and the French Government.

V. The First Consul shall also nominate the new bish-

ops to the episcopal sees hereafter becoming vacant, and

the Apostolic See shall install them canonically as in the

preceding article.

VI. Bishops shall pronounce in the presence of the

First Consul, before they take office, the oath of loyalty

which was in vogue before the change of government,

expressed in these words

:

“I swear and promise, upon the holy Gospel of God,

obedience and loyalty to the government established by

the Constitution of the French Republic. I likewise

promise that I shall hold no communication, take part

in no conspiracy, and carry on no relations, either at home

or abroad, which would hurt the peace of the Republic;

and should I learn of anything, as well in my diocese
as elsewhere, which might hurt the state, I shall make the

same known to the Government.
,,

VII. Churchmen of less dignity shall pronounce the

same oath before the civil authorities appointed by the

French Government.

VIII. After the divine offices the following prayers

shall be said in all Catholic churches in France

:

Lord
,
preserve the Republic.

Lord
,
preserve the consuls.

IX. Bishops shall give limits to new parishes, each in

his own diocese
;
this fixing of limits shall not take effect

until the Government has given its consent.

X. Bishops shall also make appointments to parishes,

but they shall select only persons who are acceptable to

the Government.

XI. Bishops may have one chapter in the cathedral

church, and one seminary, each in his own diocese, with-

out the obligation on the part of the Government of en-

dowing it.

XII. All metropolitan, cathedral and parochial

churches, and all others necessary for divine worship that

have not been transferred, shall be given to be disposed

of by the bishop.



The Holy See and the French Government. 47

XIII. His Holiness, for the sake of peace and the
successful restoration of religion, declares that those who
have acquired church property shall suffer no interfer-
ence either from himself or from his successors in the
pontificate, and consequently the possession of these same
goods, the incomes and rights belonging to them, shall
remain with them unmolested, and with their heirs and
assigns.

XIV. The French Government takes upon itself the
proper maintenance, according to their position, of the
bishops and parish priests whose dioceses and parishes
the new apportionment embraces.

XV. The same Government shall see to it that Catho-
lics may, if they wish, favor churches with new endow-
ments.

XVI. His Holiness recognizes in the First Consul of
the French Republic the same rights and privileges which
the old government enjoyed with the Holy See.

XVII. Both parties agree that in case some successor
of the present First Consul should not profess the Cath-
olic religion, a new agreement shall be entered into con-
cerning the rights and privileges mentioned in the above
article, as well as concerning the nomination to archbish-

oprics and bishoprics.

But the surrender of the agreements shall be made at
Paris after an interval of forty days.

Given at Paris, July 15, 1801.

Hercules Cardinalis Consalis (L. S.),

J. Bonaparte (L. S.),

J. Archiep. Corinthi (L. S.),

Cretet (L. S.),

Fr. Carolus Caselli (L. S.),

Bernier (L. S.).



48 The Holy See and the French Government.

DOCUMENT XXIII.

The Charge d’Affaires of France to His Eminence the

Cardinal Secretary of State.

(Verbal Note.)

After having on several occasions noted the serious

assaults which the Holy See, in its direct communications

with the French bishop, has initiated upon the rights of

the state, as laid down in the Concordat, the Government

of the Republic in two Notes, under date of July 23 of cur-

rent month, has warned the Holy See of the conclusion

which it would be forced to draw from the persistent

disregard of its rights.

Being forced to state, by the answer of His Eminence,

the Cardinal Secretary of State, under date of July 26 of

present month, that the Holy See maintains the acts done

without the knowledge of the government with which it

conjointly signed the Concordat, the Government of the

Republic has decided to put an end to the official rela-

tions which, at the wish of the Holy See, have no longer

any object.

Rome, July 30, 1904.

DOCUMENT XXIV.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of France to the Apos-

tolic Nuncio in Paris.

Monseigneur : This morning the Charge d’Affaires of

France had the honor to declare to His Eminence the

Cardinal Secretary of State that the Government of the

Republic had decided to put an end to the official rela-

tions which, at the wish of the Holy See, have no longer

any object.

He has added that the Government of the Republic con-

siders at an end the mission of the Apostolic Nuncio. I

have the honor to inform Your Excellency of the same.

I beg you, Monseigneur, to accept the assurance of

my highest esteem. Delcassk.

Paris, July 30, 1904.