Reading Time: 260 minutes

7. The Jesuits in France from 1870 until 1885

The collapse of the Empire should, it seems, have brought about a reaction against the ultramontane spirit in France. But it was not so as Adolphe Michel shows:

“When the throne fell into the mud of Sedan on the 2nd of December, when France was definitely defeated, when the Assembly of 1871 met at Bordeaux, while waiting to come to Versailles, the clerical party was more audacious than ever. In all the disasters befalling the homeland, it spoke as master. Who wouldn’t remember the Jesuits’ presumptuous manifestations and their insolent threats during these past few years? Like a certain Father Marquigny announcing the civil burial of the principles of ’89; or M. de Belcastel, on his own authority, dedicating France to the Sacred-Heart; the Jesuits erecting a church on the hill of Montmartre, in Paris, and so defying the Revolution; the bishops prompting France to declare war on Italy in order to reestablish the temporal power of the pope…”(54)

Gaston Bally explains very well the reason for that apparently paradoxical situation: “During that cataclysm, the Jesuits, as always, quickly went back into their hole, leaving the Republic to get herself out of the muddle as best she could. But when most of the work had been done, when our territory was delivered from the Prussian invasion, the black invasion started again and “pulled the chestnuts out of the fire”. The land was just emerging from a kind of nightmare, a terrible dream, and it was just the right time to get hold of the panic-striken masses”.(55)

(54) Adolphe Michel: op.cit., pp.72, 73.
(55) (56) and (57) Gaston Bally, op.cit., pp. 101,107,108,109.

But is it not the same after every war? It is an incontestable fact that the Roman Church has always benefited from the great public disasters; that death, misery and sufferings of every kind incite the masses to search for illusive consolations in pious practices. In that way, the power of those who let loose these disasters is strengthened, if not increased, by the victims themselves. As far as that is concerned, the two world wars had the same consequences as the one of 1870.

Then, France was conquered; on the other hand, it was a brilliant victory for the Company of Jesus when, in 1873, a law was passed, allowing the building of a basilica of the Sacred-Heart on Montmartre Hill. This church, said to be a “National wish”, by a cruel irony no doubt, was going to materialise in stone the triumph of Jesuitism, at the place where it commenced its life.

At first glance, this invocation to the Sacred-Heart of Jesus extolled by the Jesuits may seem, though basely idolatrous, quite innocent. “To realise the danger”, wrote Gaston Bally, “we must look behind the facade, witness the manipulation of souls and see the aim of their various associations: the Brotherhood of “Perpetual Adoration”; the Brotherhood of the “Guard of Honour”, the Apostolate of Prayer, the Reparative Communion, etc, etc. The brotherhoods, associates, apostles, missionaries, worshipers, zealots, guards of honour, restorers, mediators and other federates of the Sacred-Heart seem to intend exclusively to, as Mademoiselle Alacoque invited them to, unite their homage to those of the nine choirs of Angels.

So, in reality, it is far from innocent. “The brotherhoods stated their aims many times. They couldn’t accuse me of slandering them; I will but quote a few passages from their most clear declarations and gather up their confessions.

“Public opinion was shocked with the remarks of Father Olivier when the victims of the Bazaar of Charity were buried. The monk had seen in the catastrophe only another proof of divine clemency. God was saddened by our “mistakes” and was inviting us, gently, to make amends. “This seemed monstrous. The building of the Basilica on Montmartre was a result of the same “thought”, but this was forgotten”.(56)

What was then the terrible sin France had to confess? The aforementioned author answers: “…THE REVOLUTION”. This is the abominable crime we must “expiate”. “And the Basilica of the Sacred-Heart symbolises France’s repentance (Sacratissimo cordi Jesu Gallioe poenitens et devoter); it expresses also our firm intention to repair the wrong-doings. It is a monument of expiation and reparation…”(57)

“Save Rome and France in the name of the Sacred-Heart”, became the anthem of the Moral Order.

“So we were able to hope against all hopes”, wrote the Abbe Brugerette, “and expect from the “pacified heaven” some time or other the great event of the restoration of order and the salvation of the homeland.”(58) It seems though that “heaven”, angered with the France of the rights of man, was not “pacified” enough by the erection of the famous basilica, the three candle snuffers, as the “restoration of order”, or rather the monarchical restoration, was slow in coming. The same author explains it in the following manner:

“Even though the grandiose manifestations of the Catholic faith, during the years following the war of 1870, may seem impressive, it would be a lack of the sense of observation if French society of that epoch was judged only on the grounds of that exterior piety; we would also be lacking in psychological spirit and be outside the truth. We must wonder then if the religious sentiment was a direct answer, for the whole of that society, to the expression of faith revealed by the imposing pilgrimages organised by the bishops and the earnestness of the masses in the churches…

“Without wanting to attentuate in any way the importance of the religious move in France brought about by the two wars of 1870 and 1914, which also raised such high hopes, we must nevertheless admit that this revival of the faith had not the depth, nor the extent which a true religious renewal would have…

“For, even then, the Church of France was unfortunately comprised of not only thousands of unbelievers and adversaries, but also a very large number of those who were Catholics only by name and not conviction. Religious practices were performed, not by conviction, but rather from habit… “Soon after it was done, France seemed to regret the desperate move which made her send a Catholic majority to the National Assembly, for, five months later, she reversed her position at the complementary elections of the 2nd of July! On that day, the country was to elect 113 deputies. It was a complete defeat for the Catholics and victory for between 80 to 90 Republicans. All the elections following that consultation of universal suffrage had the same character of republican and anticlerical opposition. It would be childish to pretend that they were not the expression of society’s sentiments and wishes”.(59)

(58) and (59) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, pp.10 to 14.

The Abbe Brugerette, speaking about the great pilgrimages organised at that time for the “uplifting of the country”, admits that they were the cause of “some mistakes and excesses” which aroused the suspicions of the “Church’s adversaries”.

“The pilgrimages will be for them enterprises organised by the clergy for the restoration of monarchy in France and pontifical power in Rome. And the attitude taken by the clergy on these two aims will look like justifying this accusation from the irreligious press and will give, on that account, as we shall see later, a mighty impetus to anticlericalism. Without breaking away from its religious habits revived so much during the years after the war, French society will rebel against this “government of priests”, as Gambetta stigmatized it. Deep down, the French people had kept an invincible instinct of resistance against anything which even vaguely resembled the Church’s political domination. On the whole, this nation loved religion, but the spectre of “theocracy” revived by the opposition press frightened it. The eldest daughter of the Church did not want to forget that she was also the mother of Revolution”.(60)

Yet, the clergy with the Jesuits at their head were making such efforts to persuade the French people to abjure the republican spirit! “Since the Falloux law was enforced, the Jesuits, expanded freely their colleges where they brought up the children of the ruling middle-classes and they obviously did not teach them a great love for the Republic…” “As for the “Assumptionists” created in 1845 by the intransigent Father d’Alzon, they wanted to give back to the people the faith it had lost…”(61) But there were many other envious flourishing teaching congregations:

Oratorians, Eudistes, Dominicans of the Third-Order, Marianits, Marists, which Jules Simon called “the second volume” of the Jesuits bound in asses skin and the famous “Brothers of the Christian Schools”, better known under the name of Ignorantins, who taught the “good doctrine” to the offsprings of the middle-classes as well as to more than one and a half million children of the ordinary people. It is not surprising that this situation put the republican regime on the defensive. A law, proposed in 1879 by Jules Ferry, wanted to remove the clergy from the Councils for Public Instruction into which they had been introduced by the laws of 1850 and 1873, and give back to the state’s faculties the exclusive right to grade the degrees of the teachers. Article 7 of this law also specified that “no one would be allowed to take part in public or free teaching if he belongs to an unauthorised religious congregation”.

“The Jesuits are aimed at before anyone else in that famous article 7. The priests of the deanery of Moret (Seine-et-Marne) will declare then that “they are on the side of all religious communities, including the venerable Fathers of the Company of Jesus”. “To strike them”, they write, “is to strike ourselves”… The confession is explicit.

The Abbe Brugerette, who wrote that passage, describes the resistance put up by the Catholics against what he calls a “treacherous attack”, but he adds:

“The clergy still ignore the immense progress of the laity; it has not understood yet that, because of its opposition to the principles of ’89, it has lost all deep influence over the direction of public spirit in France”.(62)

Article 7 is rejected by the Senate, but Jules Ferry invokes the existing laws concerning the congregations.

(60) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, pp.164, 165.
(61) Adrien Dansette, op.cit., p.29.
(62) (63) (64) and (65) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, pp.164, 165, 166, 167, 176, 185.

“In consequence, on the 29th of March 1880, the “Journal Officiel” contains two decrees compelling the Jesuits to break up, and all unauthorised congregations of men and women to “obtain recognition and approval for their regulations and legal status within three months…” Without any delay, a movement of opposition is organised; “The Church, deeply wounded, is aroused”, according to M. Debidour. After the 11th of March, Leo XIII and his Nuncio express a grievous protestation… “Now it is the turn of all the bishops to defend energetically the religious Orders”.(63)

The sons of Loyola were nevertheless expelled. But let us listen to what the Abbe Brugerette has to say on that subject: “In spite of all, the Jesuits, experts at re-entering through the windows when they have been thrown out through the door, had already been successful in putting their colleges into the control of laymen or secular ecclesiastics. Even though not residing in these colleges, they could be seen coming in at certain times of the day to perform duties of direction and supervision”.(64)

But the deceit was discovered and the Jesuits’ colleges finally closed. In all, the decrees of 1879 were enforced on 32 congregations who refused to submit to the legal dispositions. In many places, the expulsion was carried out by the military arm “manu militari” against the opposition of the faithful aroused by the Fathers. These not only refused to ask for the legal authorisation, but also refused to sign a declaration disclaiming all idea of opposition to the republican regime; this would have been enough for M. de Freycinet, then president of the Council and favouring them, to still “tolerate” them. When the Orders decided to sign this formal declaration of loyalty, the manoeuvre had been made void and M. de Freycinet had to resign because he had tried to negotiate this accord against the wishes of parliament and his colleagues of the Cabinet.

The Abbe Brugerette comments on the declaration the religious Orders had to sign and found so repugnant:

“This declaration of respect for the institutions France gave herself freely… may seem very harmless and inoffensive, today, when compared with the solemn oath of loyalty demanded from the German bishops by the Concordat of the 20th of July 1933 between the Holy See and the Reich. “Article 16.—”Before taking possession of their diocese, the bishops will take an oath of loyalty before the president of the Reich or a competent Reichsstatthalter in the following terms:

“Before God and on the Holy Scriptures, I swear and promise, as a bishop should, loyalty to the German Reich and the State. I swear and promise to respect and make my clergy respect the government established according to the constitutional laws. As is my duty, I will work for the good and in the interests of the German State; in the exercise of the holy ministry entrusted to me, I will try to stop everything which would be detrimental to it”. (Concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich)(65). The difference is certainly great between a mere promise of non- opposition to France’s regime and this solemn pledge to uphold the Nazi state. Just as great as the difference between the two regimes, one democratic and liberal, so hated by the Roman Church, the other totalitarian and brutally intolerent, wanted and set up by the united efforts of Franz von Papen, the pope’s secret chamberlain, and Monseigneur Pacelli, nuncio in Berlin and future Pius XII.

It is again the Abbe Brugerette who, after having declared that the governnment’s aim had been reached as far as the Company of Jesus was concerned, admits also:

“We could not speak of the destruction of the institution of congregations. The women’s congregations had not been touched and the authorised ones, “as dangerous as the others for the lay spirit”, were still standing. We knew also that nearly all the men’s congregations, expelled from their houses because of the decrees of 1880, had quietly gone back to their monasteries”.(66)

But this lull was short-lived. The intention of the state to collect taxes and rights of succession on the wealth of the ecclesiastical communities provoked a general outcry amongst them, as they had no intention to submit to the common law. “The organisation of resistance was the work of a committee directed by the PP. Bailly, “Assumptionist”, Stanislas, a Capuchin, and Le Dore, superior of the Eudists… Father Bailly was reviving the great zeal of the clergy by writing: “Like Saint Laurent, the monks and nuns must go back to the rack or thumb-screws rather than surrender”.(67)

As by accident, the main revivalist of that “great zeal”, Bailly, was an “Assumptionist”, or, in fact, a camouflaged Jesuit. As for the rack and the thumb-screws, we could have reminded the good Father that these instruments of torture are in the tradition of the Holy-See and not the one of the republican state.

Finally, the congregations paid—about half of what they owed—and the aforementioned Abbe admits that “the prosperity of their work was not impaired”, as we can well imagine.

We cannot go into details concerning the laws of 1880 and 1886 which tended to assure the confessional neutrality of the state schools, this “secularisation”(67a) which is natural to all tolerant minds, but is rejected by the Roman Church as an abominable attempt at forcing consciences, something she has always claimed for herself. We could expect her to fight for this so-called right as violently as for her financial privileges.

(66) and (67) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., pp. 185,196,191.
(67a) See Jan Cotereau: “Anthologie des grands textes laiques” (Fischbacher, Paris)

In 1883, the Roman congregation of the Index, inspired by Jesuitism, enters the fight by the condemnation of certain school books on moral and civic teaching. Of course, the matter is grave: one of the authors, Paul Bert, dared to write that even the idea of miracles “must vanish before the critical mind!” So, more than fifty bishops promulgate the decree of the Index, with fulminating comments, and one of them, Monseigneur Isoard, declares in his pastoral letter of the 27th of February 1883 that the teachers, the parents and the children who refuse to destroy these books will be barred from the sacraments.(67b)

The laws of 1886, 1901 and 1904, declaring that no teaching post could be held by members of religious congregations, also started a flood of protestations from the Vatican and the “French” clergy. But, in fact, the teaching monks and nuns only had to “secularise” themselves. The only positive result of these legal dispositions was that the professors of the schools “so-called free” had from now on to produce adequate pedagogic qualifications, a good thing when we know that, before the last war, the Catholic primary schools in France numbered 11, 655 with 824,595 pupils As for the “free” colleges, and especially the Jesuits’, if their number is being reduced it is because of several factors which have nothing to do with the legal wrangles. The superiority of the university’s teaching, acknowledged by the majority of parents, and, more recently, its being without change, are the main causes for its growing popularity. Besides, the Society of Jesus has voluntarily reduced the number of its schools.

(67b) See Jean Cornec: “Laicite” (Sudel, Paris).