The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII/Allegiance to the Republic

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Encyclical Letter Au Milieu des Sollicitudes, February 16,


To THE Bishops and Faithful of France:

Amid the cares of the universal Church We have many times, in the course of Our Pontificate, been pleased to testify Our affection for France and her noble people, and in one of Our Encyclicals, still within the memory of all, We endeavored solemnly to express the innermost feelings of Our soul on this subject. It is precisely this affection that has caused Us to watch with deep interest and then to revolve in Our mind the succession of events, sometimes sad, sometimes consoling, which, of late years, has taken place in your midst.

Again, at present, when contemplating the depths of the vast conspiracy that certain men have formed for the annihilation of Christianity in France and the animosity with which they pursue the realization of their design, trampling under foot the most elementary notions of liberty and justice for the sentiment of the greater part of the nation, and of respect for the inalienable rights of the Catholic Church, how can We but be stricken with deepest grief? And when We behold, one after another, the dire consequences of these sinful attacks which con- spire to ruin morals, religion, and even political interests, wisely understood, how express the bitterness that overwhelms Us and the apprehensions that beset Us?

On the other hand. We feel greatly consoled when We see this same French people increasing its zeal and affection for the Holy See in proportion as that See is abandoned — We should rather say warred with upon earth. Moved by deeply religious and patriotic sentiments, representatives of all the social classes have repeatedly come to Us from France, happy to aid the Church in her incessant needs and eager to ask Us for light and counsel, so as to be sure that amid present tribulations they would in nowise deviate from the teachings of the Head of the Faithful. And We, in Our turn, either in "vvTiting or by word of mouth, have openly told Our sons what they had a right to demand of their Father, and, far from discouraging them. We have strongly exhorted them to increase their love and efforts in defence of the Catholic faith and likewise of their native land : two duties of paramount importance, and from which, in this life, no man can exempt himself.

Now We deem it opportune, nay, even necessary, once again to raise Our voice entreating still more earnestly, We shall not say Catholics only, but all upright and intelligent Frenchmen, utterly to disregard all germs of political strife in order to devote their efforts solely to the pacification of their country. All understand the value of this pacification; all continue to desire it more and more. And We who crave it more than any one, since We represent on earth the God of peace, urge by these present Letters all righteous souls, all generous hearts, to assist Us in making it stable and fruitful.

First of all, let us take as a starting-point a well-known truth admitted by all men of good sense and loudly proclaimed by the history of all peoples; namely, that religion, and religion only, can create the social bond; that it alone maintains the peace of a nation on a solid foundation. When different families, without giving up the rights and duties of domestic society, unite under the inspiration of nature, in order to constitute themselves members of another larger family circle called civil so- ciety, their object is not only to find therein the means of providing for their material welfare, but, above all,


to draw thence the boon of moral improvement. Other- wise society would rise but little above the level of an aggregr.tion of beings devoid of reason, and whose whole life w^ould consist in the satisfaction of sensual instincts. Moreover, without this moral improvement it would be difficult to demonstrate that civil society was an advan- tage rather than a detriment to man, as man.

Now, morality, in man, by the mere fact that it should establish harmony among so many dissimilar rights and duties, since it enters as an element into every human act, necessarily supposes God, and with God, religion, that sacred bond whose privilege is to unite, anteriorly to all other bonds, man to God. Indeed, the idea of morality signifies, above all, an order of dependence in regard to truth which is the light of the mind ; in regard to good which is the object of the will; and without truth and good there is no morality worthy of the name. And what is the principal and essential truth, that from which all truth is derived? It is God. What, therefore, is the supreme good from w^hich all other good proceeds? God. Finally, who is the creator and guardian of our reason, our will, our whole being, as well as the end of our life? God; always God. Since, therefore, religion is the interior and exterior expression of the dependence which, in justice, we owe to God, there follows a grave obligation, AH citizens are boimd to unite in maintaining in the nation true religious sentiment, and to defend it in case of need, if ever, despite the protestations of nature and of history, an atheistical school should set about banishing God from societ}^ thereby surely annihilating the moral sense even in the depths of the human conscience. Among men who have not lost all notion of integrity there can exist no difference of opinion on this point.

In French Cathohcs the religious sentiment should be even deeper and more universal because they have the happiness of belonging to the true religion. If, indeed, religious beliefs were, always and everywhere, given as


a basis of the morality of human actions and the existence of all well-ordained society, it is evident that the Catholic religion, by the mere fact that it is the true Church of Jesus Christ, possesses, more than any other, the efficacy required for the regulation of life in society and in the individual. Would you have a brilliant example of this? France herself furnishes the same. ... In proportion as France progressed in the Christian faith she was seen to rise gradually to the moral greatness which she attained as a political and military power. To the natural gen- erosity of her heart Christian charity came and added an abundant source of new energy; her wonderful activity received still greater impetus from contact with the hght that guides and is the pledge of constancy, the Christian faith, which, by the hand of France, traced such glorious pages in the history of mankind. And even to-day does not her faith continue to add new glories to those of the past? We behold France, inexhaustible in her genius and resources, multiplying works of charity at home; we admire her enterprises in foreign lands where, by means of her gold and the labors of her missionaries who work even at the price of their blood, she simultaneously prop- agates her own renown and the benefits of the Catholic religion. No Frenchman, whatever his convictions in other respects, would dare to renounce glory such as this, for to do so would be to deny his native land.

Now the history of a nation reveals in an incontestable way the generating and preserving element of its moral greatness, and should this element ever be missing, neither a superabundance of gold nor even force of arms could save it from moral decadence and perhaps death. Who then but understands that for all Frenchmen professing the Catholic religion the great anxiety should be to insure its preservation, and that with all the more devotedness since in their midst the sects are making Christianity an object of implacable hostility. Therefore, on this ground, they can afford neither indolence of action nor


party divisions; the one would bespeak cowardice un- worthy of a Christian, the other would bring about disas- trous weakness.

And now, before going any further. We must indicate a craftily circulated calumny making most odious impu- tations against Catholics, and even against the Holy See itself. It is maintained that that vigor of action inculcated in Catholics for the defence of their faith has for a secret motive much less the safeguarding of their religious interests than the ambition of securing to the Church political domination over the State. Truly this is the revival of a very ancient calumny, as its invention belongs to the first enemies of Christianity. Was it not first of all formulated against the adorable person of the Redeemer? Yes, when He illuminated souls by His preaching and alleviated the corporal or spiritual sufferings of the unfor- tunate with the treasures of His divine bounty, he was accused of having poUtical ends in view. " We have found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he is Christ, the king. ... If thou release this man, thou are not Caesar's friend. For whomsoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Csesar. . . . We have no king but Caesar."

It was these threatening calumnies which drew from Pilate the sentence of de^th against Him whom he had repeatedly declared innocent. And the authors of these lies, or of others of equal strength, omitted nothing that would aid their emissaries in propagating them far and wide; and thus did St. Justin, martyr, rebuke the Jews of his time: " Far from repenting when you had learned of His resurrection from the dead, you sent to Jerusalem shrewdly chosen men to announce that a heresy and an impious sect had been started by a certain seducer called Jesus of Galilee."

In so audaciously defaming Christianity its enemies know well what they did; their plan was to raise against its propagation a formidable adversary, the Roman


Empire. The calumny made headway; and in their credulity the pagans called the first Christians " useless creatures, dangerous citizens, factionists, enemies of the Empire and the Emperors. But in vain did the apologists of Christianity by their writings, and Christians by their splendid conduct, endeavor to demonstrate the absurdity and criminaUty of these qualifications: they were not heeded. Their very name was equivalent to a declaration of war; and Christians, by the mere fact of their being such, and for no other reason, were forced to choose between apostasy and martyrdom, being allowed no alternative. During the following centuries the same grievances and the same severity prevailed to a greater or less extent, whenever governments were unreasonably jealous of their power and maliciously disposed against the Church. They never failed to call public attention to the pretended encroachment of the Church upon the State, in order to furnish the State with some apparent right to violently attack the Catholic religion.

We have expressly recalled some features of the past that Catholics might not be dismayed by the present. Substantially the struggle is ever the same : Jesus Christ is always exposed to the contradictions of the world, and the same means are always used by modern enemies of Christianity means old in principle and scarcely modified in form ; but the same means of defence are also clearly indicated to Christians of the present day by our apolo- gists, our doctors and our martyrs. What they have done it is incumbent upon us to do in our turn. Let us there- fore place above all else the glory of God and of His Church; let us work for her with an assiduity at once constant and effective, and leave all care of success to Jesus Christ, who tells us: "In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world."

To attain this We have already remarked that a great union is necessary, and if it is to be realized, it is indis- spensable that all preoccupation capable of diminishing


its strength and efficacy must be abandoned. Here We intend alluding principally to the political differences among the French in regard to the actual republic — a question We would treat with the clearness which the gravity of the subject demands, beginning with the prin- ciples and descending thence to practical results.

Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Repubhc. By giving one's self up to abstrac- tions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end — that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally^ it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas. Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine. What amply justifies the wisdom of the Church is that in her relations with pohtical powers she makes abstraction of the forms which differentiate them and treats with them concerning the great religious interests of nations, knowing that hers is the duty to undertake their tutelage above all other interests. Our preceding Encyclicals have already exposed these principles, but it was nevertheless necessary to recall them for the development of the subject which occupies Us to-day.

In descending from the domain of abstractions to that of facts, we must beware of denying the principles just established: they remain fixed. However, becom- ing incarnated in facts, they are clothed with a contin- gent character, determined by the centre in which their

256 allegianc;e to the republic.

application is produced. Otherwise said, if every political form is good by itself and may be applied to the govern- ment of nations, the fact still remains that political power is not found in all nations under the same form; each has its own. This form springs from a combination of historical or national, though always human, circumstances which, in a nation, give rise to its traditional and even fundamental laws, and by these is determined the particular form of govermnent, the basis of transmission of supreme power.

It were useless to recall that all individuals are bound to accept these governments and not to attempt their over- throw or a change in their form. Hence it is that the Church, the guardian of the truest and highest idea of political sovereignty, since she has derived it from God, has always condemned men who rebelled against legitimate authority and disapproved their doctrines. And that too at the very time when the custodians of power used it against her, thereby depriving themselves of the strongest sup- port given their authority and of efficacious means of obtaining from the people obedience to their laws. And apropos of this subject. We cannot lay too great stress upon the precepts given to the first Christians by the Prince of the apostles in the midst of persecutions: "Honor all men: love the brotherhood: fear God: honor the king"; and those of St. Paul: "I desire, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings and for all who are in high station, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our Saviour."

However, here it must be carefully observed that what- ever be the form of civil power in a nation, it cannot be considered so definitive as to have the right to remain immutable, even though such were the intention of those who, in the beginning, determined it. ... Only the Church of Jesus Christ has been able to preserve, and surely will preserve unto the consummation of time, hei


form of government. Founded by Him who was, who is, and who vnll be forever, she has received from Him, since her very origin, all that she requires for the pursuing of her divine mission across the changeable ocean of human affairs. And, far from wishing to transfoiTn her essen- tial constitution, she has not the power even to relinquish the conditions of true liberty and sovereign independence with which Providence has endowed her in the general interest of souls. . . . But, in regard to purely himian societies, it is an oft-repeated historical fact that time, that great transformer of all things here below, operates great changes in their political institutions. On some occasions it linnts itself to modifying something in the form of the established government; or, again, it will go so far as to substitute other forms for the primitive ones — forms totally different, even as regards the mode of trans- mitting sovereign power.

And how are these political changes of which We speak produced? They sometimes follow in the wake of violent crises, too often of a bloody character, in the midst of which pre-existing governments totally disappear; then anarchy holds sway, and soon public order is shaken to its very foundations and finally overthrowTi. From that time onward a social need obtrudes itself upon the nation; it must provide for itself without delay. Is it not its pri\ilege — or, better still, its duty — to defend itself against a state of affairs troubhng it so deeply, and to re-establish public peace in the tranquillity of order? Now, this social need justifies the creation and the existence of new govern- ments, whatever form they take; since, in the hypothesis wherein we reason, these new governments are a requisite to public order, all public order being impossible without a government. Thence it follow^s that, in similar junctures, all the novelty is limited to the political form of ci\il power, or to its mode of transmission ; it in no wise affects the power considered in itself. This continues to be immutable and w^orthy of respect, as, considered in its


nature, it is constituted to provide for the common good; the supreme end which gives human society its origin. To put it otherwise, in all hypotheses, civil power, con- sidered as such, is from God, always from God: "For there is no power but from God."

Consequently, when new governments representing this immutable power are constituted, their acceptance is not only permissible but even obligatory, being imposed by the need of the social good which has made and which upholds them. This is all the more imperative because an insurrection stirs up hatred among citizens, provokes civil war, and may throw a nation into chaos and anarchy, and this great duty of respect and dependence will endure as long as the exigencies of the common good shall demand it, since this good is, after God, the first and last law in society.

Thus the wisdom of the Church explains itself in the maintenance of her relations with the numerous govern- ments which have succeeded one another in France in less than a century, each change causing violent shocks. Such a line of conduct would be the surest and most salutary for all Frenchmen in their civil relations with the republic, which is the actual government of their nation. Far be it from them to encourage the political dissensions which divide them; ail their efforts should be combined to preserve and elevate the moral greatness of their native land.

But a difficulty presents itself. "This Republic," it is said, "is animated by such anti-Christian sentiments that honest men, Catholics particularly, could not con- scientiously accept it." This, more than anything else, has given rise to dissensions, and in fact aggravated them. . . . These regrettable differences would have been avoided if the very considerable distinction between con- stituted power and legislation had been carefully kept in view. In so much does legislation differ from political power and its form, that under a system of govermiient


most excellent in form legislation could be detestable; while quite the opposite under a regime most imperfect in form, might be found excellent legislation. It were an easy task to prove this truth, history in hand, but what would be the use ? All are convinced of it. And who, better than the Church, is in position to know it — she who has striven to maintain habitual relations with all political governments? Assuredly she, better than any other power, could tell the consolation or sorrow oc- casioned her by the laws of the various governments by which nations have been ruled from the Roman Empire douTi to the present.

If the distinction just established has its major im^- portance, it is likewise manifestly reasonable: Legislation is the work of men invested with power, and who, in fact, govern the nation; therefore it follows that, practical^, the quality of the laws depends more upon the quality of these men than upon the form of power. The laws will be good or bad accordingly as the minds of the legis- lators are imbued with good or bad principles, and as they allow themselves to be guided by political prudence or by passion.

That several years ago different important acts of legislation in France proceeded from a tendency hostile to religion, and therefore to the interests of the nation, is admitted by all, and unfortunately confirmed by the evidence of facts. We Ourselves, in obedience to a sacred duty, made earnest appeals to him who was then at the head of the repubhc, but these tendencies continued to exist; the evil grew, and it was not surprising that the members of the French Episcopate chosen by the Holy Ghost to rule over their respective illustrious churches should even quite recently have considered it an obliga- tion publicly to express their grief concerning the con- dition of affairs in France in regard to the Catholic re- ligion. Poor France! God alone can measure the abyss of evil into which she will sink if this legislation, instead


of improving, will stubbornly continue in a course which must end in plucking from the minds and hearts of French- men the religion which has made them so great.

And here is precisely the ground on which, political dissensions aside, upright men should unite as one to combat, by all lawful and honest means, these progressive abuses of legislation. The respect due to constituted power cannot prohibit this : unlimited respect and obedi- ence cannot be yielded to all legislative measures, of no matter what kind, enacted by this same power. Let it not be forgotten that law is a precept ordained according to reason and promulgated for the good of the com- munity by those who, for this end, have been entrusted with power. . . . Accordingly, such points in legislation as are hostile to religion and to God should never be approved; to the contrary, it is a duty to disapprove them. It was this that St. Augustine, the great Bishop of Hippo, brought out so strongly in his eloquent reason- ing: " Sometimes the powerful ones of earth are good and fear God; at other times they fear Him not. Julian was an emperor unfaithful to God, an apostate, a per- vert, an idolator. Christian soliders served this faithless emperor, but as soon as there was question of the cause of Jesus Christ they recognized only Him who was in heaven. Julian commanded them to honor idols and offer them incense, but they put God above the prince. However, when he made them form into ranks and march against a hostile nation, they obeyed instantly. They distinguished the eternal from the temporal master and still in view of the eternal Master they submitted to such a temporal master."

We know that, by a lamentable abuse of his reason, and still more so of his will, the atheist denies these prin- ciples. But, in a word, atheism is so monstrous an error that it could never, be it said to the honor of humanity, annihilate in it the consciousness of God's claims and substitute them with idolatry of the State.


The principles which should regulate our conduct towards God and towards human governments being thus defined, no unprejudiced man can censure French Catholics if, sparing themselves neither fatigue nor sacrifice, they labor to preserve a condition essential to their countrj^'s salvation, one which embodies so many glorious tradi- tions registered by history, and which every Frenchman is in duty bound not to forget

Before closing Our Letter, We wash to touch upon two points bearing an affinity to each other and which, because so closely connected with religious interests, have stirred up some di\asion among Catholics. . . . One of them is the Concordat, which for so many years has faciUtated in France the harmony between the government of the Church and that of the State. On the observance of tliis solemn, bi-lateral compact, always faithfully kept by the Holy See, the enemies of the Cathohc religion do not themselves agree. . . . The more \dolent among them desire its aboHtion, that the State may be entirely free to molest the Church of JESUS CHRIST. ... On the contrary^, others, being more astute, wish, or rather claim to wish, the preserv^ation of the Concordat : not because they agree that the State should fulfil toward the Church the subscribed engagements, but solely that the State may be benefited by the concessions made by the Church; as if one could, at will, separate engagements entered into from concessions obtained, when both of these things form a substantial part of one whole. For them the Concordat w^ould amount to no more than a chain forged to fetter the liberty of the Church, that holy liberty to which she has a divine and inalienable right. Of these tw^o opinions which will prevail? We know not. We desired to recall them only to recommend CathoHcs not to provoke a secession by interfering in a matter with which it is the business of the Holy See to deal.

We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the


State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdit}'- of such a separation; each one will understand for himself. As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary- consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man's rights spring from liis duty toward God. Whence it follows that the State, by missing in this connection the principal object of its institution, finally becomes false to itself by denying that which is the reason of its own existence. These superior truths are so clearly proclaimed by the voice of even natural reason, that they force themselves upon all who are not blinded by the violence of passion; therefore Catholics cannot be too careful in defending themselves against such a separation. In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens. . . . It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages — above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles — and, though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defence, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse.

But in France, a nation Catholic in her traditions and by the present faith of the great majority of her sons, the Church should not be placed in the precarious position to which she must submit among other peoples; and the better that Catholics understand the aim of the enemies who desire this separation, the less will they favor it. To these enemies, and they say it clearly enough, this


separation means that political legislation be entirely independent of religious legislation; nay, more, that Power be absolutely indifferent to the interests of Chris- tian society, that is to say, of the Church ; in fact, that it deny her very existence. But they make a reserv^ation formulated thus: As soon as the Church, utihzing the resources which common law accords to the least among Frenchmen, \\ill, by redoubhng her native activity, cause her work to prosper, then the State intervening, can and will put French Catholics outside the common law itself. ... In a word: the ideal of these men would be a re- turn to paganism: the State would recognize the Church only when it would be pleased to persecute her.

We have explained. Venerable Brethren, in an abridged though clear way, some if not all the points upon which French Catholics and all intelligent men should be at peace and unity, so as to remedy, in so far as still remains possible, the e\dls vdih which France is afflicted, and to elevate its moral greatness. The points in question are: Religion and country, poUtical power and legislation, the conduct to be observed in regard to this power and legis- lation, the Concordat, the separation of Church and State. . . . We cherish the hope and the confidence that the elucidation of these points will dissipate the prejudices of many honest,well-meaning men, facilitate the pacification of minds, and thereby cement the union of all Catholics for the sustaining of the great cause of Christ, who loves the Franks.

How consohng to Our heart to encourage you all in this way and to behold you all responding with docihty to Our appeal! You, Venerable Brethren, by your authority and with the enlightened zeal for Church and Fatherland which so distinguishes you, will give able support to this peace-making work. We delight in the hope that those who are in power mil appreciate Our words, which aim at the happiness and prosperity of France.

Meanwhile, as a pledge of Our paternal affection. We bestow upon you. Venerable Brethren, upon your clergy and also upon all the Catholics of France, the apostolic blessing.

Copyright.svg PD-icon.svg This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.

This work was published before January 1, 1924, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1924. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S. (see Help:Public domain).