Their view did not prevail and it was °re sistance* that carried the day. The first phase of it was the solemn condemnation of the law by the Pope, almost immediately, in his encyc lical Nos.* Therein he reproached the state with great energy for having °violated its sworn promise, and abrogated by its sole authority the solemn pact it had signed, a bi lateral contract binding on both parties,* and that without any notification to the Holy See, °without the courtesy.which is never omitted in dealing with the smallest states.' Then fol lowed a detailed criticism of the law in its principles and provisions and, at the end, an absolute condemnation. Moreover the Pope announced that he would send at the proper time definite instructions.
That encyclical was received with an extraor dinary enthusiasm by an immense majority of the clergy and the laity. Language so energetic was a solace to hearts and consciences borne down by a long series of oppressions supported in silence. When the government, according to Article 16 of the law, sent its agents into the churches to take the inventories of the build ings and of the furniture, they met a quite un expected resistance in many places, especially in Paris, in the north and centre of France and in Brittany. They were very often obliged to come with armed force, and the soldiers were employed in a service which was very painful to them and to their officers, some of whom resigned and sacrificed their careers to their religious convictions.
The final decision of the Pope was looked for with great anxiety. It came on 10 Aug. 1906, and was read on the 15th of the same month in all the cathedrals of France. It de clared definitely that no association cultuelle of any sort could be organized, l'as long as there was not given by the government a positive legal guarantee that in these associations the constitution, the rights, the hierarchy and the property of the Church would be perfectly pro tected and secured' The bishops, assembled hi Paris, wrote to the Pope a letter of absolute submission and decided to maintain provisionally the statu quo, that is, the continuation of public worship in churches as long as the agents of the govern ment would not attempt to expel the worship pers by force.
The government paid no attention to the decision of the Pope and of the bishops. As the Church had to create associations cultuelles before the 11th of December under penalty of losing everything, all the properties of the dioceses and of the parishes, down to her last cent and her last candlestick, the tittle states men who took her simply for a political ma chine awaited with confidence the momentous date, thinking that, if by chance the Pope did not understand the situation, priests and laity would understand and act accordingly. The
month of December approached, the 11th of December came, and no associations were formed.
That discipline and disinterestedness struck the foes of the Church with amazement. But surprise was not the only sentiment of the mem bers of the government. According to their own admission, they had foreseen everything except what happened, and they did not know what to do. They drew back for a time; they accorded to the Church a year of delay, a year of grace, one might say, during which she might have a chance to reflect upon her best interests, and during which also the ministry might be changed.
Nevertheless they did not wish to appear to yield entirely and to allow the Catholics to make use of the churches just as if the Con cordat were still in force. They took the law of 1881 on public meetings, modified it by a simple ministerial decree, so as to make it applicable to religious services, and declared that they might be celebrated in the churches upon a mere annual declaration made before the mayor or the prefect. But they were care ful to add that the officiating priest would be nothing more in his Church than an occupant without legal title. He would have no right to act as a proprietor; still less could he make any disposition of the property. The ministerial circular further declared that he °should have no right to charge or collect any sum for the use of the Church and of the objects which it contains." In other words, the priest had in the Church the same rights that a traveler has in the public streets.
As the Pope said in his encyclical of 6 Jan. 1907, the annual declaration might have been tolerated, although it did not offer any legal security. But the situation thus created for the priest in his church was so humiliating and nreearious that it could not he nut tin with Pius X, consulted by several prelates, tele graphed to the archbishop of Paris: "Continue worship in the churches. Refrain from any declarations.° • As soon as this response was communicated to the bishops by Cardinal Richard, the Cabinet decided with feverish haste measures which otherwise would have been carried into execution only after 'a period of from one to five years. Within a few weeks all the archbishops and bishops were driven out of their homes, all the pupils in the theo logical seminaries of every grade were turned out; all the personal property, all the religious houses belonging to the dioceses or to the parishes, were confiscated without the slightest exception, even in cases where the state had contributed nothing either to their acquisition or construction.