 |
"Notre Charge Apostolique" |
|
|
"Our Apostolic Mandate" ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X |
||
|
"Le Sillon" was a French Catholic movement which became tainted
by ideas of the French Revolution. This Apostolic Letter was
written to refute some of the movement's excesses. Note
especially refutations of false ideas on liberty, equality,
fraternity, the dignity of man, and what amounts to the
"Civilization of Love." |
The Apostolic Letter
Giiven by Pope Pius X to the French Bishops
August 15, 1910
Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of
the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us
that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when
evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague
notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding
words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals
which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious. Such were not so
long ago the doctrines of the so-called philosophers of the 18th
century, the doctrines of the Revolution and Liberalism which have been
so often condemned; such are even today the theories of the Sillon
which, under the glowing appearance of generosity, are all too often
wanting in clarity, logic and truth. These theories do not belong to the
Catholic or, for that matter, to the French Spirit.
We have long debated, Venerable Brethren, before We decided to solemnly
and publicly speak Our mind on the Sillon. Only when your concern
augmented Our own did We decide to do so. For We love, indeed, the
valiant young people who fight under the Sillon's banner, and We deem
them worthy of praise and admiration in many respects. We love their
leaders, whom We are pleased to acknowledge as noble souls on a level
above vulgar passions, and inspired with the noblest form of enthusiasm
in their quest for goodness. You have seen, Venerable Brethren, how,
imbued with a living realization of the brotherhood of men, and
supported in their selfless efforts by their love of Jesus Christ and a
strict observance of their religious duties, they sought out those who
labor and suffer in order to set them on their feet again.
This was shortly after Our Predecessor Leo XIII of happy memory had
issued his remarkable Encyclical on the condition of the working class.
Speaking through her supreme leader, the Church had just poured out of
the tenderness of her motherly love over the humble and the lowly, and
it looked as though she was calling out for an ever growing number of
people to labor for the restoration of order and justice in our uneasy
society. Was it not opportune, then, for the leaders of the Sillon to
come forward and place at the service of the Church their troops of
young believers who could fulfill her wishes and her hopes? And, in
fact, the Sillon did raise among the workers the standard of Jesus
Christ, the symbol of salvation for peoples and nations. Nourishing its
social action at the fountain of divine grace, it did impose a respect
for religion upon the least willing groups, accustoming the ignorant and
the impious to hearing the Word of God. And, not seldom, during public
debates, stung by a question, or sarcasm, you saw them jumping to their
feet and proudly proclaiming their faith in the face of a hostile
audience. This was the heyday of the Sillon; its brighter side accounts
for the encouragement, and tokens of approval, which the bishops and the
Holy See gave liberally when this religious fervor was still obscuring
the true nature of the Sillonist movement.
For it must be said, Venerable Brethren, that our expectations have been
frustrated in large measure. The day came when perceptive observers
could discern alarming trends within the Sillon; the Sillon was losing
its way. Could it have been otherwise? Its leaders were young, full of
enthusiasm and self-confidence. But they were not adequately equipped
with historical knowledge, sound philosophy, and solid theology to
tackle without danger the difficult social problems in which their work
and their inclinations were involving them. They were not sufficiently
equipped to be on their guard against the penetration of liberal and
Protestant concepts on doctrine and obedience.
They were given no small measure of advice. Admonition came after the
advice but, to Our sorrow, both advice and reproaches ran off the sheath
of their elusive souls, and were of no avail. Things came to such a pass
that We should be failing in Our duty if kept silence any longer. We owe
the truth to Our dear sons of the Sillon who are carried away by their
generous ardor along the path strewn with errors and dangers. We owe the
truth to a large number of seminarists and priests who have been drawn
away by the Sillon, if not from the authority, at least from the
guidance and influence of the bishops. We owe it also to the Church in
which the Sillon is sowing discord and whose interests it endangers.
In the first place We must take up sharply the pretension of the Sillon
to escape the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authority. Indeed, the
leaders of the Sillon claim that they are working in a field which is
not that of the Church; they claim that they are pursuing aims in the
temporal order only and not those of the spiritual order; that the
Sillonist is simply a Catholic devoted to the betterment of the working
class and to democratic endeavors by drawing from the practice of his
faith the energy for his selfless efforts. They claim that, neither more
nor less than a Catholic craftsman, farmer, economist or politician, the
Sillonist is subject to common standards of behavior, yet without being
bound in a special manner by the authority of the Church.
To reply to these fallacies is only to easy; for whom will they make
believe that the Catholic Sillonists, the priests and seminarists
enrolled in their ranks have in sight in their social work, only the
temporal interests of the working class? To maintain this, We think,
would be an insult to them. The truth is that the Sillonist leaders are
self-confessed and irrepressible idealists; they claim to regenerate the
working class by first elevating the conscience of Man; they have a
social doctrine, and they have religious and philosophical principles
for the reconstruction of society upon new foundations; they have a
particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and
brotherhood; and, in an attempt to justify their social dreams, they put
forward the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way; and what is even
more serious, they call to witness Christ, but a diminished and
distorted Christ. Further, they teach these ideas in their study groups,
and inculcate them upon their friends, and they also introduce them into
their working procedures. Therefore they are really professors of
social, civic, and religious morals; and whatever modifications they may
introduce in the organization of the Sillonist movement, we have the
right to say that the aims of the Sillon, its character and its action
belong to the field of morals which is the proper domain of the Church.
In view of all this, the Sillonist are deceiving themselves when they
believe that they are working in a field that lies outside the limits of
Church authority and of its doctrinal and directive power.
Even if their doctrines were free from errors, it would still be a very
serious breach of Catholic discipline to decline obstinately the
direction of those who have received from heaven the mission to guide
individuals and communities along the straight path of truth and
goodness. But, as We have already said, the evil lies far deeper; the
Sillon, carried away by an ill-conceived love for the weak, has fallen
into error.
Indeed, the Sillon proposes to raise up and re-educate the working
class. But in this respect the principles of Catholic doctrine have been
defined, and the history of Christian civilization bears witness to
their beneficent fruitfulness. Our Predecessor of happy memory
re-affirmed them in masterly documents, and all Catholics dealing with
social questions have the duty to study them and to keep them in mind.
He taught, among other things, that “Christian Democracy must preserve
the diversity of classes which is assuredly the attribute of a soundly
constituted State, and it must seek to give human society the form and
character which God, its Author, has imparted to it.” Our Predecessor
denounced “A certain Democracy which goes so far in wickedness as to
place sovereignty in the people and aims at the suppression of classes
and their leveling down.” At the same time, Leo XIII laid down for
Catholics a program of action, the only program capable of putting
society back onto its centuries old Christian basis. But what have the
leaders of the Sillon done? Not only have they adopted a program and
teaching different from that of Leo XIII (which would be of itself a
singularly audacious decision on the part of laymen thus taking up,
concurrent with the Sovereign Pontiff, the role of director of social
action in the Church); but they have openly rejected the program laid
out by Leo XIII, and have adopted another which is diametrically opposed
to it. Further, they reject the doctrine recalled by Leo XIII on the
essential principles of society; they place authority in the people, or
gradually suppress it and strive, as their ideal, to effect the leveling
down of the classes. In opposition to Catholic doctrine, therefore, they
are proceeding towards a condemned ideal.
We know well that they flatter themselves with the idea of raising human
dignity and the discredited condition of the working class. We know that
they wish to render just and perfect the labor laws and the relations
between employers and employees, thus causing a more complete justice
and a greater measure of charity to prevail upon earth, and causing also
a profound and fruitful transformation in society by which mankind would
make an undreamed-of progress. Certainly, We do not blame these efforts;
they would be excellent in every respect if the Sillonist did not forget
that a person’s progress consists in developing his natural abilities by
fresh motivations; that it consists also in permitting these motivations
to operate within the frame of, and in conformity with, the laws of
human nature. But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human
nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human
person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This,
nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of
changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future
City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more
fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present
Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these
times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon
himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built
otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the
Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is
not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy
notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian
civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and
restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers,
rebels and miscreants. OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO.
Now, lest We be accused of judging too hastily and with unjustified
rigor the social doctrines of the Sillon, We wish to examine their
essential points.
The Sillon has a praise-worthy concern for human dignity, but it
understands human dignity in the manner of some philosophers, of whom
the Church does not at all feel proud. The first condition of that
dignity is liberty, but viewed in the sense that, except in religious
matters, each man is autonomous. This is the basis principle from which
the Sillon draws further conclusions: today the people are in tutelage
under an authority distinct from themselves; they must liberate
themselves: political emancipation. They are also dependent upon
employers who own the means of production, exploit, oppress and degrade
the workers; they must shake off the yoke: economic emancipation.
Finally, they are ruled by a caste preponderance in the direction of
affairs. The people must break away from this dominion: intellectual
emancipation. The leveling-down of differences from this three-fold
point of view will bring about equality among men, and such equality is
viewed as true human justice. A socio-political set-up resting on these
two pillars of Liberty and Equality (to which Fraternity will presently
be added), is what they call Democracy.
However, liberty and equality are, so to speak, no more than a negative
side. The distinctive and positive aspect of Democracy is to be found in
the largest possible participation of everyone in the government of
public affairs. And this, in turn, comprises a three-fold aspect, namely
political, economical, and moral.
At first, the Sillon does not wish to abolish political authority; on
the contrary, it considers it necessary; but it wishes to divide it, or
rather to multiply it in such a way that each citizen will become a kind
of king. Authority, so they concede, comes from God, but it resides
primarily in the people and expresses itself by means of elections or,
better still, by selection. However, it still remains in the hands of
the people; it does not escape their control. It will be an external
authority, yet only in appearance; in fact, it will be internal because
it will be an authority assented to.
All other things being equal, the same principle will apply to
economics. Taken away from a specific group, management will be so well
multiplied that each worker will himself become a kind of employer. The
system by which the Sillon intends to actualize this economic ideal is
not Sillonism, they say; it is a system of guilds in a number large
enough to induce a healthy competition and to protect the workers’
independence; in this manner, they will not be bound to any guild in
particular.
We come now to the principal aspect, the moral aspect. Since, as we have
seen, authority is much reduced, another force is necessary to
supplement it and to provide a permanent counterweight against
individual selfishness. This new principle, this force, is the love of
professional interest and of public interest, that is to say, the love
of the very end of the profession and of society. Visualize a society in
which, in the soul of everyone, along with the innate love of personal
interest and family welfare, prevails love for one’s occupation and for
the welfare of the community. Imagine this society in which, in the
conscience of everyone, personal and family interests are so subordinate
that a superior interest always takes precedence over them. Could not
such a society almost do without any authority? And would it not be the
embodiment of the ideal of human dignity, with each citizen having the
soul of a king, and each worker the soul of a master? Snatched away from
the pettiness of private interests, and raised up to the interests of
the profession and, even higher, to those of the whole nation and,
higher still, to those of the whole human race (for the Sillon's field
of vision is not bound by the national borders, it encompasses all men
even to the ends of the earth), the human heart, enlarged by the love of
the common-wealth, would embrace all comrades of the same profession,
all compatriots, all men. Such is the ideal of human greatness and
nobility to be attained through the famous popular trilogy: LIBERTY,
EQUALITY, FRATERNITY.
These three elements, namely political, economic, and moral, are
inter-dependent and, as We have said, the moral element is dominant.
Indeed, no political Democracy can survive if it is not anchored to an
economic Democracy. But neither one nor the other is possible if it is
not rooted in awareness by the human conscience of being invested with
moral responsibilities and energies mutually commensurate. But granted
the existence of that awareness, so created by conscious
responsibilities and moral forces, the kind of Democracy arising from it
will naturally reflect in deeds the consciousness and moral forces from
which it flows. In the same manner, political Democracy will also issue
from the trade-guild system. Thus, both political and economic
Democracies, the latter bearing the former, will be fastened in the very
consciousness of the people to unshakable bases.
To sum up, such is the theory, one could say the dream of the Sillon;
and that is what its teaching aims at, what it calls the democratic
education of the people, that is, raising to its maximum the conscience
and civic responsibility of every one, from which will result economic
and political Democracy and the reign of JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY,
FRATERNITY.
This brief explanation, Venerable Brethren, will show you clearly how
much reason We have to say that the Sillon opposes doctrine to doctrine,
that it seeks to build its City on a theory contrary to Catholic truth,
and that falsifies the basis and essential notions which regulate social
relations in any human society. The following considerations will make
this opposition even more evident.
The Sillon places public authority primarily in the people, from whom it
then flows into the government in such a manner, however, that it
continues to reside in the people. But Leo XIII absolutely condemned
this doctrine in his Encyclical “Diuturnum Illud” on political
government in which he said:
“Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those
who called themselves philosophers in the last century, declare that all
power comes from the people; consequently those who exercise power in
society do not exercise it from their own authority, but from an
authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it
can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite
contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of
government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.”
Admittedly, the Sillon holds that authority - which first places in the
people - descends from God, but in such a way: “as to return from below
upwards, whilst in the organization of the Church power descends from
above downwards.”
But besides its being abnormal for the delegation of power to ascend,
since it is in its nature to descend, Leo XIII refuted in advance this
attempt to reconcile Catholic Doctrine with the error of philosophism.
For, he continues: “It is necessary to remark here that those who
preside over the government of public affairs may indeed, in certain
cases, be chosen by the will and judgment of the multitude without
repugnance or opposition to Catholic doctrine. But whilst this choice
marks out the ruler, it does not confer upon him the authority to
govern; it does not delegate the power, it designates the person who
will be invested with it.”
For the rest, if the people remain the holders of power, what becomes of
authority? A shadow, a myth; there is no more law properly so-called, no
more obedience. The Sillon acknowledges this: indeed, since it demands
that threefold political, economic, and intellectual emancipation in the
name of human dignity, the Future City in the formation of which it is
engaged will have no masters and no servants. All citizens will be free;
all comrades, all kings. A command, a precept would be viewed as an
attack upon their freedom; subordination to any form of superiority
would be a diminishment of the human person, and obedience a disgrace.
Is it in this manner, Venerable Brethren, that the traditional doctrine
of the Church represents social relations, even in the most perfect
society? Has not every community of people, dependent and unequal by
nature, need of an authority to direct their activity towards the common
good and to enforce its laws? And if perverse individuals are to be
found in a community (and there always are), should not authority be all
the stronger as the selfishness of the wicked is more threatening?
Further, - unless one greatly deceives oneself in the conception of
liberty - can it be said with an atom of reason that authority and
liberty are incompatible? Can one teach that obedience is contrary to
human dignity and that the ideal would be to replace it by “accepted
authority”? Did not St. Paul the Apostle foresee human society in all
its possible stages of development when he bade the faithful to be
subject to every authority? Does obedience to men as the legitimate
representatives of God, that is to say in the final analysis, obedience
to God, degrade Man and reduce him to a level unworthy of himself? Is
the religious life which is based on obedience, contrary to the ideal of
human nature? Were the Saints - the most obedient men, just slaves and
degenerates? Finally, can you imagine social conditions in which Jesus
Christ, if He returned to earth, would not give an example of obedience
and, further, would no longer say: “Render to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” ?
Teaching such doctrines, and applying them to its internal organization,
the Sillon, therefore, sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority,
liberty and obedience, among your Catholic youth. The same is true of
justice and equality; the Sillon says that it is striving to establish
an era of equality which, by that very fact, would be also an era of
greater justice. Thus, to the Sillon, every inequality of condition is
an injustice, or at least, a diminution of justice? Here we have a
principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle
conducive to jealously, injustice, and subversive to any social order.
Thus, Democracy alone will bring about the reign of perfect justice! Is
this not an insult to other forms of government which are thereby
debased to the level of sterile makeshifts? Besides, the Sillonists once
again clash on this point with the teaching of Leo XIII. In the
Encyclical on political government which We have already quoted, they
could have read this: “Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to
the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best
corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs
handed down by their forefathers.”
And the Encyclical alludes to the three well-known forms of government,
thus implying that justice is compatible with any of them. And does not
the Encyclical on the condition of the working class state clearly that
justice can be restored within the existing social set-up - since it
indicates the means of doing so? Undoubtedly, Leo XIII did not mean to
speak of some form of justice, but of perfect justice. Therefore, when
he said that justice could be found in any of the three aforesaid forms
of government, he was teaching that in this respect Democracy does not
enjoy a special privilege. The Sillonists who maintain the opposite
view, either turn a deaf ear to the teaching of the Church or form for
themselves an idea of justice and equality which is not Catholic.
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the
love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on
the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and
tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are
intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine
tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration
of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or
practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our
brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral
improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine
further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God,
Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus
Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others
we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is
sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of
ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of
nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the
heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside
Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our
Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all
to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood,
Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step
backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the
highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be
attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal
solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all
wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son
Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and
that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of
progress towards the ideal civilization.
Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the
false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will
be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong,
enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master,
obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding
responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which
human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light,
without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which
he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the
glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it
come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power
of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought
human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And
what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are
content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence
placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with
Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of
being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their
obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people?
We close here Our observations on the errors of the Sillon. We do not
claim to have exhausted the subject, for We should yet draw your
attention to other points that are equally false and dangerous, for
example on the manner to interpret the concept of the coercive power of
the Church. But We must now examine the influence of these errors upon
the practical conduct and upon the social action of the Sillon.
The Sillonist doctrines are not kept within the domain of abstract
philosophy; they are taught to Catholic youth and, even worse, efforts
are made to apply them in everyday life. The Sillon is regarded as the
nucleus of the Future City and, accordingly, it is being made to its
image as much as possible. Indeed, the Sillon has no hierarchy. The
governing elite has emerged from the rank and file by selection, that
is, by imposing itself through its moral authority and its virtues.
People join it freely, and freely they may leave it. Studies are carried
out without a master, at the very most, with an adviser. The study
groups are really intellectual pools in which each member is at once
both master and student. The most complete fellowship prevails amongst
its members, and draws their souls into close communion: hence the
common soul of the Sillon. It has been called a "friendship". Even the
priest, on entering, lowers the eminent dignity of his priesthood and,
by a strange reversal of roles, becomes a student, placing himself on a
level with his young friends, and is no more than a comrade.
In these democratic practices and in the theories of the Ideal City from
which they flow, you will recognize, Venerable Brethren, the hidden
cause of the lack of discipline with which you have so often had to
reproach the Sillon. It is not surprising that you do not find among the
leaders and their comrades trained on these lines, whether seminarists
or priests, the respect, the docility, and the obedience which are due
to your authority and to yourselves; not is it surprising that you
should be conscious of an underlying opposition on their part, and that,
to your sorrow, you should see them withdraw altogether from works which
are not those of the Sillon or, if compelled under obedience, that they
should comply with distaste. You are the past; they are the pioneers of
the civilization of the future. You represent the hierarchy, social
inequalities, authority, and obedience - worn out institutions to which
their hearts, captured by another ideal, can no longer submit to.
Occurrences so sad as to bring tears to Our eyes bear witness to this
frame of mind. And we cannot, with all Our patience, overcome a just
feeling of indignation. Now then! Distrust of the Church, their Mother,
is being instilled into the minds of Catholic youth; they are being
taught that after nineteen centuries She has not yet been able to build
up in this world a society on true foundations; She has not understood
the social notions of authority, liberty, equality, fraternity and human
dignity; they are told that the great Bishops and Kings, who have made
France what it is and governed it so gloriously, have not been able to
give their people true justice and true happiness because they did not
possess the Sillonist Ideal!
The breath of the Revolution has passed this way, and We can conclude
that, whilst the social doctrines of the Sillon are erroneous, its
spirit is dangerous and its education disastrous.
But then, what are we to think of its action in the Church? What are we
to think of a movement so punctilious in its brand of Catholicism that,
unless you embrace its cause, you would almost be regarded as an
internal enemy of the Church, and you would understand nothing of the
Gospel and of Jesus Christ! We deem it necessary to insist on that point
because it is precisely its Catholic ardor which has secured for the
Sillon until quite recently, valuable encouragements and the support of
distinguished persons. Well now! judging the words and the deeds, We
feel compelled to say that in its actions as well as in its doctrine,
the Sillon does not give satisfaction to the Church.
In the first place, its brand of Catholicism accepts only the democratic
form of government which it considers the most favorable to the Church
and, so to speak, identifies it with her. The Sillon , therefore,
subjects its religion to a political party. We do not have to
demonstrate here that the advent of universal Democracy is of no concern
to the action of the Church in the world; we have already recalled that
the Church has always left to the nations the care of giving themselves
the form of government which they think most suited to their needs. What
We wish to affirm once again, after Our Predecessor, is that it is an
error and a danger to bind down Catholicism by principle to a particular
form of government. This error and this danger are all the greater when
Religion is associated with a kind of Democracy whose doctrines are
false. But this is what the Sillon is doing. For the sake of a
particular political form, it compromises the Church, it sows division
among Catholics, snatches away young people and even priests and
seminarists from purely Catholic action, and is wasting away as a dead
loss part of the living forces of the nation.
And, behold, Venerable Brethren, an astounding contradiction: It is
precisely because religion ought to transcend all parties, and it is in
appealing to this principle, that the Sillon abstains from defending the
beleaguered Church. Certainly, it is not the Church that has gone into
the political arena: they have dragged here there to mutilate and to
despoil her. Is it not the duty of every Catholic, then, to use the
political weapons which he holds, to defend her? Is it not a duty to
confine politics to its own domain and to leave the Church alone except
in order to give her that which is her due? Well, at the sight of the
violences thus done to the Church, we are often grieved to see the
Sillonists folding their arms except when it is to their advantage to
defend her; we see them dictate or maintain a program which nowhere and
in no degree can be called Catholic. Yet this does not prevent the same
men, when fully engaged in political strife and spurred by provocation,
from publicly proclaiming their faith. What are we to say except that
there are two different men in the Sillonist; the individual, who is
Catholic, and the Sillonist, the man of action, who is neutral!
There was a time when the Sillon, as such, was truly Catholic. It
recognized but one moral force - Catholicism; and the Sillonists were
wont to proclaim that Democracy would have to be Catholic or would not
exist at all. A time came when they changed their minds. They left to
each one his religion or his philosophy. They ceased to call themselves
Catholics and, for the formula "Democracy will be Catholic" they
substituted "Democracy will not be anti-Catholic", any more than it will
be anti-Jewish or anti-Buddhist. This was the time of "the Greater
Sillon". For the construction of the Future City they appealed to the
workers of all religions and all sects. These were asked but one thing:
to share the same social ideal, to respect all creeds, and to bring with
them a certain supply of moral force. Admittedly: they declared that
“The leaders of the Sillon place their religious faith above everything.
But can they deny others the right to draw their moral energy from
whence they can? In return, they expect others to respect their right to
draw their own moral energy from the Catholic Faith. Accordingly they
ask all those who want to change today's society in the direction of
Democracy, not to oppose each other on account of the philosophical or
religious convictions which may separate them, but to march hand in
hand, not renouncing their convictions, but trying to provide on the
ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their
personal convictions. Perhaps a union will be effected on this ground of
emulation between souls holding different religious or philosophical
convictions.” And they added at the same time (but how could this be
accomplished?) that “the Little Catholic Sillon will be the soul of the
Greater Cosmopolitan Sillon.”
Recently, the term “Greater Sillon” was discarded and a new organization
was born without modifying, quite the contrary, the spirit and the
substratum of things: “In order to organize in an orderly manner the
different forces of activity, the Sillon still remains as a Soul, a
Spirit, which will pervade the groups and inspire their work.” Thus, a
host of new groups, Catholic, Protestant, Free-Thinking, now apparently
autonomous, are invited to set to work: “Catholic comrades will work
between themselves in a special organization and will learn and educate
themselves. Protestant and Free-Thinking Democrats will do likewise on
their own side. But all of us, Catholics, Protestants and Free-Thinkers
will have at heart to arm young people, not in view of the fratricidal
struggle, but in view of a disinterested emulation in the field of
social and civic virtues.”
These declarations and this new organization of the Sillonist action
call for very serious remarks.
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association
that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is
above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization
without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the
true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new
Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of
practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their
leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the
mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever
religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical
realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.”
And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature
of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his
finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells
in his body.
This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young
Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a
work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them
than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all
the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of
their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest?
Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less
dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit
of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all
errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the
dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they
may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to
think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may
express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists
who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal
faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to
prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic
from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a
Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism
outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of
disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the
triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may
be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for
Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous
organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which
surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical
circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces
and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible
without the leaven of generous idealism.”
Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the
Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for
a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from
the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation,
indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and
interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that
benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious
reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if
the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social
action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church!
But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the
audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of
re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth,
over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and
justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no
religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might
divide them - their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long
as they share what unites them - a "generous idealism and moral forces
drawn from whence they can" When we consider the forces, knowledge, and
supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian
City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by
the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the
heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the
streams of Divine Grace - the whole having been built up, bound
together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the
Wisdom of God, the Word made man - when we think, I say, of all this, it
is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by
a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they
going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal
and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble,
and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity,
Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood
human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end
proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the
people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a
chimera, brings Socialism in its train.
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing
promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can
only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor
Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said,
is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men
become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do
not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves,
Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon?
Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising
expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in
its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than
a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized
in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall
have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor
curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human
dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome)
the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the
weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these
mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds.
The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these
doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating
good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a
measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel
which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent
that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely
disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the
Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution
blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they
are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.
We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion
of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God
and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the
social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters
to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention
only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and
His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the
brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite
love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around
Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual
charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the
realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down
with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock,
that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that
we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.
Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray,
He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have
appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert
them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort
them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the
jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was
not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and
rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed
with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself
with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against
the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the
authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens
without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was
gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us
that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper
for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did
not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from
which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His
example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth
and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross.
These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's
personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently
social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite
different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.
As for you, Venerable Brethren, carry on diligently with the work of the
Saviour of men by emulating His gentleness and His strength. Minister to
every misery; let no sorrow escape your pastoral solicitude; let no
lament find you indifferent. But, on the other hand, preach fearlessly
their duties to the powerful and to the lowly; it is your function to
form the conscience of the people and of the public authorities. The
social question will be much nearer a solution when all those concerned,
less demanding as regards their respective rights, shall fulfill their
duties more exactingly.
Moreover, since in the clash of interests, and especially in the
struggle against dishonest forces, the virtue of man, and even his
holiness are not always sufficient to guarantee him his daily bread, and
since social structures, through their natural interplay, ought to be
devised to thwart the efforts of the unscrupulous and enable all men of
good will to attain their legitimate share of temporal happiness, We
earnestly desire that you should take an active part in the organization
of society with this objective in mind. And, to this end, whilst your
priests will zealously devote efforts to the sanctification of souls, to
the defense of the Church, and also to works of charity in the strict
sense, you shall select a few of them, level-headed and of active
disposition, holders of Doctors’ degrees in philosophy and theology,
thoroughly acquainted with the history of ancient and modern
civilizations, and you shall set them to the not-so-lofty but more
practical study of the social science so that you may place them at the
opportune time at the helm of your works of Catholic action. However,
let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the
miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of
the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown
phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable.
Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did
not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times
and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end;
that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by
consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the
past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the
true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the
Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit
that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material
development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people
are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.
We desire that the Sillonist youth, freed from their errors, far from
impeding this work which is eminently worthy of your pastoral care,
should bring to it their loyal and effective contribution in an orderly
manner and with befitting submission.
We now turn towards the leaders of the Sillon with the confidence of a
father who speaks to his children, and We ask them for their own good,
and for the good of the Church and of France, to turn their leadership
over to you. We are certainly aware of the extent of the sacrifice that
We request from them, but We know them to be of a sufficiently generous
disposition to accept it and, in advance, in the Name of Our Lord Jesus
Christ whose unworthy representative We are, We bless them for this. As
to the rank and file of the Sillon, We wish that they group themselves
according to dioceses in order to work, under the authority of their
respective bishops, for the Christian and Catholic regeneration of the
people, as well as for the improvement of their lot. These diocesan
groups will be independent from one another for the time being. And, in
order to show clearly that they have broken with the errors of the past,
they will take the name of “Catholic Sillon”, and each of the members
will add to his Sillonist title the “Catholic” qualification. It goes
without saying that each Catholic Sillonist will remain free to retain
his political preferences, provided they are purified of everything that
is not entirely conformable to the doctrine of the Church. Should some
groups refuse, Venerable Brethren, to submit to these conditions, you
should consider that very fact that they are refusing to submit to your
authority. Then, you will have to examine whether they stay within the
limits of pure politics or economics, or persist in their former errors.
In the former case, it is clear that you will have no more to do with
them than with the general body of the faithful; in the latter case, you
will have to take appropriate measures, with prudence but with firmness
also. Priests will have to keep entirely out of the dissident groups,
and they shall be content to extend the help of their sacred ministry to
each member individually, applying to them in the tribunal of penitence
the common rules of morals in respect to doctrine and conduct. As for
the catholic groups, whilst the priests and the seminarists may favor
and help them, they shall abstain from joining them as members; for it
is fitting that the priestly phalanx should remain above lay
associations even when these are most useful and inspired by the best
spirit. Such are the practical measures with which We have deemed
necessary to confirm this letter on the Sillon an the Sillonists. From
the depths of Our soul We pray that the Lord may cause these men and
young people to understand the grave reasons which have prompted it. May
He give them the docility of heart and the courage to show to the Church
the sincerity of their Catholic fervor. As for you, Venerable Brethren,
may the Lord inspire in your hearts towards them - since they will be
yours henceforth - the sentiments of a true fatherly love.
In expressing this hope, and to obtain these results which are so
desirable, We grant to you, to your clergy and to your people, Our
Apostolic benediction with all Our heart.
Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, on the 25th August 1910, the eighth year of
Our Pontificate.
Pius X, Pope