He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

V. SAINT PIUS X, DOCTOR OF SOCIAL ORDER

(*) This article follows after the study of Our Catholic and French “Social Model”
(He is Risen n° 55, April 2007)

Unlike Leo XIII, who had never experienced or even come close to experiencing true poverty and the world of labour, Joseph Sarto, who was born into a humble family in 1835, experienced the veritable difficulties of the life of farmers and small craftsmen. He heard their complaints just as he had understood the danger that the development of Socialist ideas was for the Church and the salvation of souls.

After a curacy in Tombolo, he was appointed parish priest in Salzano, and he made contact with a Jewish industrialist, Moses Romanin-Jacur, who ran a silk mill. His mill employed three hundred workers. Grappling with increasing difficulties, Moses came to ask for advice from Don Sarto. His advice was so judicious that business very rapidly resumed, and the mill was saved. Don Sarto also founded a hospital, a rural Bank the aim of which was to assist the labourers, craftsmen, and farmers of Salzano. His main concern was to reunite employers and workers in order to break the social barriers that were sources of conflict. If he was worried about the interests of everyone, it was always with the concern of first defending the poor while « always safeguarding justice and charity ».

In 1884, when he arrived at the Bishop’s House of Mantua, the city was in the middle of a full-scale industrial crisis. During the last elections, the candidates from the Socialist left obtained 64 % of the votes. Shortly after his arrival, the new bishop encouraged the creation of « youth sections » within the Work of the Congress, and recommended to his priests establishing assistance funds in order to counter the Socialists on the ground where they were particularly established. Mgr Sarto, an honorary member of the Catholic Workers Society of Treviso, supported the Catholic Union for Social Studies that had been founded at Padua in 1889 by Professor Joseph Toniolo, an Italian economist, eminent member of The Fribourg Union, and friend of the Marquis René de La Tour du Pin.

During the eighth assembly of the Catholic Congresses that was held in Lodi in October 1890, Mgr Sarto preached concord among those inclined to different solutions. He then gave a definition of Catholic social action: « We must know how to make the sacrifice of our self-esteem and opinions. Make your own the aphorism In necessariis unitas, in omnibus caritas, remembering that to our work of practical action the formula in dubiis libertas cannot be applied. Here doubt is resolved by the oracle of the Church, who always indicates the path to follow. » The oracle of the Church is the Pope: « When we speak about the Vicar of Jesus Christ, he said, it is not the place to examine but to obey; we must not measure the scope of the order that was given in order to limit the obedience that we will give to it; we must not quibble with the clearest word of the Pope in order to misrepresent its meaning; we must not interpret the will of the Pope according to biases that destroy its obvious substance; we must not pit rights against the right the Pope has to teach and command; we must not weigh judgments, dispute orders, if we do not want to offend directly Jesus Christ Himself… Society is ill, all the noble parts of its body are affected, the sources of life are under attack: the unique refuge, the unique remedy is the Pope. »

The Pope at that time was… Leo XIII, a “liberal” Pope…

LIBERALISM IS A SIN

On 5 September 1894, shortly after he was appointed Patriarch of Venice, Mgr Sarto explained in his first pastoral letter the role of the virtue of justice in bringing men closer together within true Christian society. Justice towards God first.

Consequently, it is imperative « that priests not accept any of the ideas of this liberalism that, under the guise of good, claims to reconcile justice and iniquity… Catholic liberals are wolves covered with lambs fleece; this is why the priest who is truly a priest must reveal to the people entrusted to his care their dangerous snares and their evil intentions. You will be called papists, clericalists, reactionaries, intransigents. Pride yourself on it! Be strong, and obey this commandment that Isaiah recalls: “Shout for all you are worth, raise your voice like a trumpet. Proclaim their faults to My people, their sins to the House of Jacob.” »

On 25 April 1895, for the feast of St. Mark, the Patriarch opposed to class struggle the filial relationship that alone makes us truly free. « In the language of Scripture as in those of all peoples, the free condition par excellence, the condition most in opposition to slavery, is that of a son. To be a child and to be free is one and the same but this condition is subordinate to obedience. In a family there is one sceptre, one authority, one power. To become free does not mean therefore to leave the ranks of slaves to join those of rebels, but to cast off the yoke of the master to pass under the authority of a father. It means leaving bondage to enter into the family. »

The Patriarch did not merely content himself with speaking. He intervened in favour of the lace factory in Burano, and the four hundred employees thus kept their jobs. Another time, having learned that the employees of the tobacco factory had been solicited by a Socialist organisation, the cardinal went there to explain to them that they would be defended better by a professional association that they would manage themselves and proposed his services as an intermediary for any demands or just grievances to be brought forward.

He also encouraged the Work of the Congress to found “Parish Committees”. He announced his intention to purchase the first hundred actions of The Bank of Saint Mark. He encouraged likewise the creation of Catholic insurance companies, seeing therein the realisation « of a Christian social ideal in perfect correspondence with the economic and moral needs of our times ». He blessed the houses for workers that were built by the Murano trust fund of which he was an honorary member.

In short: « We do not need too many speeches; let us leave fine language to politicians; as for us, let us act », it being understood that the action of laymen, « these co-operators of the parish priest », must always be carried out in obedience to the hierarchy.

« OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO »

In 1896 the second Congress of the Catholic Union for Social Studies was held in Padua. The organisation of credit, defence of small rural companies, progressive taxation, and farmers’ guilds were all touched on. Cardinal Sarto’s speech especially attracted attention. He, in fact, gave a theological basis to the social question, by recalling original sin « from which come all the errors that are called Socialism, Communism, all the utopias connected with the liberation of the flesh, rehabilitation of nature, equality of human conditions, the sharing of wealth, the sovereignty of reason ».

The remedy to the “social question” must thus be religious. In the face of the revolution and incredulity of « fervent enemies » who « threaten and attempt to annihilate the social edifice », the Patriarch of Venice invited the participants to put Jesus Christ at the foundation of their works:

« To make Jesus Christ the foundation of these studies is to fight as He did in His divine Code, the passions, the vices, the injustices that are the source and the main cause of all the social troubles; it is to provide the weapons to eliminate selfishness and inspire self-abnegation and sacrifice by perfecting, ennobling, and sanctifying all the means of attaining social well-being, insofar as it is possible for human nature with its physical and moral infirmities; it is to provide for the triumph of justice, for the organisation of charity and, through it, for all needs. »

What is the difference between justice and charity? The answer to this question is the key to Mgr Sarto’s social doctrine. It led him to warning against the aid of the welfare state:

« The substitution of the official alms for private alms is the complete destruction of Christianity. Christianity does not exist without charity. The distinction between charity and justice is that the latter can demand, even through recourse to laws and force, according to the circumstances, while the former can only be imposed before the tribunal of God and the conscience. When assistance is given by force of law, when alms do not come from an impulse of the heart, when alms are no longer free and lose their merit before God, they cease to be a channel of grace and an instrument of salvation. In its place arises the right to alms and to work, the bond of love is broken, which is alone capable of uniting the poor to the rich, and poverty becomes a function, an office, a public occupation that proudly awaits payday. »

ILL-FEELINGS, THE WORK OF THE DEVIL

In 1897, however, a difference of opinion appeared within the Work of the Congress. The young clergy expelled the « old clergy » who were judged too conservative, and challenged the corporative organisation to replace it with the « professional unions » of the trade unions, considering the latter better adapted to the modern world. Basing himself on Rerum Novarum and the teaching of Leo XIII, Toniolo appealed to the people. It ought to be in charge of its own lot defended by Christian democracy.

In order to establish this democracy, he then explained that it was necessary to give the people « an organic existence » by forming labour unions. Christian democracy would thus « insinuate, revive and feed in the souls of workers a class conscience » which, thanks to universal suffrage, would be able to « have an influence on economic legislation » before being able to act « on the reform of the parliamentary system itself, according to the principle of the autonomous representation of classes by a popular referendum ».

Finally, he concluded that, « political democracy was the rational and historic consequence of religious democracy ». Toniolo found support from the turbulent Fr. Murri, the standard bearer of the « youth » of the Work of the Congress.

After several years of hesitation, Leo XIII intervened by his encyclical Graves de communi in order to quieten down this excessive, grand exaltation of the Christian Democrats and to silence the recalcitrants. Yes to Christian democracy, he said, but only « by removing from it all political meaning ». The Patriarch of Venice followed the Pope’s directives by recommending « a beneficial action in favour of the people », and not a political action.

Knowing that Pope Leo XIII fundamentally supported him Fr. Romolo Murri published on 16 August 1902, a virulent article in his review, La Cultura Sociale, against Paganuzzi, the president of the Work of the Congress, who was judged too conservative. In fact, Murri sought to eliminate Paganuzzi in order to assume control of the Work of the Congress and transform it into a political party. The following day, in an open letter that was published in La Difesa, Cardinal Sarto protested against « the disloyal war waged against the foremost of the renowned and venerated champions of Catholic labour » and denounced « the malicious criticisms, the slanderous insinuations and the utter ingratitude of those who, under the pretext of useful reforms, bring discord into the Work of the Congress ».

On 24 August, Murri, an Italian version of Lamennais, to whom he willingly compared himself, explained in a speech on the theme of Liberty and Christianity that the Church needed to return to her sources and rid herself of all the superstructures that veiled her true face. He concluded with heartfelt praise of his Modernist friends Tyrrell and Loisy. On 21 October 1902, Paganuzzi resigned. Leo XIII appointed Count Grosoli to replace him. Since he was biased in favour of Murri, Grosoli flattered himself that he could merge the two currents of the Work of the Congress

In the meantime, Leo XIII died on 20 July 1903.

PRINCIPLES OF TRUE CATHOLIC ACTION

The Christian-Democrat newspaper Il Commune, rekindling the controversy that had momentarily been calmed by the death of Leo XIII and the election of Pius X, announced that during the upcoming congress in Bologna, « Count Grosoli will either throw us into the sea, or he will be thrown into it himself ». It also denounced « this dawn of a pontificate entirely devoted to the confirmation of the past »; it made it known that it was determined not to let Christian democracy be recruited into the Work of the Congress, which was « rooted in the ecclesiastical hierarchy ». The revolt was patent!

Pius X immediately reacted by having Cardinal Merry del Val state that « the Holy Father would never authorise recognition of a Christian working-class organisation that was not incorporated into the Work of the Congress ». Then, speaking in person, he published on 4 October 1903 his encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus, in which he expressed his will « of promoting the party of God in order to restore all things in Christ to bring back human society, now estranged from the wisdom of Christ, to the discipline of the Church to whom the treasury of graces for the sanctification and salvation of men have been entrusted. To obtain this, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time – the substitution of man for God. »

The nineteenth Congress of Italian Catholics was held from 10 to 13 November 1903. About two thousand delegates from works, newspapers and Catholic associations were gathered there. Fr. Murri, the head of the Italian Christian democracy dominated the discussions in which two tendencies confronted each other; on the one side, Count Grosoli and Paganuzzi; on the other Fr. Murri and Toniolo, the latter imposing himself to moderate the opinions of the two extremities. Fr. Murri was given an ovation by his partisans who formed the majority of the participants. Count Grosoli and his friends, who were considered retrograde, were reduced to silence.

After a time for thought, the Pope intervened. He did not « clearly separate the Work of the Congress from democratic agitation » as the conservatives of the Work had demanded, but he appealed for reconciliation. On 18 December 1903, he published a motu proprio dedicated to « Christian labour action » in which he laid down the rules in nineteen articles:

The fundamental principle is that of inequality that was posed by Leo XIII in the encyclical Quod Apostolici: « Just as the members that form the human body are unequal, human society, such as God established it, is composed of unequal elements. To make them all equal is impossible, and would be the destruction of society itself.

« Consequently, it is according to the order that God established that there be in human society princes and subjects, employers and proletarians, the rich and the poor, the learned and the ignorant, nobles and plebeians, who, all united by a bond of love, must mutually help one another to attain their ultimate destiny in Heaven and on earth their material and moral well-being. »

Second principle, already firmly recalled by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum: the inviolability of property rights.

Third principle: the distinction between the duties of justice and charity: « In justice, workers must furnish fully and faithfully the work that was freely agreed upon and according to equity not wrong employers in their property or in their person. Even in the defence of their own rights, they must refrain from acts of violence and never transform their grievances into riots. » Likewise, capitalists and employers are obliged « to pay just wages to workers, not to jeopardise their just savings through violence or fraud; to give them freedom to fulfil their religious duties; not to impose on them works that are disproportionate to their strength or ill-suited to their age or sex ».

Charity, on the other hand, obliges the rich « to assist the poor and the destitute, according to the precept of the Gospel ». As for the « poor, they must not be ashamed of their indigence or spurn the charity of the rich, above all by thinking of Jesus the Redeemer, who, although able to be born among the rich, made Himself poor in order to ennoble indigence and enrich it with incomparable merits for Heaven ».

Thus « capitalists and the workers themselves can greatly contribute to the solution of the labour question through institutions intended to provide timely assistance to those who are in need, as well as to bring the two classes closer together. Such are societies of mutual assistance, numerous private insurance plans, patronages for children, and above all, trade guilds. »

Let us remark that St. Pius X does not mention the labour unions so dear to his predecessor!

« It is for this goal that Christian Labour Action, or Christian Democracy, especially aims with its numerous and varied works, which must not in any case interfere in politics. The Christian Democrats of Italy must completely abstain from participating in political action of any sort, which, in the present circumstances, for reasons of a very lofty order, is forbidden to every Catholic. » The principle of these reasons was the « Roman Question » particular to Italy and that the Pope, as head of State, legitimately considered as a question reserved to him alone.

Furthermore, « in the fulfilment of its role, Christian Democracy has the very strict obligation to depend on ecclesiastical authority by showing towards bishops and their representatives complete submission and obedience. It shows neither meritorious zeal nor sincere piety to undertake even things that are beautiful and good in themselves when they are not approved by the Pastor in charge.

« In order for this Christian Democratic action to have unity of direction in Italy, it should be directed by the Work of the Congress, which, in so many years of praiseworthy efforts, has deserved well of the Church, and to which Pius IX and Leo XIII, of holy memory, entrusted the charge of managing the general Catholic movement, always under the auspices and the direction of the bishops ».

DISSOLUTION OF “THE WORK OF THE CONGRESS”

These measures did not bear the fruits that the Pope had expected. He saw that the revolutionary ferment had entered so deeply into the Work of the Congress that it would be impossible to keep it under the control of the hierarchy, even by appointing another director. Pius X reluctantly resolved to disband it.

Fr. Murri and his friends refused to submit and created the Italian Democratic League intended to group together all « free men », that is to say, those emancipated from the hierarchy and « true democrats ». Without being an overtly denominational party, he proposed to orient « in a democratic sense the public activity of Catholics ». Pius X intervened again: « There can be no Catholic action without immediate submission to the bishops and to the Pope. » He concluded this letter by forbidding any participation in the congresses organised by the « autonomous Christian democrats » and by threatening with « canonical sanctions » any offending priest (Letter to Cardinal Svampa, 1 March 1905).

The consequence of this pontifical ban was that the league died out in less than four years. Fr. Murri, whom the Pope had forbidden to publish in the press, got round this decision by granting interviews to journalists. After being struck with a suspens a divinis when he had just been elected deputy and was going to sit in the Chamber as the radical « chaplain of the left », Pius X excommunicated him on 22 March 1909. Fr. Murri soon left the Church and had a civil wedding.

“ IL FERMO PROPOSITO ”

Pius X then undertook to found a new Catholic action on a more wholesome base, one that he expounded in a new encyclical:

« The firm purpose and desire that we resolved upon at the beginning of our Pontificate to consecrate all the energy that the good Lord deigns to grant us in the work of restoring all things in Christ, reawakens in our heart a great trust in the all powerful grace of God. Without that grace we can neither plan nor undertake anything great or fruitful for the good of souls here below. »

Then he marked out the road for this new Catholic action that was charged with « the extension and increase of the Kingdom of God in individuals, families, and society. The Church, even in preaching Jesus Christ crucified, stumbling block and foolishness to the world, has become the foremost leader and protector of civilisation. To restore all things in Christ has always been the Church’s motto, and it is especially our own during these fearful moments through which we are now passing. »

« On this last part of the desired restoration, you clearly see, the services rendered to the Church by those chosen bands of Catholics who aim to unite all their forces in combating anti Christian civilisation by every just and lawful means. They use every means in repairing the serious disorders caused by it. They seek to restore Jesus Christ to the family, the school and society by re-establishing the principle that human authority represents the authority of God. They take to heart the interests of the people, especially those of the working and agricultural classes, not only by inculcating in the hearts of everybody a true religious spirit – the only true fount of consolation among the troubles of this life – but also by endeavouring to dry their tears, to alleviate their sufferings, and to improve their economic condition by wise measures. »

The Pope, who drew inspiration from the German model, advocated the forming of Popular Unions to respond « to present-day social needs by social and economic studies ». It was not a question of trade corporations as we imagine them, but of trade unions such as Toniolo had advocated, trade unions in which employers and labour unions could meet one another. For, Pius X observed that « it is impossible today to re-establish under the same form all the institutions that have been useful and even the only effective ones in past centuries, so numerous the new needs that changing circumstances keep producing. The Church, however, in its long history and on every occasion has wisely shown that she possesses the marvellous power of adapting herself to the changing conditions of civil society. Thus, while preserving the integrity and immutability of faith and morals and upholding her sacred rights, she easily bends and accommodates herself to all the unessential and accidental circumstances belonging to various stages of civilisation and to the new requirements of civil society. »

Nevertheless, the Pope added: « Catholic Action, inasmuch as it proposes to restore all things in Christ, constitutes a real apostolate for the honour and glory of Christ Himself. To carry it out right one must have divine grace, and the apostle receives it only if he is united to Christ. Therefore, all who are called upon to direct or dedicate themselves to the Catholic cause, must be sound Catholics, firm in faith, solidly instructed in religious matters, truly submissive to the Church and especially to this supreme Apostolic See and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. » (Encyclical Il fermo proposito given on 11 June 1905)

The preparation of these Popular Unions was entrusted to Toniolo, to Count Medalago Albani and to Commander Paolo Pericoli, the President of the Italian Youth Society, all three of whom were Christian democrats without being revolutionaries like Fr. Murri. The Christian Popular Union, which was directed by Toniolo, was particularly charged with spreading Christian social doctrine. The Economic and Social Union of Italy, which was directed by Medolago Albani, was to coordinate the action of the existing and future associations, in the economic and social sphere. Finally, the Electoral Union, under the supervision of Pericoli, would prepare Catholics for political life and would support the candidates recommended by the hierarchy. It would not be long before it would be directed by Giorgio Montini, the father of the future Pope Paul VI. These three unions would soon be grouped together to form the Directory under the guidance of Luigi Sturzo, who, after World War I founded the Italian Popular Party, which was known not only for its dishonest political compromises but also for its financial scandals.

The wolf was in the sheepfold!

Pius X concluded by inflicting with an ipso facto suspension every priest who adhered to the National Democratic League. Momentarily disorganised by the defection of its leader, it drew closer to the left-wing parties in order to form a sort of popular block « in the hope of giving a religious soul to democracy »! In November 1911, it reformed under the name Christian Democratic League.

CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY IN FRANCE

On 10 January 1894, Marc Sangnier, along with his friend Paul Renaudin, launched the review Le Sillon in which he praised the book, the Church and the World, written by Mgr Ireland, in whose opinion « the Church was duty bound to bless democracy ». In 1899, “Marc” abandoned his studies in order to devote himself to « the cause of Christ and the People ». In fact, he was one more bourgeois endowed with a private income amply sufficient for him to have no need to work. He was going to speak about work… the work of others! A good orator, he organised meetings in the districts of Paris where employees, labourers and students rubbed shoulders. Study circles came into being. A Popular Institute was even created. It grew rapidly: from forty-five delegates in 1902; they passed to three hundred the next year; eight hundred, in 1904, to reach fifteen hundred in 1906.

It is difficult to say precisely what the « doctrine of the Sillon » at that time was. In fact, it did not have one; like a weathercock in the wind, Sangier claimed to discover every morning « signs of the times » in current events. For this reason, he preferred to speak « of friendship », « of a common soul », « of the call of Christ in the life of the world », « of enthusiasm » for « the cause » that one « feels within oneself » and that finds its source « in events » that one must « know how to read and interpret ».

The « sense of history » shows that « democracy is the way of the future ». Nevertheless, « an ideal must be given to democracy, for neither patriotism nor public-spiritedness can be today the soul required by the democracies; the Catholic religion alone is a social force sufficient to succeed ». Conclusion: « Democracy will be Christian or it will not exist. »

Shortly after Pius X was elected, Marc Sangnier went to Rome accompanied by Léon Harmel with the hope of obtaining approval for his movement. The Pope, who received him in a private audience, gave him his encouragements. This did not stop Sangnier from expressing, not to the Pope but to his friends, his great reservations about the motu proprio of December 1903 on “Christian labour action”.

Sangnier knew that he could count on the support of several French bishops who did not hesitate to participate in the congresses that were organised by the Sillon. In order to silence the opposition, Sangnier decided to come back to Rome accompanied this time by five hundred Sillonists (September 1904). He was received five times by Cardinal Merry del Val, and the Pope granted an audience to the group of pilgrims. Pius X was very cordial.

The year 1905 marked a turning point in the life of the Sillon. Sangnier organised a congress for the fifteenth anniversary of Rerum Novarum. Let us remark that St. Pius X had not thought about it! Marc Sangnier also published The Democratic Spirit, wherein he engaged himself in politics by affirming that he had resolved « to put Christianity in the service of democracy », the latter being « the end of an indefinite evolution rather than an accessible moment of history ».

Taking more and more liberty, Sangnier then explained in an article that was published in La Croix in 1906, « the Sillon is aimed at implementing in France the democratic Republic. Thus it is not strictly speaking a Catholic movement, in the sense that it is not a work the specific goal of which is to place itself at the disposition of the bishops and parish priests in order to help them in their own ministry ».

Sangnier even found in the mystery of the Holy Trinity the theological foundation of democracy: « Christianity is precisely nothing other than democracy of divine life, of eternal life. God, who could have treated us has a monarch would, preferred to propose to us the republican ideal even in our relationships with Him; He sent us His Son in order to invite us to join ourselves intimately to this Son, to become like Him. By this means, God invites us to unite ourselves with His second Person and to become thus an associate member of His Trinity. Through their assimilation to the second Person of the Trinity, men enter into the society of the three divine Persons and participate in their majestic equality. Christ, who could have made us His subjects, lovingly preferred to make us His co-heirs and His brethren, His fellow citizens in the City of God. »

Sangnier’s conclusion was simple: « Thus democracy cannot be opposed to Christianity. The force that, for centuries,  Christianity came to have at its disposal in souls is the force that unconsciously torments the Socialists and the anarchists themselves; it is the force that we want to release, that we want to enfranchise and liberate, in such a way as to create in the Blood of Christ a veritable democracy of the future. »

Consequently, « it would be dangerous to underrate what was truly Christian in the revolutionary temperament and even in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This respect of the individual, this very acute sense of the infinite worth of a single human soul, this affirmation that man has rights that his very nature confers on him and that are previous to all written laws, all this is pure Christianity. » The review Le Sillon even went so far as to affirm that the religious philosophy of Danton and Robespierre was « the very substance of Christianity »! and to proclaim itself as « the heir to the great revolutionary republicans » whether they be French, or Russian like Gorki or Tolstoy.

1907 saw the founding of the Greater Sillon in order to turn towards non-Christians to do a work of « familiarisation by ceasing to put the focus on the Catholic dogma and hierarchy – that would only encounter indifference or hostility – in order to find a way to reintroduce the Church into society » and, beyond denominational boundaries, to reunite « men of good will » in order to defend democracy.

THE LETTER “OUR APOSTOLIC MANDATE”

The Abbé de Nantes described the Letter of 25 August 1910, whereby St. Pius X condemned the Sillon, « the greatest document of the Church in social matters for a hundred and fifty years ». Prophetically, this text « denounces the major error of the twentieth century, which has become the heresy and the crime of this century, the calamity of humanity and its damnation ». It is the condemnation in advance of our entire conciliar and postconciliar Church. He furnished proof of this by publishing the text of the Letter on the Sillon in one column, and in a second column an « anthology of papal texts » dated from 1963-1971, under two antithetical titles: “Religion of St. Pius X” and “Political Utopia of H. H. Paul VI” (CRC n^o 47, August 1971)

« 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 18^th century, the doctrines of the Revolution and Liberalism that 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. »

The Sillon, the Pope lamented, « frustrated in large measure our expectations » because « its leaders were young, full of enthusiasm and self-confidence. They, however, 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. »

Nonetheless, « 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. »

The first reproach that they incurred was to have sought « to escape the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authority » by claiming « to work in a field that is not that of the Church and to pursue aims in the temporal order ». The Sillonist affirms that he is only « a Catholic devoted to the betterment of the working class and to democratic endeavours » like any other man, but who « draws from the practice of his faith the energy for his selfless efforts ». Pius X denounced this « fallacy » and impugned this humanitarianism of « irrepressible idealists » based on « a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood » which, « carried away by an ill-conceived love for the weak, has fallen into error. »

Recalling the definition that Leo XIII had given of democracy in Graves de communi, Pius X explained that the Sillon « openly rejected the programme laid out by our predecessor of happy memory, by placing authority in the people, and strive, as their ideal, to effect the levelling down of the classes. In opposition to Catholic doctrine, therefore, they are proceeding towards a condemned ideal that does not lead to progress but to death ». For, the Pope added, « 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, civilisation 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 civilisation, 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. » (n^o 11)

« 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 basic 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 levelling-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. » (n^o 13) It consists of « the largest possible participation of everyone in the government of public affairs ».

In politics, the Sillon makes each citizen « a kind of king »; in the economic order, each worker « will himself become a kind of employer »; in the moral order, each man is my brother. « Such is the ideal of human greatness and nobility to be attained through the famous popular trilogy: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. » (n^o 17)

The dream of the Sillon thus tends towards « 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. » (n^o 19)

Yet, « if the people remain the holders of power, the Pope added, what becomes of authority? A shadow, a myth; there is no more law properly so-called, no more obedience. 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. » (n^o 22)

As for « establishing an era of equality which, by that very fact, would be also an era of greater justice », Pius X disputed its validity. « Here we have a principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle conducive to jealousy, 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 that are thereby debased to the level of sterile makeshifts? » The truth is that peoples can give themselves the government that responds best to their character or their institutions and customs received from their ancestors. « 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 that is not Catholic. » (n^o 23)

« The same applies to the notion of Fraternity that 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. Catholic doctrine, however, 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 neighbour 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 civilisation. 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 civilisation. » (n^o 24)

Finally, St. Pius X denounced the Sillon’s fundamental error according to which « 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 plough 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? » (n^o 25)

The Sillon dared to claim to be the « nucleus » and the image of the « future city » of its dreams, having abolished within it all hierarchy: « the governing elite has emerged from the rank and file by selection »; « studies are carried out without a master, at the very most, with an adviser », 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 ». Even the priest lowers the eminent dignity of his priesthood in order to become a student and a comrade of his young friends.

Pius X waxes indignant:

« 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 civilisation 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. 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. » (n^os 28-29)

As the Sillonists feigned an upright faith, and even punctiliously so on certain points, the Pope added: « Its brand of Catholicism accepts only the democratic form of government which it considers the most favourable 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 that 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. This, however, 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 seminarians from purely Catholic action, and is wasting away as a dead loss part of the living forces of the nation. » (n^o 31)

ALREADY, MASDU…

Denouncing the Greater Sillon in which Sangnier claimed to unite Catholics, Protestants, and Free-Thinkers in order to work at the construction of the future society by the coming of democracy « in view of disinterested emulation in the field of social and civic virtues », Pius X continued:

« 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 that have been 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 that 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”. »

St. Pius X concluded by remarking with sadness that « 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 organised in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church that 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 legalised cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. » (n^os 38-39)

Pius X did not want to end this Letter on the Sillon without exhorting the bishops « to take an active part in the organisation of society » by choosing some of their priests who are « level-headed and of active disposition, holders of Doctors’ degrees in philosophy and theology, thoroughly acquainted with the history of ancient and modern civilisations in order to set them to the not-so-lofty but more practical study of the social science so as to place them at the opportune time at the helm of your works of Catholic action ». He did not neglect to add this recommendation: « 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 organisations 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 that 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. »

Alas! As Jacques Rocafort so rightly remarked, « Pius X did not find in France leaders for his politics. He wanted more combative bishops in France » ¹.

Apart from some, the « flock of the bishops » did not understand the importance of this battle, and they merely contented themselves with following unenthusiastically. The Catholic Liberals who became Christian Democrats bowed their heads low in submission, but it was only pure tactics. Piou’s Popular Action even had the audacity to affirm that it had not waited for « the great voice [of Pius X] who recommended union to French Catholics above all partisan preoccupations » but that, faithful to the teaching of Leo XIII, « since 1885, it had been able to achieve this union by placing itself on the only ground where it was practically possible » by rallying to the Republic ²!

Marc Sangnier, it is said, read on his knees the Apostolic Letter that condemned him. On 10 September, he published his letter of submission and announced his withdrawal from all the organisms managing the Sillon. According to the Pope’s desire, the « Catholic Sillons », were then formed in the dioceses under the authority of the bishops. Marc Sangnier, however, considering « that it would be pride to withdraw under his tent » and in order not to provide an argument « for the enemies of our Faith » by letting it be thought « that the Church takes away the right of being republican », obtained from the Secretariat of State consent to continue running his journal La Démocratie.

« After this so ostentatious submission, the Abbé de Nantes wrote, Sangnier pursued his daydreams, together with his Christian Democrat friends, into the blood bath of 1944 where they assumed the fine role of executioners of their Catholic brethren of the political right. » ³ As for the French Modernist and Sillonist bishops, they prepared in the dark the nomination of the next Pope.

Let us conclude with a simple observation: St. Pius X is absent from the official list of the great social Popes, of the doctors of the official “social doctrine of the Church”. While thirty-five acts of this holy Pope, including three encyclicals published by La Bonne Presse are dedicated either exclusively or partially to the social question, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, despite its 186 page index, did not find the place to mention his name! Why is this?

The reason for this plot is simple, and the Abbé de Nantes has explained it to us many times: « At the critical moment, St. Pius X was the only Pope to have seen that the Church was heading on the wrong track, the only one to have risen up with force to prevent her from going astray by condemning those who were deceiving her. He was likewise the only one to explain what Christian social action should be, what it should not become at all costs, and why there was therein a doctrinal and moral question that engaged the whole of religion as well as the whole of societies… He saw everything, he did everything, and he was not listened to, understood and obeyed. » ⁴

Our Father therefore always pointed out that he was not only one saint among others, but « the most intelligent and the most intrepid of the doctors of the Faith, a veritable beacon for our century », necessary for the resurrection of a new Christianity. (to be continued)

Brother Pascal of the Blessed Sacrament.
Excerpts from Il est ressuscité! n° 63, November 2007, pp. 21-32

 1. Jacques Rocafort, Les résistances à la politique religieuse de Pie X, 1920, pp. 10-11.

2. Jacques Rocafort, op. cit. p. 106.

3. Saint Pius X, Saviour of the Church, CCR n° 69, December 1975, p. 14.

4. cf. CCR n° 69.