|
The Clementine Peace, obtained as it was by trickery and fraud, was
used by the Jansenists as a means of deceiving the public and of
winning new recruits. They contended that Clement IX, regardless
of the action of his predecessors, had accepted the Jansenist
principle of respectful silence. Several who had signed the formulary
of Alexander VII withdrew their signatures, and amongst the
bishops, clergy, university graduates, and religious orders,
particularly amongst the Oratorians and Benedictines of St. Maur,
the Jansenists gained many adherents. Though outwardly peace reigned
in France, yet the Jansenist spirit made great headway, as was shown
by the opposition to several popular devotions and in the spread of
rigorist opinions and practices in regard to confession and communion.
The controversy on the Gallican Liberties complicated the issue very
considerably, and made it impossible for the Pope to exercise his
authority. Even bishops like Bossuet, who were strongly opposed to
Jansenism, were inclined to regard papal interference with suspicion,
while Louis XIV was precluded from enforcing the decrees of the
Pope as his predecessors had enforced them. The Jansenist party
became much stronger, and only a slight incident was required to
precipitate a new crisis.
This incident was supplied by the publication of the "Reflexions
Morales sur le Nouveau Testament" by Pasquier Quesnel
(1634-1719). The writer had been an Oratorian, but having
been expelled from that society in 1684 he took refuge with Antoine
Arnauld in Brussels. Upon the death of the latter in 1694, he
became the recognised head or grand-prior of the Jansenist party. An
earlier edition of this work had been published, bearing the
approbation of Vialart, Bishop of Chalons, and though several
additions had been made, this approbation was printed on the new
edition side by side with the approbation of Louis Noailles, then
Bishop of Chalons (1695). The following year Noailles having
become Archbishop of Paris felt called upon by his new position to
condemn a work closely akin in its ideas to those expressed in the
"Reflexions Morales". He was accused of inconsistency by the
Jansenist party, one of whom published the "Probleme
ecclesiastique", inquiring whether people were bound to follow the
opinions of Louis Noailles, Bishop of Chalons in 1695, or of
Louis Noailles, Archbishop of Paris in 1696? The controversy
suddenly grew embittered. When a new edition was required in
1699, Noailles requested the judgment of Bossuet, who formulated
certain changes that in his opinion should be made.[177] In the end
the edition was published without the suggested changes and without the
approbation of the archbishop.
While the controversy was raging round Quesnel's book, another
incident occurred that tended to arouse all the old partisan feeling.
A confessor submitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne the celebrated
case of conscience. He asked whether a priest should absolve a
penitent, who rejected the teaching set forth in the five propositions
of Jansenius, but who maintained a respectful silence on the question
whether or not they were to be found in the book "Augustinus". In
July 1701 forty doctors of the Sorbonne gave an affirmative reply
to this question. The publication of this reply created such a storm
in France that Clement XI felt it necessary to condemn the
decision of the Sorbonne (1703). The papal condemnation was
supported by Louis XIV, as well as by the great body of the
bishops. Two years later Clement XI issued the bull "Vineam
Domini",[178] confirming the constitutions of his predecessors,
Innocent X and Alexander VII, and condemned once more in an
authoritative form the doctrine of respectful silence. The document
was accepted by the king, by the Assembly of the Clergy, and by the
majority of the bishops, though the attachment of some of the latter to
Gallican principles led them to insist on certain conditions which the
Pope could not accept. As the nuns of Port Royal still refused to
submit, their community was broken up, the sisters being scattered
through different convents in France (1709), and the following
year the convent buildings were completely destroyed.
Meanwhile the controversy regarding the "Reflexions Morales" grew
more bitter. Several of the bishops condemned the book as containing
much in common with the writings of Jansenius and of his followers in
France. Acting upon the demand of some of the bishops Clement XI
issued a brief condemning Quesnel's book (1708). The
Jansenists refused to accept the papal decision and the Parliament of
Paris, then dominated to a great extent by Jansenist influence,
adopted a hostile attitude. Cardinal Noailles, considering the
verdict of the Pope as more or less a personal insult to himself,
hesitated as to what course he should take, but at last he consented to
accept the condemnation provided the Pope issued a formal sentence.
On the application of Louis XIV the Pope determined to put an
end to all possibility of doubt or misunderstanding by publishing the
Bull, "Unigenitus"[179] (1713) in which 101 propositions
taken from Quesnel's book were condemned. As is usual in such
documents the propositions were condemned "in globo", some as rash,
some as offensive to pious ears, and some as heretical. The Bull,
"Unigenitus", was accepted immediately by one hundred and twelve
bishops of France, by the majority of the clergy, by the Sorbonne,
and by the king and Parliament. The Jansenists refused to admit that
it contained a final verdict on the ground that, as it did not make
clear which propositions were heretical and which only rash or
offensive, it was only a disciplinary enactment and not a binding
doctrinal decision. Cardinal Noailles wavered for a time, but in the
end he allied himself with the fourteen bishops who refused to accept
the Bull "Unigenitus". Louis XIV, though opposed strongly to
the Jansenists, was unwilling to allow the Pope to take serious
action against the Archbishop of Paris lest the liberties of the
Gallican Church should be endangered, while the Parliament of Paris
sympathised openly with those who refused to accept the papal decision.
The death of Louis XIV (1714) and the accession of the
Duke of Orleans as regent led to a great reaction in favour of
Jansenism. Cardinal Noailles was honoured by a seat in the privy
council, and became the principal adviser of the regent in
ecclesiastical affairs. The Sorbonne withdrew its submission to the
Bull "Unigenitus" (1715), and its example was followed by the
Universities of Nantes and Rheims. Many of the Jansenist chapters
and priests rebelled against their bishops, and were taken under the
protection of the Parliament. The Archbishop of Paris was
encouraged by addresses from his chapter and clergy to stand out firmly
against the tyranny of Rome. More than once the Pope remonstrated
with the regent, who promised much but refused to take decisive
action. The Sorbonne was punished by the Pope by the withdrawal of
its power to confer theological decrees (1716), while many of the
bishops refused to allow their students to attend its courses. As a
last desperate expedient four of the bishops of France appealed
solemnly to a General Council against the Bull "Unigenitus"
(1717), and their example was followed by large numbers. The
"Appellants" as they were called created such a disturbance in
France that they appeared to be much more numerous than they really
were. Less than twenty of the bishops and not more than three thousand
clerics, seven hundred of whom belonged to Paris, joined the party,
while more than one hundred bishops and one hundred thousand clerics
remained loyal to Rome. The fact, however, that Cardinal
Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, placed himself at the head of the
"Appellants" made the situation decidedly serious.
When private protests and remonstrances had failed Clement XI
issued the Bull, "Pastoralis Officii", by which he excommunicated
the "Appellants" (1718). Undaunted by this verdict a new
appeal in solemn form was lodged by Cardinal Noailles, backed by his
chapter and by a large number of the Paris clergy. Negotiations were
opened up with Innocent XIII and Benedict XIII in the hope
of inducing them to withdraw the Bull "Unigenitus", or at least to
give it a milder interpretation, but the Popes refused to change the
decisions that had been given by their predecessors. The Parliament
of Paris espoused the cause of the "Appellants", and refused to
allow the bishops to take energetic action against them, until at last
the king grew alarmed at the danger that threatened France. The
energetic action taken by the provincial council of Embrun against some
of the "Appellant" bishops (1727) received the approval of the
court. In the following year (1728) Cardinal Noailles was
induced to make his submission, and in a short time the Sorbonne
doctors by a majority imitated his example. Though these submissions
were not without good results, yet they served only to embitter still
more the minds of a large body of the Jansenist party, and to
strengthen them in their opposition to the Bull, "Unigenitus".
The Jansenists having failed to secure the approval of Pope or king
for their heretical teaching appealed to the visible judgment of God.
The deacon, Francis of Paris,[180] who was one of the leaders of
the sect, and whose sanctity was vouched for, according to his
friends, by the fact that he had abstained from receiving Holy
Communion for two years, died in 1727, and was buried in the
cemetery of Saint Medard. Crowds flocked to pray at his tomb, and
it was alleged that wonderful cures were being wrought by his
intercession. One of the earliest and most striking of these miracles
was investigated by the Archbishop of Paris and was proved to be
without foundation, but others still more remarkable were broadcast by
the party, with the result that hosts of invalids were brought from all
parts of France in the hope of procuring recovery. Many, especially
women, went into ecstasies and violent convulsions round the tomb, and
while in this state they denounced the Pope, the bishops, and in a
word all the adversaries of Jansenism. Owing to the unseemly and at
times indecent scenes that took place the cemetery was closed by the
civil authorities (1732), but the "Convulsionnaires", as they
were called, claimed that similar miracles were wrought in private
houses, in which they assembled to pray, and to which clay taken from
the tomb of the Deacon of Paris had been brought. The great body of
the people ridiculed the extravagances of the sect, and many of the
moderate Jansenists condemned the "Convulsionnaires" in unsparing
terms. Instead of doing Jansenism any good these so-called
miracles, utterly unworthy as they were of divine wisdom and holiness,
served only to injure its cause, and indeed to injure the Christian
religion generally, by placing a good weapon in the hands of its
rationalist adversaries.
But even though heaven had not declared in favour of the Jansenists
the Parliament of Paris determined to protect them. It defended
bishops who refused to accept the Bull "Unigenitus" against the
Pope, tried to prevent the orthodox bishops from suspending appellant
priests, and forbade the exclusion of appellant laymen from the
sacraments. The Parliament of Paris condemned the action of the
clergy in refusing the last sacraments to the dying unless they could
prove they had made their confession to an approved priest. Though the
privy council annulled this condemnation Parliament stood by its
decision, and challenged the authority of the Archbishop of Paris by
punishing priests who refused the sacraments (1749-52). The
bishops appealed to the king to defend the liberty of the Church, but
the Parliament asserted its jurisdiction by depriving the Archbishop
of Paris of his temporalities and by endeavouring to have him cited
before the civil courts. Louis XIV annulled the sentence of the
Parliament, and banished some of the more violent of its members from
the capital (1753). They were, however, soon recalled, and a
royal mandate was issued enforcing silence on both parties. For
infringing this order de Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, was
banished from his See, and several other bishops and priests were
summoned before the legal tribunals.
The Assembly of the Clergy in 1755 petitioned the king to give
more freedom to the Church, and to restore the exiled Archbishop of
Paris to his See. A commission was established to examine the whole
question of the refusal of the sacraments, and as the Commission could
not arrive at any decision, the case was submitted to Benedict
XIV, who decided that those who were public and notorious
opponents of the Bull, "Unigenitus", should be treated as public
sinners and should be excluded from the sacraments (1756). The
Parliament of Paris and some of the provincial parliaments forbade the
publication of the papal decision, but a royal order was issued
commanding the universal acceptance of the Bull, "Unigenitus",
even though it might not be regarded as an irreformable rule of faith.
According to this mandate the regulation for allowing or refusing the
administrations of the sacraments was a matter to be determined by the
bishops, though any person who considered himself aggrieved by their
action might appeal against the abuse of ecclesiastical power. This
decree was registered by the Parliament (1757), whereupon the
Archbishop of Paris was allowed to return. From that time Jansenism
declined rapidly in France, but the followers of the sect united with
the Gallicans of the Parliament to enslave the Church, and with the
Rationalists to procure the suppression of the Jesuits, whom they
regarded as their most powerful opponents.
Many of the Jansenists fled to Holland, where the Gallicans were
only too willing to welcome such rebels against Rome. The old
Catholic hierarchy in Holland had been overthrown, and the Pope was
obliged to appoint vicars apostolic to attend to the wants of the
scattered Catholic communities. One of these appointed in 1688
was an Oratorian, and as such very partial to Quesnel and the
Jansenists. Owing to his public alliance with the sect he was
suspended from office in 1702 and deposed in 1704, but not
before he had given Jansenism a great impetus in Holland. About
seventy parishes and about eighty priests refused to recognise his
successor, and went over to the Jansenist party. In 1723 a body
of priests calling themselves the Chapter of Utrecht elected
Steenhoven as Archbishop of Utrecht, and a suspended bishop named
Varlet, belonging formerly to the Society for Foreign Missions,
consecrated him against the protests of the Pope. Supported by the
Calvinist government the new archbishop maintained himself at Utrecht
till his death, when he was succeeded by others holding similar views.
Later on the Bishoprics of Haarlem (1742) and of Deventer were
established as suffragan Sees to Utrecht. The Catholics of Holland
refused to recognise these bishoprics as did also the Pope, whose only
reply to their overtures was a sentence of excommunication and
interdict. The Jansenist body of Holland, numbering at present
about six thousand, have maintained their separate ecclesiastical
organisation until the present day. They resisted the establishment of
the hierarchy in Holland (1853), opposed the definition of
Papal Infallibility, and allied themselves definitely with the old
Catholic movement in Germany.
|
|