Hemecht 1975 31 December 1974
image 38 digitized at eluxemburgensia.lu
"La Repression Religieuse contemporaine de la Conscription"
In reading the few extracts from documents relating to conscription, the reader will have noticed that they contain violent attacks on the unsworn clergy. They are simply the expression of the policy of the Directory resulting from the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor Year V (September 18, 1797), an attitude taken up by the Voltairians and Jacobins of the Central Administration in Luxembourg and repeated by French agents and the military, including the gendarmes. The army was supposed not to practice any religion, but it did not escape the anti-clerical fashion of the time. The law on the policing of religions of 7 Vendémiaire Year IV (September 29, 1795), followed by the suppression of religious establishments of both sexes in 1796 and the sale of their properties in 1797, had not caused any disturbances. It was the law of 19 Fructidor, Year V, the day after the coup d'état, which triggered a furious pursuit of emigrants and priests. This law, in two parts, the first relating to emigrants, the second to priests, by its article 24, invest-
gave the Directory the power to deport, by individual decrees, priests who disturbed public tranquility; by its article 25, it required them to take the oath of hatred of royalty and anarchy and of loyalty to the Republic and the Constitution of the year III. This oath had been required of public officials by the laws of 22 Nivôse (January 12) and 19 Ventőse year IV (March 8, 1796). When the administrators of the canton of Bastogne were to take it, they publicly refused on 9 Germinal (March 28, 1796) and resigned, declaring that the formula was contrary to their religion and conscience. Although these officials subsequently reversed their decision under pressure and threats from the central administration, this was not the case when Article 25 of the law of 19 Fructidor, Year V, was applied to the clergy of the department. The oath was refused by the majority of priests, certainly out of religious conviction, but also because of their views on the relationship between the Church and the State.
The priests who refused the oath conceived of the State only in the form of a monarchy in which the Roman Catholic religion was the state religion, or at least the dominant religion. The logical consequence of this point of view was the desire for the return of the ancien régime and opposition to any republican state. This maxim was, however, followed with many nuances, so that the attitude of the priests toward the Directory varied from village to village. The sworn priests themselves did not adhere to the Republic with great enthusiasm, but took advantage of the new state of affairs, a little naively no doubt, and of the separation of Church and State, because they now believed the Church to be freed from the shackles it had
suffered under the ancien régime. To understand this turbulent period and to see clearly the effects of the government's religious policy on conscription-tion and, after September 1798, the effects of conscription on religious policy, it is essential to have before one's eyes a chronological table of the measures taken in Paris and applied to the Department of Forests.
26-10-1795 (4 Fruct. Year IV). FIRST DIRECTORY, swinging between the right and the left.
131-1796 Oath of hatred required of civil servants; priests are excepted.
17-6-1796 Secular civil status.
19-1796 (15 Fruct. Year IV). Suppression of religious establishments of both sexes.
27-12-1796 Lowering of the bells of abolished religious houses.
27-6 1797 Suppression of tithes.
4-9-1797 (18 Fruct. Year V). SECOND DIRECTORY, leaning towards the left.
5-9-1797 (19 Fruct. Year V). Oath of hatred required of priests
3-10-1797 Ban on the use of bells for worship services.
20-10-1797 Ban on the public wearing of ecclesiastical costumes.
26-10-1797 Sequestration of the property of parishes served by an unsworn priest.
6-11-1797 Expiration of the deadline for taking the oath.
13-11-1797 Order to seize parish registers.
3-12-1797 Lowering of the bells.
4-12-1797 Priests' attendance register.
8-12-1797 Order to refracted parish priests to leave the sequestered presbyteries.
121-1798 Order to sell the movable effects of unserved churches.
14-1-1798 Latitude to keep a bell for the clock.
28-1-1798 Order to lay down ecclesiastical banners and flags.
30-4-1798 Start of sales of secular cures.
11-5-1798 (22 Floréal Year VI). THIRD DIRECTORY, directed against the left
4-8 and 2-9-1798 Laws on the Ten-Day Worship.
5-9-1798 (19 Fruct. Year VI). Conscription Law.
249-1798 (3 Vend. Year VII). Raising of 200,000 conscripts.
30-10-1798 (9 Brumaire Year VII). Clervaux and Arzfeld Affairs.
4-11-1798 (14 Brum. Year VII). Deportation order for unsworn priests.
11-11-1798 (21 Brumaire Year VII). Order to lower the bells.
8-12-1798 Order from the Minister of Police to send the deportees to the island of Oléron.
19-12-1798 The Directory blames the Central Administration for having excepted sexagenarian priests from deportation.
162-1799 Beginning of the provisional release of unsworn and deportable priests.
17-3-1799 Final expiration of the deadline to take the oath after the fact.
234-1799 (4 Floréal, Year VII). Order to resume the search for conscripts and unsworn priests.
186-1799 (30 Prairial, Year VII). FOURTH DIRECTORY, Siéyès's coup.
30-7-1799 Attenuated formula of the oath.
9-11-1799 (18 Brumm., Year VIII). Bonaparte's coup d'état. Consulate.
20-11-1799 Beneficial dispositions towards priests
This summary table of the anticlerical and antireligious measures of the various Directories allows us to distinguish four different phases: 1st, the Directory suppressed religious establishments of both sexes. This
measure did not cause any disturbances and was accepted with indifference by the faithful. 2nd, the second Directory required secular priests to take an oath of hatred and thus provoked an awakening of consciousness even in the most remote villages. This main measure and the secondary and subsequent measures completely disrupted the religious life of the inhabitants. Unsworn priests had to act clandestinely, bells no longer rang, ecclesiastical property was sold, and finally, a ten-day week was introduced, excluding
Sunday from the calendar. This was the famous freedom of worship! Sworn priests must even have been surprised by it, since they were not spared personal prosecution or the sale of
Although they participated in direct actions, there is no doubt that there were some among them who acted indirectly through their moral influence. The Administration failed to discover them and make them take responsibility for the uprising. No priest was brought to court for direct participation in the events.
The arrest of a large number of unsworn priests and the deportation of a certain number of them is therefore only the continuation of the anticlerical policy that began to the day a year before 9 Brumaire of Year VII, but was extraordinarily aggravated by the unrest caused by conscription. In reading the documents, one even perceives a certain satisfaction on the part of the Arnouls and Faillys that unrest had broken out because of conscription, since it allowed them to follow their feelings towards a group of people who had dared to oppose their policy by refusing to take the oath. If this was only a short-lived policy, it nevertheless had serious personal consequences for the arrested and deported priests, as well as for the conscripts, not to mention the condemned
The same Directors who had taken the deportation order of 14 Brumaire so lightly changed their policy when they saw that the removal of priests was not bringing the conscripts back into obedience. The table of departures indicates that they took place in Frimaire (November/December 1798), that they slowed down in Nivôse and became insignificant in terms of their numbers in Ventőse (February/March) before ceasing completely in Germinal. At the same time, the pursuit of priests ceased, the incarcerated were released and placed under house arrest; some priests were even able to return to their parishes where they were monitored by local agents who were none other than their parishioners