LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

alt=""/>

      People have the right to choose their ministers. Fauchet privileges the assemblies of the faithful, based on the historical commonplace that orderly, fair elections were the norm in the early centuries of Christianity. But of course, simple elections could reinvigorate the French church at all levels, limited as it was by the top-heavy aristocratic domination of all areas of public and private life. Fauchet’s promotion of elections—in particular elections of bishops—came to be the norm in the new Constitution of the Church. A principal target of his work here was the Concordat between Pope Leo X and King Francis I that gave the monarchy such great control. As a countermeasure, Fauchet proposes a structure for episcopal elections, with all parts of the diocese getting together to propose three candidates, the king choosing one of them, and the pope providing “canonical investiture.”¹⁹ Fauchet gives the king a substantial role even in the elective system because he believes monarchs have a good chance of rising above local intrigues. The pope simply gives rubber-stamp ecclesiastical approbation. The state, then, has a considerable role to play in controlling the abuses of religion, but it does not have arbitrary authority. Religious properties cannot be taken away, for example, when church people are in proper exercise of their apostolate. But the multiple benefices of former days must not be allowed any longer. Neither bishops nor pastors should have elaborate living quarters. In fact, amid all the bells, costumes, and trinkets, the only objet of any importance is the bishop’s cross.²⁰

      Religious orders, too, must show goodness and simplicity, and be useful to the faithful. Fauchet gives high marks to the Trappists and Carthusians for their continuing fervor. Seminary education must be pruned of its arbitrary strictness and promotion of puerile thought and religious routines. And the theology programs of the day only encourage the rush for degrees in order to secure a better position in the church. Exalted titles of all sorts should be dropped, beginning with Monseigneur. For all his radicalism, Fauchet was a defender of celibacy, consistent in that he believed celibates could be more at the service of the people, “since their love is not concentrated inside their house.”²¹

      The Political Dialogue

      Fauchet focused on the everyday qualities of life, love, and truth in his journal Bulletin de la Bouche de fer, named for a letter box placed on the publication-office door of his political society.²² His first address to the Confédération universelle des amis de la vérité presented what he took to be real religion to his political colleagues, beginning with a frank look at the problems caused by religion. Whereas religion should have softened intolerance, liberated thinking, strengthened virtue, and brought happiness, in fact religion has been divided against itself, tormented consciences, and been a source of great unhappiness. In reality, “there can be only one true religion, that which says to men, ‘Love one another,’ and which gives them the most gentle and powerful motives for accomplishing this unique duty. This religion exists; it is eternal as is the law of love; men, separated from one another by the laws of discord that rule empires, have not known it. It should be shown to them in its chaste nudity and in its pure truthfulness; and the human race, taken with its divine beauty, will adore it with one heart.”²³

      In a second discourse published in Bouche de fer, Fauchet opens an enthusiastic dialogue with Freemasons, increasingly favored targets of clerical Catholicism. First he distinguishes between good and bad in masonic membership. At its best Freemasonry is an experience of a “living light” and “great fervor,” even though for some it can lead to an unfortunately phony vision and unruly imagination. But Fauchet emphasizes the good: “The real composers of the ancient and new mysteries of the lodges are the sure friends of humanity, who aspire only to the happiness of a universal regeneration and who must reach for it by the worthy means of the height and beauty of their hopes.” Nevertheless, he recognizes that the others are dangerous, not so much in their goals as in the means they choose: “Superstitious corruption, terrible destruction, and mighty ruins seem necessary to them in order to erect the temple of concord and harmony.”²⁴ Evil men, who are “false interpreters of the masonic allegories, and who have loaded them with hateful symbols, and with horror-filled trials,” are in the shadow of virtuous men, the only ones who count.²⁵

      Fauchet admires the Freemasons, finds their goals of universal religion and reorganization of society to be the same as his, and appreciates the friendship and belief in God that they preach. And so he owes them an explanation of his reasons for not joining: “Venerable brothers! Worthy friends of mankind! I have not wished to, nor ought I to have been, initiated into your mysteries, because the truth of them escapes me...but I know enough to be sure that none of you can deny the facts that lie at the base of your doctrinal traditions.”²⁶ He could not follow them in their explanation of the great mysteries and in their secrecy, then; but he certainly gives his full support to their effort to improve the lives of people everywhere. By saying that they will be the “patrons of humanity everywhere on earth,” he is clearly hoping for their worldwide success.²⁷

      Jean-Jacques Rousseau himself, “the great genius who has rendered such a great service to humanity,” was not a nemesis for Claude Fauchet, who seeks a balance between the “social contract” and Christianity.²⁸ Love of all people, the creation of laws that benefit them, these were Rousseau’s themes, but Fauchet finds that he is misused, no longer properly understood. Other great writers share his lot, but Rousseau least of all deserves this fate: “We could submit to the same test...Montesquieu, the weighty Mably, the eloquent Raynal, and all the profound legislative writers: but Rousseau suffices, for he has said in substance all that is best in the best authors who have spoken on law.”²⁹ Of course, for Fauchet the gospel is the great message and the great text, because it gives human love its divine quality, and maintains a special type of equality among all peoples because it makes of them a human family under God: “It is the only religion in the entire world that has this ultimate basis.” But it is a less ecumenical Fauchet, who says in the next sentence, “All the others are exclusive, hateful, and alien to our views of full concord, just as they are [alien] to the true well-being of men.”³⁰

      In another discourse on the same subject, we find a different, even highly critical, view of Rousseau, noting that Voltaire, too, had major criticisms. Fauchet’s respect for “the great man” stands firm, but, as for his ideas: “We will not adopt them because of the genius of his speech and our belief in his importance. We will examine them in their own right, with as much impartiality as if the author were unknown to us.”³¹ Fauchet’s problems with Rousseau do not seem to come from his own immersion in the gospel, but from a very positive philosophy of revolutionary fraternity. He finds “inexact” the Rousseauian axiom, “Man is a loving being by nature and finds his happiness only in fraternity,” and the conclusions Rousseau draws from it, that family is the only natural society and is such only to the extent that each individual enjoys full development, are “completely false.”³² On the contrary, says Fauchet, “man never ceases to relate to his fellows by natural means; and it is universal relationships out of nature that constitute the true unity of society.” Otherwise, society could not exist and people would “vegetate, isolated in the forests.”³³ He then proposes his own philosophical program to go beyond Rousseau, social philosophy with a Christian ethical base: “The whole series of principles of natural sociability, which do not stop at all with the family in society, as Rousseau neglected to say, but which, on the contrary, extend, always in the order of nature, to the city, to the nations, to neighboring peoples, to all men, to the university, and unto eternity.”³⁴

      

      Responding with positive warmth to the radical revolutionary Anacharsis Cloots, Fauchet appears to find a kindred spirit. In his writings live “the spirit of liberty and love of men” that is expressed with “a most proud and ardent eloquence.” Fauchet tells Cloots that his “good opinion of me was correct; the present persuasion that is unfavorable to me is fortunately without basis, and your fairness will bring you back to your first viewpoint.”³⁵ With Cloots, Fauchet

Скачать книгу