Napoleon I on Catholicism, the Church
From various writings, sayings, speeches
Why did Napoleon establish Catholicism in France preferably to Protestantism
When I seized the helm of affairs, I already had fixed ideas on all the primary elements which bind society together. I had weighed all the importance of religion. I was convinced, and I determined to re-establish it. But you would hardly believe the resistance I had to defeat to restore Catholicism. I would have been more easily followed had I hoisted the banner of Protestantism. It reached so far that in the Council of State, where I found great difficulty in getting the Concordat adopted, many yielded only by forming a plan to extricate themselves from it. ‘Well!’ they said to one another, ‘let us turn Protestants, and it would not be our concern.’ It is certain that, in the disorder which I inherited, upon the ruins which I found myself in, I was at liberty to choose between Catholicism and Protestantism. And it may also be said that the general disposition, at that moment, was quite in favor of the latter: but, besides the fact that I cared for the religion in which I was born, I had the highest motives to take a decision. By proclaiming Protestantism, what would I have gained? I would have created in France two large parties, nearly equal, when I wished for the existence of none at all. I would have revived the fury of religious disputes, when the light of the age and my own will wished to have them entirely disappear. These two parties would, by ripping one another apart, have annihilated France, and rendered her the slave of Europe, when I had the ambition to make of her its mistress. With Catholicism I reached my great results more assuredly. In the interior, at home, the smaller number was swallowed up by the greater, and I promised to treat the former with such equality that there would soon be no reason to even know the difference. Abroad, Catholicism kept the Pope by my side. And with my influence, and our forces in Italy, I did not despair, sooner or later, by some means or other, of obtaining for myself the direction of that Pope, and henceforth what an influence! What a lever of opinion on the rest of the world! etc, etc.
Francis I was truly in a state to adopt Protestantism at its birth, and to declare himself the head of it in Europe. Charles V, his rival, zealously took the side of Rome, because he saw there an additional means to obtain the subjugation of Europe. That on its own was not sufficient to point out to Francis the necessity of taking on the defense of the independence of that same Europe; but he abandoned the greater to run after the lesser. He persevered in pursuing his ill-conceived designs on Italy, and, with the intention of paying court to the Pope, he burnt Protestants in Paris.
Had Francis I embraced Lutheranism, so favorable to royal supremacy, he would have preserved France from the dreadful religious convulsions brought on, at later periods, by the Calvinists, whose altogether republican tint, were on the verge of overthrowing the throne and dissolving our beautiful monarchy. Unfortunately, Francis I did not understand any of that; for he could not present his own qualms as an excuse, he, who entered into an alliance with the Turks, and brought them into the midst of us. It was merely that his outlook did not extend that far. The stupidity of the time! Feudal intellect! Francis I was, after all, nothing but a hero of tournaments, a handsome of the salon, one of those pigmy great men.
Of the Catholic religion
Modern philosophers have endeavored to persuade France that the Catholic religion was the implacable enemy of every democratic system and every republican government: hence this cruel persecution that the French republic exercised against religion and all its ministers. Hence all the horrors to which this unfortunate people was subjected.
The diversity of opinions which, at the time of the revolution, reigned in France on the subject of religion, was not a small source of these disorders. Experience has disabused the French and convinced them that, of all religions, there is none that adapts like the Catholic to various forms of government; which further favors, in particular, democratic-republican government, better establishes its rights, and sheds more light on its principles. I too am a philosopher, and I know that in any society whichever it may be, no man can be considered virtuous and just if he does not know where he comes from and where he is going. Simple reason could not set us straight on this; without religion, we continually walk in darkness; and the Catholic religion is the only one which gives man sure lights on his origin and his ultimate end.
I understand that people were disposed to distrust the Catholic priests during the revolution, because they were unhappy. But today that the government has attached them to itself through skill and favors, we must change our behavior towards them. The Catholic priests conduct themselves very well and are very helpful. They were the cause that this year's conscription was much better than that of previous years. Mores have improved through their influence. It is through them that calm and tranquility have been restored. No body of state speaks as well as they do about the government.
There must be specific legislation against the encroachment of popes
The brief by which pope Pius VII had (in 1810) prohibited the chapter of Florence from receiving the administrator appointed by Napoleon had strongly irritated him. He said on this matter:
The popes cannot exercise their revolting pretensions which formerly caused the misfortune of peoples and the shame of the Church; but, deep down, they have not given up, and, even today, they view themselves as the masters of the world. I shall know well how to suppress those. But if, under my reign, they deploy so much audacity, what would it be like under a weak government? It is not through forced interpretations of weak and short-sighted laws that we must seek to stop them: such a serious matter requires formal provisions.
Designs of Napoleon on the papacy
Napoleon had established the power of the Pope in France. He did not want to take advantage of the circumstances, neither to create a patriarch, nor to alter the beliefs of his people; he respected spiritual matters and wanted to dominate them without interfering, without getting involved; he wanted to make them fit his views, his policy, but through the influence of temporal matters. There were wise people in Rome who sensed this and said in Italian: “This is his way of waging war; not daring to attack it head-on, he turned the Church as he turned the Alps in 1796.” To execute this vast plan appropriate to the century, he had placed his trust in the Bishop of Nantes, in the theology of this learned prelate; he was determined never to lose sight of this torch on his path. Every time the Bishop of Nantes said to him: “This attacks the faith of Catholics and the Church,” he stopped; thus assured of not falling into that maze, he was sure of success, with time and his great means of influence.... In 1813, without the events in Russia, the pope would have been bishop of Rome and of Paris, and housed at the archbishopric. The sacred college, the datary, the penitentiary, the missions, the archives, would have been around Notre-Dame and on the island of Saint-Louis. Rome would have been transported to ancient Lutetia.
The establishment of the court of Rome in Paris would have been fruitful in great political results. This influence on Spain, Italy, the confederation of the Rhine, Poland, would have strengthened the federal bonds of the great empire; that which the head of Christianity had on the faithful of England, Ireland, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, would have become the heritage of France: this alone explains that speech that he recalled but which the Bishop of Nantes could not explain. One day, at Trianon, he energetically presented the usefulness and importance of the visible head of the church of Jesus Christ for the unity of the faith. “Mr. Bishop, do not worry, the policy of my States is intimately linked with the maintaining and power of the Pope; I need him to be more powerful than ever; he will never have as much power than that which my policy desires for him.” The bishop seemed surprised, and remained silent. A few weeks later he wanted to mention this remark; but he could not achieve it, Napoleon had spoken too much.
It is a constant fact which will be demonstrate more and more every day, that Napoleon loved his religion, that he wanted to make it prosper, to honor it, but at the same time to use it as a social means to repress violence. anarchy, consolidate his domination in Europe, increase the consideration of France and the influence of Paris, the object of all his thoughts. For that price he would have done everything for propaganda, foreign missions, and to extend, increase the power of the clergy. He had already recognized the cardinals as the first in the State; they had precedence in the palace over everyone: all the agents of the papal court were endowed with magnificence, and in such a way that they had nothing to regret about their past existence. It was as a result of all this that Napoleon was constantly concerned with the improvement and beautification of Paris: it was not only out of love for the arts, but also as a result of his system. Paris had to be the unique city, without comparison with all the other capitals; the masterpieces of science and the arts, the museums, everything that had illustrated past centuries had to be found there; the churches, the palaces, the theaters had to be above everything that exists. Napoleon regretted not being able to transport the church of Saint-Peter of Rome there; he was shocked by the pettiness of Notre-Dame.
On pope Pius VII, Cardinal and Bishop of Imola, elected sovereign pontiff in 1800
He was truly a lamb, quite a good man, a truly good man whom I esteem, whom I love very much, and who, for his part, repays me a little, I am sure. You will not see him complain too much about me, nor especially make any direct and personal accusation, not any more than the other sovereigns. Perhaps vague and banal declamations of ambition and bad faith; but nothing positive nor direct; because statesmen know well that, once the time for libels has passed, we cannot allow ourselves to make public accusations without supporting evidence, and they would have nothing to produce in this matter: that will be the history.
On his conduct in 1802 and 1803
It is sad that the Pope is advised by men who do not foresee the consequences of their probabilism, who know neither the circumstances nor the time, who only give in when threatened, and take away from the pope the merit of everything he does when he grants what is asked of him.
On the brief of December 2nd 1810
Towards the end of 1810, Pope Pius VII having not given the position to the bishop whom Napoleon had appointed for Florence, the emperor, out of condescension, limited himself to appointing, for the moment, an administrator; but the pope forbade receiving him, and the chapter obeyed the brief. Napoleon, rightly irritated, instructed the interior section to report to him on these facts which he described as offenses, and ordered that the brief and the report would be printed. A Councilor of State having expressed the opinion that it would perhaps not be prudent to give publicity to these facts, Napoleon replied:
On the contrary, I want this publicity. All of Europe must know my long-suffering, the Pope's provocation, and the reason for the measures that I am prepared to take to repress and prevent similar acts from now on. It is a crime for the head of the Church to attack a sovereign who respects the dogmas of religion. I must defend my crown and my people, the entire universe against these reckless enterprises which for too long have degraded kings and tormented humanity. The audacity with which the Pope stands out today only comes from the too great kindness with which he was treated. At the time that religion was in this state of agony from which I rescued it, the popes and their council, dominated by fear, gave in to every impulse. Pius VI and his cardinals had a Te Deum sung for the re-establishment of the Roman republic. Shortly after, Chiaramonti, then bishop of Imola, preached, published orders, and traveled everywhere to support the general of the republic and the French armies
Pius VII, too gentle, emboldened by too much condescension, dares to fight against the head of the empire. His disloyalty, his treacherous liaisons with the English, caused him to lose his States. By relegating him to Savona, I was kind enough to leave him the correspondence with the various churches: he again abused this freedom. Sworn faith, treaties, the concordat, which must necessarily extend to the countries which come under French domination, nothing is sacred to him. He sees, in cold blood, several churches in France deprived of pastors, the very capital of the empire has no archbishop. What is this brief addressed to the chapter of Florence, if not an order not to recognize the Emperor of the French? A pope who preaches revolt to subjects is no longer the head of the church of God, but the pope of Satan.
It is time to put an end to so much audacity, usurpation, and disorder. Providence has, I believe, called me to bring within its just limits this pernicious authority that the popes have arrogated to themselves, to guarantee the present generation, and free future generations from it forever. At least let us take in France against this incessantly invading authority the same precautions as in the other powers of Europe. Within eight days, a proposition will be presented to the senate to restore the right that emperors have always had to confirm the nomination of popes, and so that before his installation the pope swears in the hands of the emperor of the French submission to the four articles of the declaration of the clergy of 1682. If the articles are orthodox, why do the popes reject them? If they are not in accordance to the beliefs of the popes, the popes and the French are therefore not of the same religion?
On Napoleon's quarrels with the Pope
Napoleon showed, in this circumstance, more patience than his situation and his character warranted. And if, in his correspondence with the Pope, he sometimes used sarcasm, he was always provoked by the bitter style of the Roman chancellery, which expressed itself as in the time of Louis The Pious, or of the emperors of the house of Swabia. A style all the more inappropriate as it was addressed to a man eminently informed about the wars and affairs of Italy, who knew by heart all the campaigns, all the leagues, all the temporal intrigues of the popes. The court of Rome could have avoided everything, by frankly tying itself to the system of France, closing its ports to the English, calling by itself on a few French battalions to defend Ancona, and finally by maintaining tranquility in Italy.
On Christianity and Mohammedism
When speaking of Egypt, the emperor observed as very worthy of note, that from the same corner of the earth had emerged the three cults which had uprooted polytheism, and covered the whole globe with the knowledge of a single God. Then analyzing in the most ingenious way the two religions of the East and the West, he said that ours was entirely spiritual, and that of Mohammed entirely sensual. That punishments dominated among us; it was hell and its eternal torments, while it was only rewards among the Muslims: the blue-eyed houris, the joyful lands, the rivers of milk. And from there he concluded, by opposing the two religions, that we could say that one was a threat, it presented itself as the religion of fear; that the other, on the contrary, was a promise, and became the religion of attractions, etc.
It is only in Christianity that the pontificate found itself separated from civil government. In the Roman republic, the senators were the interpreters of heaven; it was the main source of the power and solidity of this government. In Turkey and throughout the Orient, the Koran is at the same time civil law and religious gospel.
On worship: it must be free
Everything in worship must be free and for the people. The obligation to pay at the door or pay for chairs is a revolting thing. We must not deprive the poor, because they are poor, of what consoles them for their poverty.
What should be the spirit of the clergy
The ministers of religion must, as you very well observe, never emancipate themselves in civil affairs; they must bear the color of their character which, according to the spirit of the Gospel, must be peaceful, tolerant and conciliatory.
From the French clergy in the 18th century
I am convinced every day of a truth well demonstrated in my eyes, which is that if the clergy of France had been wise, moderate, attached to the principles of the Gospel, the Roman religion would not have undergone any change in France. But the corruption of the monarchy had infected even the class of ministers of religion: we no longer saw there men of exemplary life and pure morality...
On the clergy for the teaching of youth, old and young clergy
My thinking is that the monks would be by far the best teaching body, if it were possible to master them, to remove them from a foreign leader. I have a fondness for them, he added. I perhaps would have had the power to restore them; but they made it impossible for me. I do nothing for the clergy that does not immediately give me cause to repent. It's not that I complain specifically about the old clergy, I'm even quite happy with them; but we raise the new priests in a dark, fanatical doctrine; there is nothing Gallican in the young clergy.
I have nothing to say against the elders, the old bishops: they were grateful for what I had done for religion. They lived up to my hopes.
Cardinal de Boisgelin was a man of spirit, a good man, who had loyally adopted me.
The Archbishop of Tours, Barral, a man of much education, and who served us well in our differences with the Pope, has always remained very attached to me.
The gracious Cardinal of Belloy, the good Archbishop Roquelaure, sincerely loved me.
I had no difficulty in putting Bishop Bausset among the dignitaries of the University, and I have no doubt that he was one of those who acted most sincerely according to my intentions.
All these former bishops had my confidence and none of them deceived it. What is odd is that those of which I had to complain are precisely those that I had made myself, as it is only too true that the holy anointing, in attaching us to the domain of heaven, does not deliver us from the infirmities of the earth, from its failings, its villainies, its turpitudes, etc, etc.