8. The Jesuits and General Boulanger, The Jesuits and the Dreyfus Affair

The hostility of which the devout party pretended to be the victim, at the end of the 19th century, from the Republican state, would not have lacked justification, even though this hostility, or more accurately mistrust, had been even more positive. In fact, the clerical opposition to the regime which France gave herself freely showed itself at every opportunity, according to the Abbe Brugerette. In 1873, the attempt to restore monarchy with the Count of Chambord failed, even though strongly supported by the clergy, because the Pretender stubbornly refused to adopt the tricoloured flag, to him the emblem of Revolution.

“Such as it is, Catholicism seems bound to politics, or to a certain kind of politics… Loyalty to the Monarchy was transmitted from generation to generation in the old noble families as well as in the middle-classes and the common people, in the Catholic regions of the West and South. Their nostalgia of an ancient and idealised Regime, pictured in an epic Middle Age was coupled with the wishes of fervent Catholics whose main preoccupation was the salvation of the religion; they rallied, behind Veuillot, with the legitimate and devout royal family of Chambord, considered to be the form of government most favourable to the Church. Out of the union of these political and religious forces was born, in the strained situation after the war, a kind of reactionary mysticism, illustrated perfectly by Monseigneur Pie, bishop of Poitiers, and its best incarnation in the ecclesiastical world: “France, who awaits another chief and calls for a master…, will again receive from God “the sceptre of the Universe which fell from her hands for a while”, on the day when she will have learned anew how to go down on her knees”.(68)

(68) Adrien Dansette, op.cit., II, pp.37, 38.

This picture, described by a Catholic historian, is significant. It helps to understand the moves which followed, a few years later, the unsuccessful restoration attempt of 1873.

The same Catholic historian describes in the following manner the political attitude of the clergy at that time:

“At election time, the presbyteries become centers for the reactionary candiates; the priests and officiating ministers make home-calls for the electoral propaganda, slander the Republic and its new laws on teaching they declare that those who vote for the free-thinkers, the present government or freemasons described as “bandits”, “riffraffs” and “thieves”, are guilty of mortal sin. One declares that an adulterous woman will be forgiven more easily than those who send their children to lay schools, another one: that it is better to strangle a child than give support to the regime, a third one: that he will refuse the last sacraments to those who vote for the regime’s partisans. The threats are carried out: republican and anticlerical tradesmen are boycotted; destitute people are refused any help and workmen are dismissed”.(69)

These excesses from a clergy affected more and more by Jesuitic ultramontanism are even less acceptable from the fact that they emanate “from ecclesiastics paid by the government, as the Concordat is still enforced”.

Also, the majority of public opinion is not happy at all with this pressure on the consciences, as the aforementioned author writes: “As we have seen, the French people, as a whole, is indifferent to religious matters, and we cannot mistake the hereditary observance of religious practices for a real faith… “The fact is that the political map of France is identical to her religious map… we can say that in the regions where faith is strong, the French people vote for Catholic candidates elsewhere, they consciously elect anticlerical deputies and senators… They do not want clericalism, which is ecclesiastical authority in the matter of politics and commonly called “the government of priests”.

“For a large number of Catholics, the fact that the priest, this troublesome man, interferes through the sermon’s instructions and the confessional’s prescriptions in the behaviour of the faithful, checking thoughts, sentiments, acts, food and drink, and even the intimacies of married life, is enough; they intend, at least, to limit his empire by preserving their independence as citizens”.(70)

(69) and (70) Adrien Dansette, op.cit., II, pp.46, 47, 48.

We would like to see this spirit of independence as lively today. But, even though the opinion of that “large number of Catholics” was such, the ultramontanes would not disarm and pursue, at every opportunity, the fight against the hated regime. They thought for a white that they had found the “providential man” in the person of General Boulanger, minister for War in 1886, who, having organised his personal propaganda extremely well, looked like being a future dictator. “A tacit agreement”, wrote M. Adrien Dansette, “is established between the general and the Catholics, and becomes clear during the summer… He has also concluded a secret agreement with royalist members of parliament such as Baron de Mackau and Count de Mun, faithful defenders of the Church at the Assembly…

‘The phlegmatic minister for the Interior, Constans, threatens to arrest him and, on the 1st of April, the dictator candidate escapes to Brussels, with his mistress.

“From now on, “Boulangism” declines rapidly. France has not been taken: she recovers… “Boulangism” is crushed at the polls on the 22nd of September and 6th of October 1889…”(71)

We can read, from the pen of the same historian, what the attitude of the pope of that time was regarding this adventurer; he was Leo XIII who, in 1878, had succeeded Pius IX, the pope of the Syllabus, and who pretended to advise the faithful of France to join the republican regime:

“In August (1889), the German ambassador to the Vatican pretends that the pope sees in the general (Boulanger) the man who will overthrow the French Republic and re-establish the throne; we can read an article in which the “Monitor of Rome” envisages that the dictatorial candidate will take over power and that the Church “could benefit greatly from it”… General Boulanger sent one of his former officers to Rome with a letter for Leo XIII in which he promises the pope “that on the day when he would hold in his hands the sword of France, he would do his uttermost to make the rights of the papacy acknowledged”.(72)

Such was this Jesuit pontiff; the intransigent clerics objected to his supposed excess of “liberalism”!

The boulangist crisis revealed well enough the action led by the religious party against the lay Republic, under the cover of nationalism. But the colourless nature of the principal character, as well as the resistance of a majority of the nation, had defeated the attempt in spite of all this forced agitation. Nevertheless, these chauvinistic tactics had proved quite effective, especially in Paris, and they were to be used again at another, and better, opportunity. This came about—or was it provoked?—and the disciples of Loyola were, of course, at the head of this movement. “Their friends are here”, wrote M. Pierre Dominique, “a bigoted nobility, a bourgeoisie which rejects Voltaire, and many military men. They will especially work on the army, and the result will be the famous alliance of “the sword and the sprinkler of Holy water”.

(71) and (72) Adrien Dansette, op.cit., II, p p . 1 1 4 ss.

“In 1890, it is not the king of France’s conscience they rule any more, but the general-staff, or, at least, its chief; then, the “Dreyfus Affair” breaks out, a real civil war which divides France into two”.(73) The Catholic historian, Adrien Dansette, sums up the beginning of the Affair as follows:

“On the 22nd of December 1894, the Captain of artillery Alfred Dreyfus is proved guilty of treason, condemned to deportation for life imprisonment and cashiering. Three months earlier, our Intelligence Service had discovered, at the German Embassy, a list of several documents to do with national defence; it established a resemblance between the writing of Captain Dreyfus and the one on that list Immediately, the general-staff cried out: “It’s him; it’s the Jew”. They only had this presumption as the treason had no psychological explanation (Dreyfus had a good reputation, was rich and led an orderly life); the unfortunate man is nevertheless imprisoned, condemned by a military tribunal after an inquiry so swift and partial that the judgement must have been preconceived. To make it worse, it will be learned later that a secret document was given to the judges, without the knowledge of the counsel for the accused…

“But there was more leakage at the general-staff after Dreyfus’ arrest and commandant Picquart, chief of the Intelligence Service after July 1895, learns of a certain project called “petit bleu” (express letters), between the German military attache and the French commandant (of Hungarian origin) Esterhazy; he is a disreputable man who has nothing but hatred and contempt for his country of adoption. But an officer in the Intelligence Service, Commandant Henry, adds to the Dreyfus file,—as we shall see- a false document which would be crushing for the Jewish officer if it was genuine; he also erases and re-writes the name of Esterhazy on the “petit bleu” to give the impression that the document was faked. So Picquart is disgraced in November 1896″.(74)

(73) Pierre Dominique, op.cit., p.239.
(74) and (78) Adrien Dansette, op.cit., II, pp.263, 264.

The disgrace of the chief of the Intelligence Service is easy to understand: his zeal to dissipate the accumulated darkness was too excessive. The most trustworthy testimony is found in the “Carnets de Schwartzkoppen”, published after his death, in 1930. It was from Esterhazy, and not Dreyfus, that the author, then first military attache at the German embassy in Paris, received secret documents of the French national defence.

“Already sometime before, in July, Picquart thought the time had come to warn by letter the chief of the general-staff, who was then in Vichy, about his suspicions concerning Esterhazy. The first meeting was on the 5th of August 1896. General de Boisdeffre approved of everything Picquart had done so far concerning this affair and gave him the permission to carry on with his investigation. “The minister for War, General Billot, was equally informed from August about Picquart’s suspicions; he also sanctioned the measures taken by Picquart. Esterhazy, whom I had dismissed, had tried, using his connections with the deputy Jules Roche, to be posted to the ministry for War. presumably to try to get in touch with me again, and had written several letters to the minister for War as well as to his aide-de- camp. One of his letters was given to Picquart who, for the first time, realised that his writing was the same as the one on the “list”! He showed a photo of that letter to Du Paty and Bertillon, without telling them, of course, who wrote it… Bertillon said: “Oh, that’s the writing on the list!”(75)

“Feeling his conviction of Dreyfus’ culpability crumbling away, Picquart decided to consult the “small file” which had been given only to the Judges, The archivist Gribelin gave it to him. It was evening. Left alone in his office, Picquart opened Henry’s unsealed envelope, on which was Henry’s paraph written with a blue pencil… Great was his amazement when he realised the nullity of those pitiful documents, none of which could be applied to Dreyfus. For the first time, he knew that the condemned man on the “Ile du Diable” (Devils Island) was innocent. The following day, Picquart wrote a letter to General de Boisdeffre in which he exposed all the charges against Esterhazy and his recent discovery. When reading about that “secret file”, the general jumped up, exclaiming: “Why was it not burned as agreed?”(76)

Von Schwartzkoppen wrote further: “My position became extremely uncomfortable. This question was before me: should I tell the whole truth and so repair the horrible mistake and liberate that poor innocent man? If I had been able to act as I wanted to, I would certainly have done just that! Looking at these things in detail, I came to the conclusion that I shouldn’t get involved in that matter, for, as things were, nobody would have believed me; also, diplomatic considerations were standing in the way of such an action. Considering that the French government was able to take the necessary measures to clear the matter and make up for the injustice, I really made up my mind not to do anything”.(77)

(75) and (77) “Les Carnets de Schwartzkoppen” Rieder, Paris 1933, pp.147, 148, 162.
(76) Armand Charpentier, “Histoire de l’affaire Dreyfus” (Fasquelle, 1933, p.73).
(78) See earlier on.

“We can see coming to life the tactics of the general-staff, notes Adrien Dansette: “If Esterhazy is guilty, the officers who provoked the illegal condemnation of Dreyfus, and most of all General Marcier, minister for War at that time, are guilty also. The interests of the army require the sacrifice of Dreyfus; we must not interfere with the sentence of 1894”.(78) We remain dumbfounded, today, at the thought that such an argument could be invoked to justify, if we dare express ourselves so, an iniquitious condemnation. It was to be so all through the Affair which was then just beginning. Of course, we were then in an Anti-Semitic fever. The violent dissertations of Edouard Drumont, in the “Libre Parole”, showed up every day the children of Israel as agents of national corruption and dissolution. The unfavourable prejudice so created incited a large section of public opinion to believe, “a priori”, in Dreyfus’ guilt. But, later, when the innocence of the accused became evident, the monstrous argument of the “infallibility” of the military tribunal was still upheld, and from now on with a perfect cynicism.

Was it the Holy Spirit inspiring these judges in uniform who could not make any mistake? It would be tempting to believe in that celestial intervention—so similar to the one which guarantees papal infallibility-when we read about Father du Lac, of the Company of Jesus, who had a lot to do with the Affair:

“He directed the college of the “Rue des Postes” where the Jesuits prepared the candidates for the larger Schools. He is a very intelligent man with important connections. He converted Drumont, is the confessor of de Mun and de Boisdeffre, chief of the Army’s general-staff, whom he sees every day”.(79)

The Abbe Brugerette also mentions the same facts quoted by Joseph Reinach: “Is it not this Father du Lac who converted Drumont and urged him to write “The Jewish France”, who supplied the means to create the “Libre Parole”? Does not General de Boisdeffre see the famous Jesuit every day? The chief of the general-staff doesn’t take any decision before consulting first his director”.(80)

There, on Devil’s Island, which deserves its name so well in that deadly climate, the victim of this atrocious plot was treated in an extremely cruel manner, as the Anti-Semitic press had spread the report that he had tried to escape. The minister for Colonies, Andre Lebon, gave orders accordingly. “On the Sunday morning, the 6th of September, the head warder, Lebar, informed his prisoner that he would not, from then on, be allowed to walk in the part of the island which had been reserved for him, and that he would be confined to his hut. In the evening, he was told that he would be chained at night. At the foot of his bed, made up of three planks, were rivetted two double iron shackles which encircled the convict’s feet. When the nights were torrid, this punishment was especially painful.”

(79) Pierre Dominique, op.cit., p.240.
(80) (83) and (85) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, pp.454, 432, 467.

“At dawn, the guards unfastened the prisoner who, when he got up, trembled on his feet. He was forbidden to leave his hut where he had to stay day and night. In the evening, he was shackled again, and this went on for forty nights. After a while, his ankles were covered with blood and they had to be bandaged; his guards, moved with compassion, secretly wrapped up his Icet before chaining them”.(81)

Nevertheless, the convict still proclaimed his innocence; he wrote to his wife: “There must be somewhere, in this beautiful and generous land of France, an honest man who is couragous enough to search for, and discover, the truth”.(82)

In fact, the truth was not in doubt any more. What was lacking was the w i l l to let it burst forth. The Abbe Brugerette himself testifies of the fact: “The presumptions of innocence of the convict on Devil’s Island multiply in vain; M. de Bulow’s declarations at the Reichstag and those transmitted by M. de Munster, his ambassador, to the French government, also state the innocence of Dreyfus in vain; an innocence proclaimed also by Emperor Guillaume and confirmed when Schwarzkoppen (the German military attache) was recalled to Berlin as soon as Esterhazy was accused by Mathieu Dreyfus (brother of the convict). The general-staff remains opposed to any re- examination of the trial… Someone is busy covering up for Esterhazy. Secret documents are communicated to him for his defence, and even his writing is not allowed to be compared with that on the “list”…

“Shielded in that way, the villain Esterhazy is audacious enough to ask to appear before a Council of war. There, he is unanimously acquitted, on the 17th of January 1898, after a deliberation lasting three minutes”.(83)

We must mention that, a few months later, when Colonel Henry was convicted of forgery, Esterhazy fled to England and, in the end, confessed that he was the author of the famous “list” attributed to Dreyfus. We cannot cite all the many happenings in this drama, the forgeries added to more forgeries in an attempt to conceal an obvious truth, the dismissal of the chief of the general staff, the downfall of ministers, the suicide of Henry, detained at Mont Valerien, who slit his throat and so signed with his own blood the confession of his culpability.

In December 1898, this semi-official note was published by the German press: “The declarations of the imperial government have established that no German personality, high or low, had any kind of relations with Dreyfus. Then, from the German point of view, we see no inconvenience as to the unabridged publication of the secret file.(84)

(81) Armand Charpentier, op.cit., p.75.
(82) “Lettres d’un innocent”, January and February 1895.
(84) Maurice Paleologue: “Journal de l’Affaire Dreyfus” (Plon, Paris 1955, p. 149)

At last, the inevitable re-examination is decided by the High-Court. Dreyfus has to appear again before the council of war at Rennes, on the 3rd of June 1899, and it is the start of another torture for him. “He could not suppose that he was to meet hatred more odious than when he left and that his former chiefs, conspiring to set him again on the road to Devil’s Island, would have no pity for this wretch, this poor creature who thought he has endured all the suffering there is to endure”.(85)

“So”, wrote the Abbe Brugerette, “the council of war at Rennes will only add a new injustice to the iniquity of the 1894 trial. The illegality of this trial, the guilt of Esterhazy, the criminal manoeuvres of Henry will come out clearly during the twenty-nine sessions of that trial at Rennes. But the council of war… will judge Dreyfus on other spying charges which were never the cause of an accusation or report. All the previous leakages will be attributed to him and documents will be produced which had nothing to do with him… At last, and contrary to all our legal traditions, we will require that Dreyfus himself establish that such a document or paper was not handed over by him, as if it was not the task of the prosecution to prove the crime any more”.(86)

The partiality of Dreyfus’ accusers was so obvious that public opinion outside France was aroused. In Germany, the semi-official “Cologne Gazette” published, on the 16th and 29th of August, in the middle of the trial, two articles in which we read the following phrase: “If, after the declarations of the German government and the debates of the highest court of appeal in France, someone still believes Dreyfus guilty, we can only answer that person that he must be mentally ill or he conscious wants an innocent to be condemned”.(87)

(85) See earlier on (86) and (89) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, pp.469, 471, 472.
(87) Maurice Paleologue, op.cit., p.237.
(88) “L’Aurore”, 14th of September, 1899.,

But the hatred, nonsense and fanaticism were not disarmed for all that Even new forgeries were used, replacing those which had lost all credit. To sum it all up, it was nothing more than sinister buffoonery. The end of it, for Dreyfus, was the condemnation to ten years’ detention, with mitigating circumstances!

“This miserable trial provoked an indignant stupor all over the world France was despised. Who could have imagined such terrible sorrow?”(88) exclaimed Clemenceau at the reading of English and German newspapers. Mercy was indispensable. Dreyfus accepted it to “carry on”, said he, “seeking the reversal of the awful military mistake of which he was the victim. “For this reversal, it was no use counting on the justice of the Councils of war. This justice had been seen at work! It came, once again, from the highest court of appeal which, after thorough investigations and long debates, annulled once and for all the verdict of Rennes. A few days later, the Assembly and Senate, by a solemn vote, reinstated Dreyfus in the army: Dreyfus, upon whom was conferred the Legion of Honour and who was publicly reinstated”.(89)

T h i s late reversal, obtained so laboriously, was due to “honest and couragous” men, such as those the innocent on Devil’s Island wished to see coming forth. Their number grew more and more as truth came to light. After the swift acquittal of the traitor Esterhazy, by a Council of war in January 1898, Emile Zola published in the “Aurore”, Clemenceau’s publication, his famous open letter “I accuse”. He wrote: “I accuse the first Council of war to have violated the law by condemning an accused person on the grounds of some document remaining secret, and I accuse the second Council of war to have covered up this illegality by committing also a judicial crime in knowingly acquitting a culprit”.

But the “knights” of our famous Company were on the watch out to hush up anything which could have enlightened the public. A question from the Catholic deputy de Mun brought Zola before the Assize Court of the Seine, and the couragous writer was condemned to one year imprisonment, the maximum penalty, as a result of this iniquitous trial.

Public opinion had been deceived so well by the outcries of the “clerico- nationalists” that the elections of May 1898 were in their favour. Nevertheless, the public revelation of forgeries, the dismissal of the chief of the general-staff, the evident criminal partiality of the judges opened the eyes of those sincerely seeking the truth more and more. But these came almost exclusively from the ranks of the Protestants, Jews and laymen. “In France, the Catholics were few and far between, among whom few were prominent, who took sides with Dreyfus… The action of this handful of people made very little noise. The conspiracy of silence surrounded it…”(90) “Most priests and bishops remain convinced of Dreyfus’ culpability”, wrote the Abbe Brugerette. Georges Sorel declares also: “While the Dreyfus affair brought division amongst all social groups, the Catholic world was absolutely united against a re-examination.” Peguy himself admits that “all the political forces of the Church have always been against Dreyfus”. Must we recall the lists of subscriptions open by the “Libre Parole” and “La Croix”, in favour of the widow of the forger Henry who committed suicide? The names of the subscribing priests were often accompanied by “comments not very evangelical”, as we are told by M. Adrien Dansette who quotes these:

“A certain Abbe Cros asks for a bedside mat made of Jewish skin which he would be able to stamp on morning and evening; a young priest would like to crush Reinach’s nose with his heel; three priests would love to slap the filthy face of the Jew Reinach”.(91)

(89) See earlier on. (90) and (91) Adrien Dansette, op.cit., II, pp.275, 276.

Only the secular clergy is still somewhat reserved. In the Congregations, things are more virulent:

“On the 15th of July 1898, prize-giving day at the College of Arcueil, presided over by Generalissimo Jamont (vice-president of the Superior Council of War), Father Didon, rector of the School Albert-le-Grand, gave a violent speech in which he advocated using violence against the men whose crime had been the couragous denunciation of a military error… “Must we”, said the eloquent monk, “let the wicked go free? Certainly not! The enemy is: intellectualism pretending to despise force, and civilians wanting to subordinate the military. When persuasion has failed, when love(!) has been ineffectual, we must brandish the sword, spread terror, chop off heads, make war, strike…”

“This speech seemed to be a challenge thrown before all the sympathisers of that condemned wretch”.(92)

But how many of them have we heard since then? These calls to bloody repressions, coming from gentle clerics, especially during the German occupation! As for the cry of hatred against intellectualism, we can find the perfect echo to it in this declaration from a certain general: “When someone speaks of intelligence, I draw my revolver”.

To crush the thought by force is a principle of the Roman Church which has never altered.

The Abbe Brugerette wonders, however, about the fact that nothing disturbed the clergy’s belief in the culpability of Dreyfus: “Such a great and dramatic event, coming like a clap of thunder in a blue sky and bringing to light the Department for forgeries operating at the general-staff, must have opened the eyes, even of those not wanting to find the truth. We are referring to the discovery of forgeries made by Henry…

“Had not the time come for the French clergy and the Catholics to repudiate a mistake which had gone on for too long… They, the priests and the faithful could have gone, en-masse, and at the eleventh hour like the workmen mentioned in the gospels, to increase the ranks of the defenders of justice and truth… But the most evident facts do not always shed their light on minds dominated by certain prejudices, as prejudices are opposed to examination and, by their nature, rebel against evidence”.(93)

Anyway, what efforts are made to maintain Catholics in error! “Could they guess that they were scandalously deceived by a press stubbornly keeping covered all the proofs of innocence, all the testimonies favourable to the convict of Devil’s Island, and also determined to impede the course of Justice by any means?”(94)

(92) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, p.451. (93) (94) and (96) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, pp.443, 444, 448.

At the forefront of that press was “La Libre Parole”, created, as we have seen, with the help of the Jesuit Father du Lac, and “La Croix” of the “Assumptionist” Father Bailly. The Order of “Assumption” being a camouflaged branch of the Company of Jesus, we must then attribute to them the start and pursuit of the anti-Dreyfus campaign. A not very suspicious witness, Father Lecanuet, writes boldly: “The Congregations and especially the Jesuits are denounced by the Affair’s historians. And, this time, we must admit that the Jesuits took the first shot with a very thoughtless temerity”.(95)

“The provincial Catholic newspapers, such as the “Nouvelliste” of Lyon, to informative and widely read, will nearly all take part in that dark plot against truth and justice. It seems that the watchword was passed around to stop light breaking through and to keep the public in the dark”.(96)

In reality, one would need a peculiar blindness not to discern, behind the furor shown by the “Croix” in Paris and in the provinces, the “watchword” mentioned by the Abbe Brugerette. And one would also be very naive not to know the origin.(96a)

M. Adrien Dansette says this also: “It is the “Assumptionist” Order as a whole and with it the Church which are exposed by the campaign of “La Croix”… Father Bailly boasts that the ‘Holy-Father’ approved of him”.(97)

In fact, there isn’t any doubt concerning that approval! The Jesuits, to whom the ” Assumptionists” lend their name, are they not, since the Order was founded, the pope’s political instruments? We have to smile at the story cleverly spread around—which is echoed by apologist historians—that Leo XIII had apparently “advised moderation” to the directors of “La Croix”. It is a classical trick, but still somewhat efficacious. Today, there are still some folk who believe in a kind of “independence” of the Holy-See’s official voice! Let us see now what was published in Rome itself by the “Civilta Cattolica”, the Jesuits’ official publication, under the title “Il caso Dreyfus”:

“The Jews’ emancipation has been the result of the so-called principles of 1789, whose yoke weighs heavily on all French people… The Jews hold the Republic in their hands, which is more Hebraic than French… The Jew has been created by God to be used as a spy wherever some treason is being prepared… It is not only in France, but also in Germany, Austria and Italy that the Jews must be excluded from the nation. Then, with the great harmony of former times re-established, nations will find again their lost happiness”.(98)

(95) Father Lecanuet, “Les Signes avant-coureurs de la Separation”, p. 179.
(96a) The newspaper “La Croix” was then widely published. (Note of the author).
(97) Adrien Dansette, op.cit., p.277.
(98) The “Civilta Cattolica” of the 5th of February 1898.

In the previous chapters, we gave a short summary of the “great harmony” and “happiness” enjoyed by the nations when the sons of Loyola heard the confessions and inspired the kings. As we have just seen, “harmony” was also reigning when they were the confessors and counsellors of the general-staffs chiefs.

According to the Abbe Brugerette, General de Boisdeffre, penitent of the Jesuit Father du Lac, tasted the same bitterness as many others before him who were equally deceived by these “directors of consciences”. The confessions of the forger Henry put him under an obligation to resign. “Being a very honest man, he will himself proclaim that he was “Scandalously deceived”, and those who knew him were aware that he felt very bitter about the “plot” of which he had been the victim”.(99) And the Abbe Brugerette adds that he stopped “all communications” with his former confessor “and even refused to see him again when dying”.

After reading all this, written and published in the “Civilta Cattolica”, it would be superfluous to dwell even deeper on the Order’s culpability and we can only agree with what Joseph Reinach wrote then: “You see, it is the Jesuits who contrived this dark affair. And, for them, Dreyfus is only a pretext. What they want, and they admit it, is to strangle the laity and a redirected French Revolution…, abolish foreign gods, the dogmas of 1789”.

This is clear enough. But, as some still insist, against all evidence, that there was a possible disagreement between the pope and his secret army, between the intentions of one and the actions of the other, it is easy to show the emptiness of such a supposition. The case of Bailly is very enlightening in that aspect.

What can we read in “La Croix” of the 29th of May 1956? Nothing less than this: “As we have announced, His Eminence Cardinal Feltin ordered a research into Father Bailly’s writings; he was the founder of our publication and the “Maison de la Bonne Press”. Here is the text of that ordinance dated 15th of May 1956:

“We, Maurice Feltin, by the grace of God and of the apostolic Holy-See, cardinal-priest of the Holy Roman Church whose title is Holy-Mary-of- Peace, archbishop of Paris.

(99) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, pp.435, 454.

“In view of the plan submitted by the Congregation of the Assumption’s Augustinians and approved by us, to introduce in Rome the cause of God’s servant Vincent-de-Paul Bailly, founder of “La Croix” and “Bonne Press”. “In view of the dispositions… and instructions of the Holy See regarding the act of beatification and research into the writings of God’s servants: “We have ordered and order the following: “Anyone who knew this servant of God or who can tell us something special about his life must let us know about it… “Anyone who possesses writings of this servant of God must let us have them before the 30th of September 1956, be it printed books, handwritten notes, letters, memoranda… even instructions or advices not written by him, but which he dictated… “For all these communications, we designate Canon Dubois, secretary of our archbishopric, and promoter of faith for this cause”.(100)

Here is a “servant of God” well on the way to receive the just reward for his loyal services in the form of a halo. And we dare say that, as far as his “writings” are concerned and which were so carefully searched for, the “promoter of faith” will have too much to choose from. As for the “printed” material, the collection of “La Croix”, especially between 1895 and 1899, will supply the most edifying kind.

“Their attitude (of the Catholic newspapers), and especially the one of “La Croix”, constitute at the moment for all “enlightened and upright minds”, what M. Paul Violet, Catholic member of the Institute calls an “indescribable scandal”; and this scandal upholds, in the Dreyfus Affair, the most shocking mistakes, the lying and crime against truth, uprightness and justice. “The Court of Rome”, he adds, “knows it, as all the Courts of Europe do”.(101) Indeed, the Court of Rome knew better than anyone else! As we have seen, in 1956, she had not forgotten the pious exploits of this “servant of God” as she was preparing his beatification.

No doubt, the promoter of faith credited our future “saint” with those famous lists of subscriptions in favour of the widow of the forger Henry, about which the Abbe Brugerette says: “Today, when we consider those calls for the Inquisition to be brought back, for the persecution of the Jews, for the murder of Dreyfus’ defenders, it is like listening to the delirious imaginations of wild and grotesque fanatics. Nevertheless, these are presented to us by “La Croix” as a great, comforting and cheering spectacle”.(102)

(100) “La Croix” of the 29th of May 1956.
(101) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., p.443.
(102) Abbe Brugerette, op.cit., II, p.450.

All those pious wishes concerning the Jews, Father Bailly did not have the joy to see them realised, in his lifetime, by these wild fanatics, under the swastika. He could only take delight in that “great, comforting and cheering spectacle” from heaven, even though, up there, spectacles of that sort are quite common, according to the “learned”, and especially Saint Thomas d’Aquin, the Angel of the School:

“In order to help the saints enjoy their blessedness more, and increase their thanksgivings to God, they are allowed to contemplate in all its awfulness the torture of the godless… The saints will rejoice in the torments of the godless”. (Sancti de poenis impiorum gaudebunt) (103).

As we can see, Father Bailly, Founder of “La Croix”, had what it takes to make a saint: persecute the innocent, curse those who defend him, give them up to be murdered, uphold with all one’s strength lying and iniquity, stir up discord and hatred; these are, to the eyes of the Roman Church, solid titles for glory, and we can understand her wish to bestow the halo on the author of these pious deeds.

However, this question is asked, “Is this ‘servant of God’ a wonder- worker also? Because we know that, to deserve such a promotion, one must have accomplished miracles well and truly checked.”

What were the miracles accomplished by the director-founder of “La Croix”? Was it the transmutation, for his readers, of black into white and white into black? To have presented a lie as the truth and the truth as a lie? Naturally, but a greater miracle was the fact that he persuaded members of the general-staff (and then the public) that, after having committed an initial mistake, and when this mistake was discovered, it was in their “honour” to deny the evidence, transforming in that way the mistake into abuse of power! “Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum”. The “servant of God” was not taking much notice of that proverb. Instead of letting it inspire him, he hid it under his cassock. In fact, the”mea culpa” is for the simple faithful and not the ecclesiastics, nor—as we have just seen— for the military chiefs who have Jesuit confessors.

The result—searched for—was the exaltation of partisan passions and the division of the French people.

This is stated by the eminent historian Pierre Gaxotte: “The Dreyfus Affair was the decisive turning point… judged by officers, it involved the military institution… The Affair grew, became a political conflict, divided families, cut France into two. It had the effects of a war of religion… It created hatred against the officers corps… It started anti-militarism”.(104)

(103) “Somme theologique”, in Supple. XCIV, I, 3.
(104) Pierre Gazotte, de l’Academie Francaise, “Histoire de Francais” (Flammarion, Paris 1951, tome II, pp.516, 517.

When we think of Europe at that time, Germany over-equiped with arms and surrounded by her two allies, when we recollect the Vatican’s responsibility in the start of the 1914 conflict, we cannot believe that the diminution of strength in our military potential was not premeditated. How could we not notice that, in fact, the “Dreyfus Affair” started in 1894, the year of the Franco-Russian alliance. Then, the spokesmen of the Vatican were very outspoken about the accord with a “schismatic” power which, to their eyes, was a scandal. Even today, a “prelate of His Holiness”, Monseigneur Cristiani, dares write:

“Through politics strangely blind and ill considered, our country seemed to take pleasure in provoking war-like inclinations in her formidable neighbour (Germany)… In fact, the Franco-Russian alliance seemed to threaten Germany with encirclement”.(105)

For the respectable prelate, the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy, Austria- Hungary) was not a threat to anyone and France was wrong not to stay isolated before such a block. With three against one, the “coup” would have been easier and our Holy Father the pope would not have had to deplore, in 1918, the defeat of his champions.

(105) Mgr Cristiani, “Le Vatican politique” (Ed. du Centurion, Paris 1957, p. 102).