Debate Over The Civil Constitution
On 6 February 1790 one week before banning monastic vows, the National Constituent Assembly asked its ecclesiastical committee (which was promptly expanded from 15 to 30 members) to prepare the reorganization of the clergy. No doubt, those who hoped to reach a solution amenable to the papacy were discouraged by the consistorial address of 22 March in which Pius VI spoke out against measures already passed by the Assembly; also, the election of the Protestant Jean-Paul Rabaut Saint-Étienne to the presidency of the Assembly brought about "commotions" at Toulouse and Nîmes, suggesting that at least some Catholics would accept nothing less than a return to the ancien régime practice under which only Catholics could hold office.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy came before the Assembly 29 May 1790. François de Bonal, Bishop of Clermont, and some members of the Right requested that the project should be submitted to a national council or to the pope, but did not carry the day. Joining them in their opposition to the legislation was Abbé Sieyès, the firebrand of 1789, author of "What is the Third Estate?".
Conversely, the Jansenist theologian Camus argued that the plan was in perfect harmony with the New Testament and the councils of the fourth century.
The Assembly passed the Civil Constitution on 12 July 1790, two days before the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille. On that anniversary, Talleyrand and three hundred priests officiated at the "altar of the nation" erected on the Champ de Mars, wearing tricolor waistbands over their priestly vestments and calling down God's blessing upon the Revolution.
Read more about this topic: Civil Constitution Of The Clergy
Famous quotes containing the words debate, civil and/or constitution:
“Like man and wife who nightly keep
Inconsequent debate in sleep
As they dream side by side.”
—Robert Graves (1895–1985)
“[Rutherford B. Hayes] was a patriotic citizen, a lover of the flag and of our free institutions, an industrious and conscientious civil officer, a soldier of dauntless courage, a loyal comrade and friend, a sympathetic and helpful neighbor, and the honored head of a happy Christian home. He has steadily grown in the public esteem, and the impartial historian will not fail to recognize the conscientiousness, the manliness, and the courage that so strongly characterized his whole public career.”
—Benjamin Harrison (1833–1901)
“The very hope of experimental philosophy, its expectation of constructing the sciences into a true philosophy of nature, is based on induction, or, if you please, the a priori presumption, that physical causation is universal; that the constitution of nature is written in its actual manifestations, and needs only to be deciphered by experimental and inductive research; that it is not a latent invisible writing, to be brought out by the magic of mental anticipation or metaphysical mediation.”
—Chauncey Wright (1830–1875)