[by Charles Coutel, this text takes up and updates a version published in Philosophical teaching, 56e year, no 4.]
Absolutely separated from the political establishment of society, a priest is nothing more than a man.
Condorcet (1792)
The problem of the separation of Church and State in Condorcet is both little known and original.[1]. Unknown because it was a victim of republican hagiography and original because it had an influence on the course of the debates preparing the law of 1905. Condorcet influenced the philosophy of radicalism. Between 1903 and 1904, two works by Franck Alengry and Léon Cahen, a disciple of Alphonse Aulard, contributed to the dissemination of the Enlightenment thinker. A direct thread therefore links Condorcet and the men of the Thirde Republic.
We would like to report here on the complexity of Condorcet's positions and their unity within republican philosophy: this thinker takes up the heritage of the Enlightenment, notably Voltaire, and translates it into the French Revolution. Condorcet, on the issue of separation, even points out "errors" that should not be made...
Let us go further: Condorcet adopts a methodology which, thought of before the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and, a fortiori, before the Concordat, would indicate in advance the possible flaws of any partial approach to separation. This "below" would even be a "beyond": Condorcet could thus help us to better read the law of 1905 and its current development.
First, we will emphasize the coherence of Condorcet's conception of separation. Second, we will show how this Condorcet synthesis is transformed into a precise institutional and political program, from 1789. Finally, we will emphasize the topicality of this approach.
Condorcet, philosopher of separation
In the years 1770-1789, Condorcet developed a theory of the relations between political power and religions. This meditation was nourished in particular by the reading of Voltaire, to whom he devoted a very instructive work, a Life of Voltaire, in 1787. He also closely analyses the causes of Turgot's failure in his Life of Turgot, published in 1786. Finally, he analyses the fate reserved for Protestants under the Ancien Régime, in his Pieces about Protestants, published in 1781. These texts give an uncompromising account of the situations created by religious clericalism, on the fate of Jews, women, blacks and the exploited in general. Many pages denounce the collusion between political, religious and economic powers (for example in the criticism of the code black, then in force in the colonies).
But Condorcet never attacks religion as such. In his Praise of Mr. de l'Hôpital, dating from 1777, we see him attacking the abuses of religion and not religion:
"I will speak of the atrocities that fanaticism has inspired, without fearing that those who love religion can make a crime of it. If religion was established for the happiness of men, by a God their common father, certainly, it is not religion which lights pyres and orders massacres. I will say that there were abuses in the Church: compare the morals of our clergy, its enlightenment, the order which reigns in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the morality which it teaches to the people, with what this same clergy was in the sixteenth century, and dare to claim that there were no abuses then to reform.[2] »
No hatred of religion but a lively criticism of its clerical excesses, in a very Voltairean vein.
The phrase "separate religion from state" even appears[3] to summarize a chapter of Voltaire in theEssay on the customs and spirit of nations[4]. This formula is the starting point of Condorcet's thinking: it is in line with Voltaire who, on March 19, 1765, wrote to Elie Bertrand: "We must separate all types of religion from all types of government." Voltaire's wish will be founded and theorized by Condorcet, who will rely on his practice as a scholar and academic, but also as a friend of the Enlightenment and justice - he contributes to the success of Beccaria and denounces the judicial errors of the Ancien Régime. We must hope for a separation of religions and the State, in order to hasten the end of Constantinism which alienates both the religious and the political. Condorcet delivers a precise historical critique of Constantinism, the misdeeds of which he summarizes as follows in 1793: "Christianity soon became a powerful party, mixing itself in the quarrels of the Caesars; he placed Constantine on the throne and placed himself there alongside his weak successors.[5] »
In 1787-1789, presenting the works of Voltaire, he already wrote:
"The religious troubles, which have so long torn Europe apart, have their first origin in the error made by the first Christian emperors in interfering in ecclesiastical affairs, at the solicitation of the priests who, having been able, under the pagan emperors, only to defame or calumniate their adversaries, hoped to have under these new princes the pleasure of punishing them. Whether through bad policy, vanity, or superstition, the ferocious Constantine, not yet baptized, appeared at the head of a council. His successors followed his example, and the troubles which have since agitated Europe were the necessary consequence of this conduct. Indeed, as soon as it is established as a principle that princes are obliged in conscience to punish those who attack religion, to impose a penalty, whatever it may be, against the open or hidden profession, the public or secret exercise of any religion, the maxim that people have the right, and even are under the obligation to arm themselves against a prince who is a heretic or an enemy of religion, becomes a necessary consequence.[6] »
Constantinism had a double perverse effect: first an instrumentalization of religion by politics, of which Gallicanism and Ultramontanism were the effects in France; and secondary an instrumentalization of politics by religion, which Condorcet calls the “Machiavellianism of ministers of religion”[7] "The philosopher will never cease to denounce the return of religion to the heart of political power, notably in 1793 during the establishment of the cult of the Supreme Being by the Robespierrists, willing admirers of the austere Sparta.[8]. He will also know how to condemn the priests who in 1792 fomented political unrest on the occasion of the establishment of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. He denounces any kind of "transfer of sacredness" (Mona Ozouf's formula) between the religious and the political.
Added to this criticism of Constantinism is the criticism of any power that constitutes itself as an enemy of the Enlightenment; the "sectarian spirit" opposed to the "public spirit" even threatens the Revolution and then the Republic.[9]The idea of separation aims to neutralize the always possible return of the "spirit of sect" within political power; it is up to believers to do the same critical work within their ecclesiastical organizations.
From then on, separating itself from religion, the State returns religion to its proper destination. It is up to the Republic to neutralize within it "the spirit of sect" by promoting humanist and scientific rationality, notably through public education. The Republic will thus avoid any persecution against believers; persecution by making martyrs, proves right those who are wrong. Condorcet notes very finely in the Pieces about Protestants : "Every Catholic convinced of the truth of his religion must therefore desire that Protestants be tolerated, since persecution is only a means of attaching men, indifferently, to error as to truth.[10] »
This problem of tolerance would later be found in Condorcet: the Republic, by persecuting believers, would discredit itself and turn "separation" into a "divorce"! The men of the Thirde Republic will remember this lesson.
Three practical consequences are drawn from these theoretical observations on Constantinism and the clerical danger:
1° a first of an economic and demographic order: the modern world and the State impose a real civil status, which must no longer be kept by the Church. It is up to the State to register deaths, births and marriages. Civil status must be secularized.
2° a second consequence of an epistemological and scientific nature: if politics and religion separate, a new space of rational sociability unfolds: it is the project of a political arithmetic, a new social art advocated by Condorcet[11].
It is critical reason and not dogmatic theology that constitutes the horizon of political power and natural law. Turgot failed in wanting to establish this rational vision of the world because religion still intended to control minds. As early as 1781, in the Pieces about Protestants, Condorcet insists on this necessary independence of reason:
"As for the exercise of chairs of instruction, upon entry into the Academies, public utility seems to require that these places be granted to those who have the most enlightenment and talent. [...] In Alexandria, it was not imagined that one had to be a Christian to expound the discoveries of Archimedes or Hipparchus; why could one not, without being Catholic, expound those of Newton or Haller? ?[12] »
The separation of religion and state is required by the objectivity of the progress of science, technology and enlightenment. This separation therefore ensures the promotion of a public reason which will see in every majority wish a provisional figure of truth. This separation ensures the passage from democracy to the Republic: opinion town becomes an opinion public insurance !
3° Finally, an ethical-philosophical consequence. The critique of Constantinism implies an independence of morality and religion and therefore the constitution of a specific place where ethical and civic links will be thought for themselves without the detour through religion. This place will be public education, protected by the secular nature of the teachings and the masters. Condorcet summarizes his analysis as follows: "The moral instruction of the people should be absolutely separated from both religious opinions and the ceremonies of worship.[13] »
This essential theme is taken up in the Second memoir on public education : "We must […] separate this morality from any connection with the religious opinions of a particular sect. […] We must not even link the instruction of morality to the general ideas of a religion.[14]
This theme is important because it gives a positive aspect to the idea of separation. It completes the critique of Constantinism: believers have nothing to fear from the idea of separation, on the contrary; the Report on public education of 1792 even specifies: "Those who still believe in the necessity of basing morality on a particular religion must themselves approve of this separation: for doubtless it is not the truth of the principles of morality that they make dependent on their dogmas; they only think that men find there more powerful motives for being just; and will these motives not acquire a greater force on any mind capable of reflection, if they are only used to strengthen what reason and inner feeling have already commanded? [15] ? "
Believers are invited to return to the foundations of their faith. Separation sends the State and religion back to their own missions. A humanist and secular fraternity will be able to accompany religious fraternity without rivalry. Love of humanity will be able to be shared by believers, as well as by those who do not believe. As a disciple of Voltaire, Condorcet wrote:
"The general interest of humanity, this first object of all virtuous hearts, demands freedom of opinion, of conscience, of worship; first, because it is the only means of establishing between men a true fraternity; for, since it is impossible to unite them in the same religious opinions, it is necessary to teach them to regard, to treat as their brothers those who have opinions contrary to theirs. This freedom is also the surest means of giving to minds all the activity that human nature requires, of arriving at knowing the truth on all these objects, intimately linked with morality, and of making all minds adopt it: now it cannot be denied that the knowledge of the truth is for men the first of goods. [16] »
This idea of separation is therefore indispensable on an economic, epistemological and ethical level: it provides the foundation for the republican thesis: the progress of the Enlightenment is a condition for the progress of humanity.
Separation in action: 1789-1793
The philosophical synthesis, analyzed previously, is applied in Condorcet's action, from the beginning of the Revolution. This action is deployed in four types of writings:
1° Writings of circumstance, reacting immediately to the first decisions of the Revolution in religious matters, notably with the questions of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, ecclesiastical property and refractory priests.
2° More reflective writings, judging the action of the Revolution, identifying some errors, opening up perspectives.
3° More legislative and institutional texts, confirming Condorcet's effective role in the secularization process at work since 1789.
4° Finally, legal and philosophical syntheses, which summarize the Condorcetian theory of separation: the Five memoirs on public education (1791), the Constitution Plan (1793)
We cannot give an account of this entire corpus; we will therefore focus on a few important writings.
Twice, in 1790 and then in 1792, Condorcet presented his program, a translation of his theory of separation: "That the acts which establish the birth, marriage, death of citizens, be removed from a foreign authority, and receive their authenticity only from civil officers established by law;
that morality be part of a public education common to all classes of citizens; that all priestly influence be carefully removed from this education; that priests exhort us to fulfill our duties, but no longer claim the right to fix their extent and limits. [17] »
These propositions inspire the action of the philosopher in the precise questions which are addressed:
1° Condorcet opposed the deputy Dom Gerle who wanted to present Catholicism as the official religion of France (Decree of April 13, 1790).
2° Condorcet does not wish to despoil the ministers of religion, during the debate on the usufruct of ecclesiastical property. He denounces all persecution.
3° Condorcet, during the debate on the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, reiterated his attachment to the separation and freedom of worship, but pointed out the contradiction in continuing to pay salaries to certain ministers of worship. He saw seeds of discord there. As early as June 12, 1790, he summarized his position as follows: "Every religion must be free in the constitution of its clergy, in its discipline, in its worship as in its dogmas. The power of the civil authority is limited to repressing what would be contrary to the rights of citizens. […] Thus the sole aim of an ecclesiastical constitution, given by the representatives of the nation, must be to prevent the ministers of religion from forming a body in the State, from contracting a particular spirit: especially if they teach morality, the constitution must prevent them from forming a system of theocratic morality calculated on their interests, which, instead of being perfected by the progress of human reason, tends on the contrary to retard or mislead it, and which has as its object, not to enlighten men on their duties, but to govern them by the terrors of conscience. [18] »
4° In October 1791, Condorcet took up the question of civil status again with greater effectiveness.[19] and we know that on September 20, 1792, the legislature will completely secularize civil status documents.
5° Finally, in September 1792, Condorcet followed the vote of the Assembly on the question of refractory priests.[20]
In 1792, in a concise text, he summed up his action, by having the National Assembly speak: "Freedom of worship is one of the rights of man, and it must be established; but the nation has only committed itself to paying for one of these cults; it will therefore only pay for the one it has chosen: those who want another can follow it at their own expense. Religious ministers will no longer be charged with the purely civil function of recording births, marriages and deaths: all influence over public education will be taken away from them. [21] »
In his constitutional work itself, Condorcet will summarize his action in a few articles which deserve to be cited, because they will have a great influence, notably in the later projects (1795):
1° Draft decree on public education, April 1792: title II, article 6: “Religion will be taught in the temples, by the respective ministers of the different religions.”
2° Draft declaration of February 15 and 16, 1793: Article 4 “Every man is free to express his thoughts and opinions.” Article 6 “Every man is free in the exercise of his religion.”
Between 1789 and 1793, we see Condorcet present on all fronts, seeking to apply his theoretical analyses in concrete terms. He knows how to both concede and resist in the name of republican principles and the values inherited from the Enlightenment. All the texts from this period demonstrate a real philosophical interest; let us insist on their topicality.
Current events on the Condorcetian problem of separation
Three lessons are worth learning:
1° By seeking in Constantinism the origin of the double alienation of the political and the religious, Condorcet casts a critical eye on the political contradictions of the Ancien Régime, but also gives us the means to understand the consequences of a new surreptitious return of this Constantinism in our modernity. He allows us to understand the limits of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and even of the Concordat. The radical nature of his approach to separation indicates the dangers of any "neo-Constantinism" that would call for a revision of the 1905 law, in the name of new socio-political realities, for example. He thus warns us against any risk of self-sacralization of political power. Republican political power is never safe from its own sacralization, as Clemenceau would say again between 1903 and 1905. Before him, Condorcet prescribed the remedies by indicating the dangers: respect for the laws, freedom of conscience and worship, independence of minds, a solid republican and secular constitution, quality public education.
2° The republican State must in no case be the persecutor of religions, otherwise it would only reverse the inquisitorial regression of certain religions, and would replace religious clericalism with political clericalism. Let us think of this sentence from Clemenceau, on November 17, 1903, taken from his famous Speech for Freedom against the monopoly of education: “To avoid congregations we are making France into one immense congregation. [22] »
Condorcet makes clericalism ("the spirit of sect") a danger that threatens religions but also political power, even republican. Separation immunizes the Republic against a sectarian withdrawal into itself: this secular gesture has preserved French republicanism against totalitarianism. It can protect us from communitarianism. Let us defend the law of 1905: the latter guarantees more than "religious freedom"; it guarantees absolute freedom of conscience, which leaves us the leisure to have no religion and also authorizes any critical and rational examination of religions.
3° Final lesson: Condorcet shows that separation cannot be thought of outside of a history of the continuous emancipation of humanity, through the progress of science and the Enlightenment.[23]. The State, like religions, must not become their own idols. We can measure the relevance of this rationalist, voluntarist and humanist conception of separation. This Condorcet vigilance will therefore focus on the new idols that could fascinate us: money, power, communitarianism, violence. Condorcet establishes a permanent Republic, concerned with progress, courage and animated by the love of Humanity.
