Posted on 10/07/2011 7:13:12 AM PDT by marshmallow
The fine parish church of St Jacques in Compiègne has a side chapel dedicated to 16 Carmelites martyred in the Revolution
I mentioned earlier this week a second French holy place that might interest readers: Compiègne. The town is only 40 minutes by fast and frequent train from Paris, and what drew me there was the famous chateau, a place beloved of Louis XV, who hunted in the nearby forest, as well as Marie Antoinette; and also a favourite place of resort for members of the Fourth Dynasty to rule France. Napoleon was fond of Compiègne and spent time there, and so did the Empress Marie Louise, some of whose furniture is still in situ. Compiègne was also the scene of the house and shooting parties of Emperor Napoleon III and the Empress Eugenie, where the great and good of the Second Empire gathered.
The chateau is beautiful and more restrained than Versailles and the park, laid out in the English style, extremely attractive; it was a pity that the museum of the Second Empire was shut, as were the apartments of the Prince Imperial and those of the King of Rome – all because of lack of staff, I was told.
By chance I had time to spend in the pleasant town itself, and was pleased to discover a very fine parish church, St Jacques. The church contains several interesting features: a memorial to Joan of Arc, who was arrested in Compiègne; and altar rails that once surrounded the royal bed in the chateau – the gift of Louis XVIII: having once guarded the bed of Louis XVI, they are relics of a martyr. And at the back of the church there was a side chapel dedicated to the Blessed Carmelite Martyrs of Compiègne.
The 16 Blessed martyrs were victims of the French Revolution, and the first such victims to be beatified. That the revolutionary government of France took such trouble over them is quite incredible. Remember, these were enclosed nuns, so they could have been safely ignored, as they were pretty much unseen. But no, the revolutionaries simply could not leave them alone. First they harassed them, and declared that their vows were not binding (though why secularists should have an opinion, yet alone legislate, on the validity of religious vows is beyond me). Then, when the nuns refused to disperse voluntarily, they confiscated their priory and turned them out on to the street. The nuns went into lodgings, and adopted lay dress, as the law dictated, but continued to live a life of prayer, and continued to worship in the parish church. Finally, they were arrested, imprisoned, taken to Paris, condemned by the revolutionary tribunal, and guillotined. They wore religious dress for their execution. They were among the last victims of the Terror: within a few weeks Robespierre himself had been overthrown and guillotined.
But why on earth did the Revolution consider them worth persecuting? Their martyrdom exposes the supposed secularism of the French Revolution as a mere mask for rabid anti-clericalism. Anti-clericalism has a long track record of hatred for nuns, particularly enclosed nuns. Many were the convents attacked and destroyed in Spain at the start of the Civil War. There too Carmelites were martyred. I wonder why this should be?
The Blessed Martyrs of Compiègne are very well known in France, and are even the subject of an opera by Poulenc, the last scene of which admirably conveys the glory of martyrdom. These Blessed Sisters went to their deaths praying for peace in the Church and peace in the state. Let us hope we will continue have both, and much less of the ugly anti-clericalism that killed them.
Compiegne was also the site of the signing of the armistice that ended the fighting in World War I, and the site of the French surrender to the Germans in World War II.
I’ve never really understood why the French revolutionaries were so violently anti-Catholic (and, really, anti-Christian in general). Some were atheist and wanted to start the “Cult of Reason,” others (like Robespierre I believe) were into the “Cult of the Supreme Being.”
}:-)4
I am not a student of the French Revolution but have always been struck by how well organized they were. I wonder if there was an element of what we now call Communists involved.
They weren’t organized. They didn’t even have their own language. Just a ridiculous accent and they all walked around talking like Maurice Chevalier. “Au au au!”
They were radical atheists. They hated all religions.
Everything old is new again.
The Revolutionaries killed the nuns because their master wanted them destroyed.
God’s faithful are always among the chief targets of the devil.
Some people think Rousseau did more damage to Western Civilization than any other person in history.
Whether they meant it or not there definitely was an element of Communism and I have always thought of the French Revolution as the beginning of modern Communism.
“They weren’t organized. They didn’t even have their own language. Just a ridiculous accent and they all walked around talking like Maurice Chevalier. “Au au au!””
You must have seen the same Mell Brooks movie that I did.
“They weren’t organized. They didn’t even have their own language. Just a ridiculous accent and they all walked around talking like Maurice Chevalier. “Au au au!””
You must have seen the same Mel Brooks movie that I did.
“They weren’t organized. They didn’t even have their own language. Just a ridiculous accent and they all walked around talking like Maurice Chevalier. “Au au au!””
You must have seen the same Mel Brooks movie that I did.
“The devil made me do it” has become a joke answer for bad behaviour, but it’s no joke in many instances.
Just a WAG... Because they were revolutionary murdering @$$hole$?
Not much logic or thought.
It's also why Stalin killed millions and George Washington didn't.
The American Revolution was based on logic and principles. The French Revolution was based on mindless anger, feelings, and rage - the rage of the stupid and ignorant.The mob that killed the nuns did it without logic - without principle, without even knowing why they were whipped up into such a frenzy. The rage of the mob overtook what little sense they had.
To understand that type of rage - and lack of rational thinking - listen to the interviews with random liberals at Occupy Wall Street. They know they're angry. They 'feel'. They want revenge. They're trying to pick a fight with the police... violence turns them on... it's why Ayers is involved. It's a large group tantrum. Same mindlessness as all totalitarians.
There are many details about the French Revolution that are still horrifying even by todays standards..Like people being executed for being heterosexual or Robespierre sending an athiest army in the Vendee to smash a Catholic counter revolt.By some accounts they murdered 500,000 people
The French were very poor, very mistreated, and very oppressed. Americans had disagreements with King George, but they were often men of property. When America had its revolution, it was led on marvelous principles. Victory could be met with magnanimity. There were a lot of Tories who left America (including, not often mentioned, Ben Franklin’s loyalist son), but no guillotines.
The French, however, had greater anger and arguably greater reason to be angry. They weren’t just paying high tea taxes, they were living under soul-destroying poverty. And every step of the way, the church was telling them it was their duty to be poor, and support the life styles of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, who built a minature rural village and played at being poor people for fun.
Imagine being tortured for years, and finally getting the upper hand on your torturer. Odds are you might chop off a few heads, too. Think 9/11 and the anger you felt. Imagine that every year for your whole life, and you finally got the guys who did it in your sights.
But in any case, while people were mad at the church, the Republic continued to pay church salaries. Right up until the early 1900s, all Catholic clergy were paid by tax dollars in France, so the hatred of religion was not universal. In the early 1900s, they voted into being a separation of church and state based in large part on public anger over the Dreyfus affair.
I think you've got your analogy backwards.
To extrapolate what you've written about the French Revolution, the poor and the oppressed in the case of 9/11 would be the stateless Palestinians and the evil overlord would be America which has been oppressing them for years through it's surrogate Israel. Finally, they get the chance to strike back on 9/11 and do so.
You good with that slant on things?
No?
It makes as much sense as your spin on the French Revolution.
“I wonder if there was an element of what we now call Communists involved.”
Yes, although it wasn’t in the radical mainstream. Cf. Babeuf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-No%C3%ABl_Babeuf
“I’ve never really understood why the French revolutionaries were so violently anti-Catholic”
Firstly, “écrasez l’infâme!” (The infamy being the church) Also, because church and state were, though seperate estates, married. It would be more like the Occupy Wall Street hordes smashing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York than burning down the local presbyterian place of worship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.