The political philosopher Joseph de Maistre was in a prime position to observe those who presided over the Restoration of the French Monarchy in 1814 and 1815. He coined a famous phrase that aptly summarized the Bourbons’ policy upon their return to the throne of France. “Everything has been reestablished, nothing restored.”
At heart, Louis XVIII was a disciple of Voltaire. He did not wholly believe in the principles he represented. The long years of exile had only accentuated his weakness. Therefore, he was unable to promote an authentic restoration. He surrounded himself with collaborators who were almost all revolutionaries. He limited himself to restoring the appearance of the old French monarchy without the spirit that animated it. He allowed revolutionary errors to erode what little remained of the Ancien Régime.
Many who had fought for Louis XVIII were deeply disappointed in the king. They saw him as trying to reconcile the monarchy and the revolution. Thus, many who fought for Louis XVIII disagreed and opposed this orientation as much as their loyalty to him allowed. Although favorable to Louis XVIII remaining on the throne, those who desired an authentic restoration were called ultras. The slogan “Vive le roi quand même” [long live the king regardless] was the motto of their newspaper, Le drapeau blanc [the white flag].
Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law
The ultra party brought together the best of the Restoration. It gathered the most enthusiastic and capable members of the legitimist movement. Its action during the reign of Louis XVIII prevented him from continuing in the spirit of Napoleon and the French Revolution.
The ultras’ leader was the Count of Artois, the king’s brother and heir to the crown. Unfortunately, he was already old and tired when he ascended to the throne under the name of Charles X. He failed to keep his youthful ideals and continued his brother’s policies. As a result, the Restoration ended in complete failure with the fall of the Bourbons in 1830. As usually happens, the ultra-party was unjustly blamed. For a long time, in France, the word “ultra” became synonymous with the inability to accomplish anything because of intransigence.
When the liberal faction became a party within French Catholicism, the Catholic situation bore many similarities to the era of Louis XVIII. The Catholic movement had been born with the ultramontanism of Father Félicité de Lamennais. The campaign for academic freedom and the penetrating orthodoxy of the newspaper l’Univers made ultramontanism the dominant French Catholic philosophy.
The position of liberal Catholics was quite uncomfortable, forcing them to make the famous distinction between theory and hypothesis. Theoretically, they remained ultramontane. In practice, they were liberals, Gallicans, etc. As with legitimists under Louis XVIII, they completely forgot the theory and only sustained, defended, and propagated their own habits. This false position united Veuillot’s opponents and enabled them to wage war on l’Univers with heartbreaking unanimity.
One episode exemplifies the sad role they played. The Siècle was among the most base and crude anti-Catholic newspapers in Paris. Indignant at its infamous tirades, the l’Univers pointed out that the government should not allow a newspaper to insult the Church in such a low and insolent manner. That prompted the newspaper Ami de la réligion to publish an article by Father Cognat, an obscure priest. He chided l’Univers, saying no one should call for “government intervention in combats of faith.”
Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times
By maintaining the ultramontane position with enormous success, L’Univers was a constant reproach to the attitude of its Catholic adversaries, especially liberals. They tried to discredit the newspaper by calling Veuillot and his followers “ultra-ultramontanes.” However, l’Univers continued to be widely accepted and to grow steadily. Meanwhile, The Correspondant launched appeals and campaigns to obtain subscribers to little avail. Even in practice, Veuillot’s position was the right one.
When the Correspondant asked its readers for advice, Veuillot wrote an article on a journalist’s duty and the role of moderation. This expression definitively halted his opponents’ game:
“Reduced to its simplest expression, the function of a Christian journalist is at least that of a sentinel. While a sentinel’s duty sometimes goes as far as to shoot, the least he must do is to examine what is happening and give a faithful account of what he sees. Custos, quid de nocte? Now, what good is a sentinel unarmed and silent, or who invariably shouts: “Go to sleep, all is quiet”? We are the barracks’ eyes and ears, watching to tell the chiefs what is happening in the surrounding area and shoot those trying to storm the walls. Letting them do their thing, sometimes even making a deal with them, may be more charitable or comfortable; in a sense, it may keep the peace. However, in so doing, we fail to warn our friends and our adversaries of the danger of their error, which is also dangerous for them. Our function loses all usefulness and interest, and readers don’t come or rather leave! What do they care about sleepy, temporizing, embarrassed journalists, similar to armchair soldiers trounced on the battlefield?”
And Veuillot concluded: “Why wasn’t I there?—asked the barbarian, listening to the Passion narrative. Let us be there wherever the Passion of Christ is renewed. Let’s wage an open and good war on all those doctors and shouters whose insolence intimidates the simple and whose false wisdom deceives the ignorant. We will thus save honor and probably more. At least we deserve God’s help. Without deluding ourselves about the value of our efforts, we will nevertheless strive to no longer incense idols, fade before the error or subordinate the sensitive impulses of the spirit of truth to our wisdom, subject to fear. This is to seek first the kingdom of God and his justice. The rest, including readers, will come to boot. The Correspondant asks for advice: we advise it to fight the enemy.”
10 Razones Por las Cuales el “Matrimonio” Homosexual es Dañino y tiene que Ser Desaprobado
The Correspondant never had many subscribers, while l’Univers kept progressing, and its readership increased considerably. To continue calling Veuillot ultra-ultramontane was to confess that his success rested on his steadfast defense of principles. Moreover, the success of l’Univers, to some extent, was a rehabilitation of the old ultras. This greatly annoyed liberal Catholics. It was better to leave such attitudes in oblivion. Hence, the ultra-ultramontane position, which l’Univers for some time had staunchly upheld, disappeared.