In both cases， the head over which the sentence is suspended lacks guarantees， and， once pronounced， this sentence is definitive. For， on appeal to the court of the metropolitan bishop， it is always confirmed；[36] the bishops support each other， and， let the appellant be right or wrong， the appeal is in itself a bad mark against him： he did not submit at once， he stood out against reproof， he was lacking in humility， he has set an example of insubordination， and this alone is a grave fault. There remains the recourse to Rome； but Rome is far off，[37] and， while maintaining her superior jurisdiction， she does not willingly cancel an episcopal verdict； she treats prelates with respect， she is careful of her lieutenant-generals， her collectors of Saint Peter's pence. As to the lay tribunals， these have declared themselves incompetent，[38] and the new canon law teaches that never， "under the pretext of a writ of error， may a priest make an appeal to the secular magistrate"；[39] through this appeal， "he derogates from the authority and liberty of the Church and is liable to the gravest censures；" he betrays his order.
Such is now， for the lower clergy， ecclesiastical law， and likewise secular law， both agreeing together in not affording him protection；add to this change in the jurisprudence which concerns him a no less divisive change in the jurisprudence which concerns him a no less decisive change in the titles which place and qualify him. Before 1789， there were in France 36，000 curés entitled irremovable； at the present day， there are only 3，425； before 1789， there were only 2500curés entirely removable， while to-day there are 34，042；[40] all of the latter， appointed by the bishop without the approbation of the civil powers， are removable at his discretion； their parochial ministry is simply a provisional commission； they may be placed elsewhere， passing from one precarious curacy to another no less precarious. "At Valence，[41] Mgr. Chartrousse， in one month transferred 150 priests from one parish to another. In 1835， in the diocese of Valence， 35 transfers were sent out by the same mail." No assistant-priest， however long in his parish， feels that he is at home there， on his own domain， for the rest of his life； he is merely there in garrison， about the same as lay functionaries and with less security， even when irreproachable. For he may be transplanted， not alone for spiritual reasons， but likewise for political reasons. He has not grown less worthy， but the municipal council or the mayor have taken a dislike to his person； consequently to tranquilize things， he is displaced. Far better， he had become worthy and is on good terms with the municipal council and the mayor； wherever he has lived he has known how to mollify these， and consequently "he is removed from parish to parish，[42] chosen expressly to be put into those where there are troublesome， wrangling， malevolent， and impious mayors." It is for the good of the service and in the interest of the Church. The bishop subordinates persons to this superior interest. The legislation of 1801 and 1802 has conferred full powers upon him and he exercises them； among the many grips by which he holds his clergy the strongest is the power of removal， and he uses it. Into all civil or ecclesiastical institutions Napoleon， directly or by counterstrokes， has injected his spirit， the military spirit； hence the authoritative régime， still more firmly established in the Church than in the State， because that is the essence of the Catholic institution； far from being relaxed in this， it has become stricter； at present it is avowed， proclaimed， and even made canonical； the bishop， in our days， in fact as in law， is a general of division， and， in law as in fact， his curés are simply sergeants or corporals.[43] Command， from such a lofty grade falls direct， with extraordinary force， on grades so low， and， at the first stroke， is followed by passive obedience. Discipline in a diocese is as perfect as in an army corps， and the prelates publicly take pride in it. "It is an insult，" said Cardinal de Bonnechose to the Senate，[44] "to suppose that we are not masters in our own house， that we cannot direct our clergy， and that it is the clergy which directs us. . . There is no general within its walls who would accept the reproach that could not compel the obedience of his soldiers. Each of us has command of a regiment， and the regiment marches."III. The new Bishop.
Change in the habits and ways of the bishop. - His origin， age， capability， mode of living， labor， initiative， undertakings， and moral and social ascendancy. [45]
In order to make troops march， a staff， even a croisier， is not enough； to compulsory subordination voluntary subordination must be added； therefore， legal authority in the chief should be accompanied with moral authority； otherwise he will not be loyally supported and to the end. In 1789， this was not the case with the bishop； on two occasions， and at two critical moments， the clergy of the inferior order formed a separate band， at first at the elections， by selecting for deputies curés and not prelates， and next in the national assembly， by abandoning the prelates to unite with the Third Estate.
The intimate hold of the chief on his men was relaxed or broken. His ascendency over them was no longer sufficiently great； they no longer had confidence in him. His subordinates had come to regard him as he was， a privileged individual， sprung from a another stock and furnished by a class apart， bishop by right of birth， without a prolonged apprenticeship， having rendered no services， without tests of merit， almost an interloper in the body of his clergy， a Church parasite accustomed to spending the revenues of his diocese away from his diocese， idle and ostentatious， often a shameless gallant or obnoxious hunter， disposed to be a philosopher and free-thinker， and who lacked two qualifications for a leader of Christian priests：