1. Suri-Nilay: St. Solomon's Reflection
1.1. St. Solomon did not leave his Faith in fear of the revolutionary government.
1.2. As a brother and secretary of the brotherhood, under Brother Agathon, he put his duty to the brotherhood before his fears for his life.
1.3. He reflected on how the new seat of power abused fellow clergymen. Because of this, he did not give in to pressure as he believed he is in the right
1.4. Solomon also reflected on the hypocrisy of the revolutionary and their beliefs. He knew that they are not fighting for equality of the people but for their own personal gain
2. Taya-Kilos: St. Solomon's Response
2.1. St. Solomon continued to work and didn't back down until to the very end where he was executed
2.2. He refused to sign the new constitution during the French Revolution which would force religions to abolish.
2.3. He did not fear those people in power but only God.
2.4. He did not go into hiding as other Lasallian brothers did. He continued to study and read books where he lived in peace until he was arrested.
2.5. He remained faithful and brave. He believed that the only oath he would ever swear to is to be the servant of the Lord.
2.6. He accepted martyrdom and even faced death.
3. Masid-Danas: The French revolution and the backlash against religious institutes.
3.1. Economic/Political/Cultural/Social Structures contributing to the issue
3.1.1. Before the french revolution, the classes were divided into three estates. The first estate is the clergy which in in this case is the catholic church. Second estate is the nobility or aristocrats who have influence with the king. The third estate includes everyone else.
3.1.1.1. Only the third estate paid taxes.
3.1.2. Before the revolution the Church had many practices that were used to establish themselves as an upper-class institute.
3.1.2.1. They used tithe to earn wealth.
3.1.2.2. Their grand monasteries, abbeys, and churches were symbols of wealth and power in france.
3.1.3. ancien régime
3.1.3.1. This was a term used by the revolutionary government to label those associated to pre-revolution France.
3.1.3.2. It was a term associated with the church in post-revolution France.
3.2. Root causes of this issue
3.2.1. The masses were fed up with the practices of the church and noble elite.
3.2.1.1. The noble elite and the church were the ones who gained the most out of the current system at the time
3.2.2. Post-revolution, the refractory-church was seen as a counter-revolutionary movement.
3.2.2.1. Abroad, bishops would openly be against the revolutionaries.
3.2.3. The church was seen as a reminder of pre-revolution France.
3.2.3.1. Followers of the refractory-church held an anti constituent assembly sentiment.
3.3. Events leading to St. Solomon's involvement in this issue
3.3.1. The pre-revolution France was on the verge of bankruptcy.
3.3.2. The french revolution occurred.
3.3.3. The church and the clergy were forced to relinquish their wealth.
3.3.3.1. All church property would become owned by the constituent assembly
3.3.4. A constitution to reform and administer church affairs was drafted
3.3.4.1. It involved church officials being paid a standard salary based on their position
3.3.4.2. Church officials were to be elected by the people.
3.3.5. The Pope and other members of the clergy were against the constitution.
3.3.5.1. This led to distrust in the church.
3.3.5.2. Eventually, the constituent assembly would force the church into a a public oat of loyalty to the new nation.
3.3.6. In 1791, the Pope decreed that those who pledged to the constituent assembly would be labelled as 'jurors'
3.3.6.1. Many of the priests and clergy fled France
3.3.6.2. Those who denied the oath were labelled 'non-jurors' or 'refractory priests'
3.3.7. Eventually all refractory priests lost their salary and all religious institutes would be closed down due to rising concerns with their counter-revolutionary followers.
3.3.7.1. Eventually all non-jurors or refractory priests in religious orders were to leave or be arrested and deported.