Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 22 August 2026

One Sunday in 1716, in the small Ardennes village of Étrépigny in northeastern France, a parish priest climbed into the pulpit to perform one of those habitual, ordinary gestures. Like many country priests under the Ancien Régime, Jean Meslier was expected, during Mass, to commend the local lord to the prayers of the faithful. But this lord, Antoine de Toully, was known in the village for mistreating the poor and robbing orphans. Meslier knew it. His parishioners knew it too. But silence prevailed. Instead of covering up the injustice, the priest subtly turned the ritual inside out. He obeyed, and did indeed pray for the local lord, but he invited the faithful to pray for him not in order to celebrate his authority, but so that he might atone for the injustices he inflicted on the poor.

The scandal was immediate. Complaint, reprimand, punishment, a forced retreat to nearby Reims: the ecclesiastical machine at once placed itself in the service of the local petty nobility to punish this insolent priest.

This tiny scene, minute on the scale of European history, already contains Meslier’s central idea, the kernel of his political philosophy. Power does not hold only by force, taxation or law. It holds because it gets itself blessed. It holds because it succeeds in passing off injustice as order, domination as hierarchy, suffering as something meritorious.

People have often tried to turn Meslier into a slogan: a Marxist before Marx, an anarchist before anarchism, an evolutionist before Darwin. These comparisons are not entirely absurd. They do tell us something about how far ahead of his time this priest was. But they reveal less than they conceal. Meslier’s real singularity lies not in having ‘anticipated’ later doctrines. It lies in having seen, from within a small Ardennes village, how domination is built in layers: by lords, by kings, by the Church, but also by the feelings these institutions organise – fear, guilt, hope, resignation. In other words: before he dreamed of a new society, he understood why the old one endured.

To understand how radical that intuition was, we need to return to the France in which Meslier grew up and wrote. He was born under Louis XIV and died at the start of Louis XV’s reign, in an absolute monarchy where the Church was not a mere spiritual backdrop, but one of the main pillars of social order. The Ardennes, a border region, lived to the rhythm of the kingdom’s wars: troops quartered in private homes, requisitions of food and fodder, convoys, pillage, devastated villages. To this military brutality there was added, after 1685, confessional brutality. By revoking the Edict of Nantes – the legal framework that allowed Protestants to practise their faith within the kingdom – the monarchy revived forced conversions of non-Catholics, deportations, condemnations and the policing of conscience.

Q1. Based on the first and third paragraphs, how did Jean Meslier's modification of the Mass ritual reflect his broader political philosophy regarding authority? Correct Option B … Explanation: Paragraph 3 explicitly states Meslier's core intuition: power does not hold only by force — it holds because it gets itself blessed. In Paragraph 1, instead of performing the traditional gesture that blessed and validated the local lord's authority, Meslier turned the ritual inside out, praying for him to atone for his injustices. By using the blessing ritual to highlight tyranny rather than legitimize it, Meslier exposed how religious rituals are manipulated to sanctify power. Option A introduces an unmentioned legal mandate regarding land return. Option C is contradicted by the text; Meslier was a parish priest, not an advocate for destroying country parishes. Option D misplaces the forced retreat to Reims (which was Meslier's punishment, not a poor liberation movement). Option E overstates church authority, whereas Paragraph 2 shows the church acting in service of the local petty nobility. Hence, option B. Q2. Why does the author critique comparing Jean Meslier to a "Marxist before Marx" or an "anarchist before anarchism" in Paragraph 4? Correct Option B … Explanation: Paragraph 4 states that while such slogan-like comparisons tell us something about how far ahead of his time this priest was, they reveal less than they conceal. The author explains that Meslier's true singularity was not "anticipating" future ideological doctrines, but understanding the multi-layered mechanics of domination from within a small village — specifically how institutions organize feelings like fear, guilt, hope, and resignation to make people accept injustice as order. Option A is contradicted by Paragraph 5, which depicts military quartering and pillage as brutal burdens on villagers. Option C is factually wrong; Paragraph 5 mentions the France in which he "wrote." Option D distorts the passage's mention of evolution into a debate between Darwin and Meslier. Option E contains anachronistic timelines (Marxism/anarchism arose long after the 1685 Edict of Nantes). Hence, option B. Q3. Based on the final paragraph, which of the following historical conditions in the Ardennes most directly contributed to the climate of "confessional brutality" during Meslier's life? Correct Option B … Explanation: Paragraph 5 details the historical background: to this military brutality there was added, after 1685, confessional brutality. By revoking the Edict of Nantes — the legal framework that allowed Protestants to practise their faith within the kingdom — the monarchy revived forced conversions and the policing of conscience. This directly links the revocation of the Edict of Nantes to the climate of confessional brutality. Option A scrambles the local conflict with Toully into an inter-city war. Option C invents an unmentioned revolution against Louis XV. Option D treats military quartering as a refusal rather than an enforced burden. Option E is the exact opposite of the text, which notes the Church was "one of the main pillars of social order." Hence, option B. Q4. The author's tone toward the ecclesiastical authority's reaction to Meslier's pulpit prayer (Paragraph 2) can best be described as: Correct Option B … Explanation: In Paragraph 2, the author describes the church's response with sharp, critical irony: complaint, reprimand, punishment, a forced retreat — the ecclesiastical machine at once placed itself in the service of the local petty nobility to punish this insolent priest. The choice of terms exposes the institutional hypocrisy of punishing a priest who stood up for orphans and the poor. Option A is the opposite of the author's critical perspective. Option C introduces an unmentioned event (destruction of a cathedral). Option D is contradicted by Paragraph 3, where the author states this "minute scene" contains the kernel of a radical political philosophy. Option E misreads a historical analysis as historical denialism. Hence, option B.