Louvain, Belgium, and Beyond: Studies in Religious History in Honour of Leo Kenis (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium) (English and French Edition) 9789042936522, 9789042937154, 9042936525

Citation preview

LOUVAIN, BELGIUM, AND BEYOND STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY IN HONOUR OF LEO KENIS

LOUVAIN, BELGIUM, AND BEYOND STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY IN HONOUR OF LEO KENIS

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

L.-L. Christians, J. Famerée, É. Gaziaux, J. Geldhof, A. Join-Lambert, L. Kenis, M. Lamberigts, D. Luciani, A.C. Mayer, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EXECUTIVE EDITORS

J. Famerée, L. Kenis, D. Luciani, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EDITORIAL STAFF

R. Corstjens – C. Timmermans

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

KU LEUVEN LEUVEN

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCXCIX

LOUVAIN, BELGIUM, AND BEYOND STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY IN HONOUR OF LEO KENIS

EDITED BY

MATHIJS LAMBERIGTS – WARD DE PRIL

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2018

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-3652-2 eISBN 978-90-429-3715-4 D/2018/0602/112 Allrightsreserved.Exceptinthosecasesexpresslydeterminedbylaw, nopartofthispublicationmaybemultiplied,savedinanautomateddatafile ormadepublicinanywaywhatsoever withouttheexpresspriorwrittenconsentofthepublishers. © 2018 – Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Mathijs LAMBERIGTS – Ward DE PRIL (Leuven) Leo Kenis, Professor of History of Church and Theology . . . . .

XI

THE ANCIENT FACULTY OF THEOLOGY

Wim FRANÇOIS (Leuven) The Sixteenth Century Louvain Faculty of Theology and the Debate about Bible Reading in the Vernacular: The Positions of Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’ and Josse Ravesteyn ‘of Tielt’ .

3

Gert GIELIS (Leuven) Viri docti et periti rerum divinarum: Leuven Theologians, Ecclesiastical Reform and the ‘Episcopal Turn’ in the Early Modern Low Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

Violet SOEN – Jolien FRANÇOIS (Leuven) A Protestant Polemist among the Alumni of the Leuven Faculty of Theology: Henricus Boxhornius during the Eighty Years War in the Low Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Els AGTEN (Leuven) A Manual for Future Pastors: The Pastor bonus of Johannes Opstraet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

THE MODERNIST CRISIS

Claus ARNOLD (Mainz) Pius X, Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val and the Case of George Tyrrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

Charles J.T. TALAR (Houston, TX) Points of View: Joseph Turmel and Alfred Loisy on SecondCentury Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

Luc COURTOIS (Louvain-la-Neuve) La Revuebénédictine (Maredsous) à travers la crise moderniste (1903-1914) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ernestine VAN DER WALL (Leiden) Portraits of a Modernist Conscience: William Laurence Sullivan’s The Priest (1911) and Mary Ward’s The Case of RichardMeynell(1911) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 James J. KELLY (Dublin) Christianity and the Journey to Modernity: The French Connection

141

Jan DE VOLDER (Leuven) La succession du Cardinal Mercier et la nomination de Mgr Van Roey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 RELIGIOUS ORDERS ABROAD AND AT HOME

Dries VANYSACKER (Leuven) Une page oubliée dans l’histoire des Semaines de missiologie de Louvain: Les origines et les débuts au Théologat des Pères de Scheut en 1923 et 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Michael G. LAYUGAN (Tagaytay City) Missionary Engagements of the CICM Missionaries in the Cordillera Region in Northern Luzon, Philippines . . . . . . . . 197 Anton MILH (Leuven) Reform without Improvement: “Donatism” in the Belgian Capuchin Province (1925-1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 VATICAN II: PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Philippe ROY-LYSENCOURT (Laval) La Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion et la déclaration Nostra Aetate: Contribution à l’histoire des origines lointaines du concile Vatican II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Karim SCHELKENS (Tilburg) J.H. Newman et l’œcuménisme catholique avant Vatican II . . . 275 Ward DE PRIL (Leuven) The Historiography of Twentieth-Century Theological Renewal: The Debate on Nouvellethéologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Jürgen METTEPENNINGEN (Leuven) Age-old Religious Orders: Birthplaces of ‘New Theology’ (c. 1935-1965)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

Dries BOSSCHAERT (Leuven) Breaking the Vow of Academic Monasticism: Leuven Theologians Entering the Public Square (1945-1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Étienne FOUILLOUX (Lyon) Solages versus Garrigou-Lagrange (1947) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Marcel GIELIS (Tilburg-Leuven) Les mouvements réformateurs du XVIe siècle à la lumière de l’étude d’Yves Congar sur le renouveau de l’Église . . . . . . . 357 Jan DE MAEYER (Leuven) Sentire ecclesiam: The Role of the Jesuits in Disseminating the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council among Young People in Flanders (ca. 1958-ca. 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 LOUVAIN (1966-1968)

Leo DECLERCK – Mathijs LAMBERIGTS (Leuven) Le rôle de Mgr E.J. De Smedt, évêque de Bruges, dans la «scission» de l’Université catholique de Louvain: Une chronique entre 1966 et 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 Lieve GEVERS (Leuven) A Faculty of Theology in Upheaval: The Process of Separation and Renewal at the Catholic University of Leuven . . . . . . . . . . 445 SPARSA COLLECTA

Rob FAESEN (Leuven) Mystical Themes in the Work of Jean-Nicolas Grou (17311803): A Jesuit of the Era of the French Revolution and the Suppression of the Society of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 Jairzinho LOPES PEREIRA (Leuven) Cardinal Dechamps’ Defense of the Church and Papal Infallibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 INDEX OF NAMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501

LEO KENIS, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY OF CHURCH AND THEOLOGY I. SOME BIOGRAPHICAL DATA Leo Kenis was born in Geel (province of Antwerp, Belgium) on April 23, 1953. After his studies at the St.-Aloysiuscollege in his hometown – Leo Kenis had chosen for the section Latin-Greek –, he decided to continue his studies at the KU Leuven in 1971. He opted for the programme Religious Sciences (Godsdienstwetenschappen) of the Faculty of Theology1; in those days this option was chosen by students who wanted to become a teacher of religion in the secondary schools. As a student at the Faculty of Theology he met Ann Henderickx, whom he married in 1977. On May 24, 1987, Ann and Leo became the proud parents of Cecile. In 1976, Leo Kenis obtained the degree of Licentiate in Religious Sciences. In 1977, he became aggregated for the teaching of religion in the higher secondary schools. In 1978, he received his first appointment at the Faculty of Theology as an assistant, a position which he held, after an interruption because of his military service (November 1979-September 1980), until 1985. Initially, he was working on Walter Benjamin, his view on history and his relevance for both history and theology – in 1982, he obtained the degree of Licentiate in Theology with a study entitled LijdensgeschiedenisenMessiaanseherinnering:OverdereceptievanWalterBenjaminindehedendaagsetheologie–, but had to give up this plan because a doctoral dissertation with a similar topic was presented elsewhere. Among the many tasks he was charged with, the following should be mentioned: Introduction toChurchHistory, a course he taught in the first Bachelor Degree in Theology in 1983-1984 (after the passing away of Professor Karel Blockx), and a course he, after his appointment in 1995, continued to teach up to his retirement. After a short interruption, Leo Kenis became assistant again from August 1, 1986 to July 31, 1990, for the Faculty wanted him to become a Doctor of Theology2. In this second period as assistant, Leo Kenis also

1. At that time, a distinction was made between Religious Sciences and Theology. Lay students first started with the programme in Religious Sciences and then could continue in the department of Theology, a new option since 1968. 2. During the first year, Leo Kenis was also part-time administrative personnel.

XII

M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL

served as Study Advisor of the Programmes in English, an important and demanding job. As Study Advisor, he was responsible for the correspondence with the candidates, prepared the dossiers with regard to the admission of new students, helped with the composition of individual study programmes, and was ombudsperson during the exams. He combined this work as from 1987 with a much-appreciated collaboration to the ElenchusBibliographicus of theEphemeridesTheologicae Lovanienses. Meanwhile, Leo Kenis was preparing a doctoral dissertation dealing with the history of the Faculty of Theology in the 19th century, with professor Robrecht Boudens as his promoter. The dissertation was presented in 1989. It was praised for its originality, in-depth analysis on the basis of extensive archival material, and the elegant writing style. The study made clear that the growing polarisation in the international Catholic theology (cf. Lamennais and Döllinger) also had its impact on the Louvain Faculty of Theology. For this excellent study, entitled DeTheologischeFaculteitteLeuvenindenegentiendeeeuw1834-1889, he received in 1990 the Mgr. C. De Clercq-prize of the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium3. Much appreciated was also the second part of his dissertation, a survey of the Louvain professors of theology in the 19th century, consisting of a short biography, an exhaustive bibliography and studies about each professor4. From August 1, 1990 to July 31, 1991, Leo Kenis was, again, full-time temporary assistant at the Faculty. On August 1, 1991, he was appointed as administrative staff member. In 1994, Leo Kenis was made responsible for the technical-editorial work of the reviews Louvain Studies and Questions Liturgiques. He remained involved in the publication of the ElenchusBibliographicus of the ETL, and contributed to the edition of the series AnnuaNuntiaLovaniensiaand Nikè-reeks. When Professor Robert Wielockx decided to leave the Faculty, opting for a new appointment in Rome, Leo Kenis became his successor, obtaining a part-time appointment (50%). On October 1, 1998, Leo Kenis was appointed as full-time docent (assistant professor) at our Faculty. In 2003

3. The dissertation was published in 1992: DeTheologischeFaculteitteLeuveninde negentiendeeeuw1834-1889 (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der letteren, jaargang 54, nr. 143), Brussel, 1992. 4. Cf. The Louvain Faculty of Theology and Its Professors: 1834-1889, in ETL 67 (1991) 398-414; TheLouvainFacultyofTheologyintheNineteenthCentury:ABibliography of the Professors in Theology and Canon Law, with Biographical Notes (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 34), Leuven, 1994.

LEO KENIS, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY OF CHURCH AND THEOLOGY

XIII

followed his promotion to Associate Professor and in 2009 to Professor. On October 1, 2018, Professor Kenis retired after a career that was always very much related to the KU Leuven and its Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies5. II. PROFESSOR AND RESEARCHER Professor Kenis is a teacher in the most honourable sense of the word. He is someone who carefully prepares his lectures, and is praised for his well-structured course notes. He is a gifted writer and has the great capacity to explain difficult matters in a clear way. Leo Kenis is first and foremost the professor of the History of Church and Theology in the Contemporary Period, teaching this subject both on the Bachelor and Master Level, courses that are offered for both the Dutch- and the English-speaking students. While the courses on the Bachelor level offer general surveys about theological and ecclesiastical developments in the 19th and the 20th centuries, the Master courses pay greater attention to the history of the 20th century, starting with Modernism, dealing with the NouvelleThéologie, Vatican II and the drastic changes in the Church’s life in the last decades of the previous century. Professor Kenis is also very much involved in the teaching of courses that make students familiar with the study of theology and religious studies and the instruments and skills needed for it. Through courses such as IntroductiontoResearchinTheologyandReligiousStudies (an obligatory course offered both in English and Dutch) he has made students familiar with the academic study of and research in theology. Hundreds of students discovered the rich number of collections – both in print and online – thanks to the lectures of Professor Kenis. He introduced them to the world of bibliographies, auxiliary instruments and text editions. He taught them how to collect a bibliography and how to arrange it according to the rules of art in the domain of theology and religious studies. He introduced them into the hidden arts of structuring papers. At the Faculty, students often start in our programmes on the Master level6 and thus need a more developed introduction into the task of theological research, its methods, and the instruments needed for such

5. In 2011, the Faculty of Theology added Religious Studies to its name. 6. Quite often, students coming from abroad, already have received a theological training in their home institutions and seminaries, and thus are allowed (let it be after a thorough screening) to start in the Master programmes.

XIV

M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL

research, for every academic institution has its own particularities concerning these topics. Here, again, it is Professor Kenis who, for years, has guided many students and has made them gradually familiar with the many instruments, sources, good practices and the like. Year after year and always with great enthusiasm, Leo Kenis has offered guided tours in the Maurits Sabbe Library for students from all over the world, a service they are very grateful for. Furthermore, in the course The Louvain ApproachtoTheologyandReligiousStudiesinthePastandinthePresent, Professor Kenis has made students familiar with the rich and sometimes turbulent history of the Faculty from its foundation to the current day, thus giving the students a sense of belonging to a Faculty with a rich history, for indeed, the Faculty, founded in 1432, not only had Pope Adrian as one of its professors, but also debated with Luther and Erasmus. It was confronted with suspicion and condemnation (Baius, Jansenius), but also played an important role in ecumenical councils such as Trent and Vatican II. In this course, Professor Kenis also showed how the current staff, in line with their predecessors, continues to do research at the service of the academic and ecclesiastical community. The research of Leo Kenis is characterised by a great and fruitful interest in theology and the history of theology in the 19th and the 20th centuries on the one hand, and the history of the Theological Faculty itself on the other hand7. As already mentioned, his doctoral dissertation focused on the history of the Faculty of Theology and its professors in the 19th century. His publications covered a broad range of topics. They focused on the presence of Augustine and Augustinianism in the Faculty of Theology in the 19th century8, the training of future priests at the Faculty9 or on particular characteristics in the teaching of the professors of the Faculty10. They paid attention to the Modernist Crisis and the view of Cardinal Mercier on this issue11, to theologians such as Edward 7. For a detailed survey of his publications, see https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/onderzoekers/58/ 8. The Faculty of Theology in the 19th Century on Augustine and Augustinism, in M. LAMBERIGTS – L. KENIS (eds.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne Faculté de théologie de Louvain (BETL, 111), Leuven, 1994, 399-417. 9. See his DetheologischefaculteitteLeuvenindenegentiendeeeuw:Eenoverzicht vanhaarontwikkelingenhaarrelatiemetdepriesteropleidinginNederland, in Trajecta 9 (2000) 206-226. 10. Cf. Tussen filologie en polemiek: Het jodendom in publicaties van Leuvense theologenindenegentiendeeeuw, in Trajecta 15 (2005) 49-60. 11. See, e.g., J. DE MAEYER – L. KENIS, Lacréationd’uneintelligentsiacatholiqueen Belgiquedanslaperspectivedelacrisemoderniste:L’optiqueducardinalDesiréMercier, in D. PRAET – C. BONNET (eds.), Science, Religion and Politics during the Modernist Crisis:Science,ReligionetPolitiqueàl’époquedelacrisemoderniste(Institut Historique

LEO KENIS, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY OF CHURCH AND THEOLOGY

XV

Schillebeeckx12 and Piet Schoonenberg13 who, in many senses, contributed to the developments in theology, nationally and internationally. He was the editor of a broad range of academic books, covering topics such as religious modernism in the Low Countries, the transformation of the Western European Christian Churches, Vatican II and the history of the Faculty of Theology between 1969 and 1995. He was promoter of nine and co-promoter of two doctoral dissertations. He supervised research about the Indian Episcopal Conference and evangelisation in India, about Pentecostals in Nigeria, the SVD-Fathers in the Philippines, Modernism in the United States and Marie-Dominique Chenu’s work with the MissiondeFrance. He was involved in doctoral projects on Piet Schoonenberg and Edward Schillebeeckx, but also in dissertations about Louvain professors such as Draguet and international institutions in Louvain such as the American College, a college that so greatly contributed to the spread of Roman Catholicism in the North Pacific Coast of North America14. Leo Kenis strongly promoted efforts to make academic work accessible to a broader public, interested in religion and culture, without being

Belge de Rome. Études; Belgisch Historisch Instituut te Rome. Studies, 5), Brussel – Roma, 179-192; cf. also E. VAN DER WALL – L. KENIS, CatholicandProtestantModernisms:ACallforaComparativeApproach, in IID. (eds.), ReligiousModernismintheLow Countries(BETL, 255), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, 2013, 1-22. 12. God in de wereld ervaren: Het cultuurtheologisch project van Edward Schillebeeckx, in Kultuurleven 67 (2000) 78-83. 13. See L. KENIS – J. METTEPENNINGEN, Piet Schoonenberg: Theologie als geloofsvertolking.Hetproefschriftvan1948, Leuven, 2008. 14. J. Cherian MUDAKODIL, The CBCI and Evangelization in India: A Historico- Theological Study Based on the Documents of the CBCI from 1944 to 1988, 2002; W. FRANÇOIS, BijbelvertalingenindeLageLanden(1477-1553):Eenkerkhistorischeen theologischebenadering, 2004; I. AGUWUOM, ReconceptualizationofRomanCatholicism inPeterAnozia’sPentecostal-CharismaticMinistry,1985-2005:AHistorical-Theological EvaluationinItsIgbolandContext, 2006; K. CODD, TheMissionoftheAmericanCollege of Louvain to the North Pacific Coast of North America, 1860-1900: A Survey of Its Origins,PersonalitiesandImportance, 2007; J. METTEPENNINGEN, Theologiealsgeloofsvertolking (1948): Het proefschrift van Piet Schoonenberg (1911-1999): Fundamentele inleiding – becommentarieerde tekst – theologiehistorische beschouwingen, 2008; W. DE PRIL, DeLeuvensetheoloogenoriëntalistRenéDraguet(1896-1980):Studievan zijntheologischepositieenzijnconflictmetdekerkelijkeoverheid, 2010; M. LAYUGAN, TheHistoryoftheSocietyoftheDivineWordinthePhilippinesandItsContributionsto the Local Church between 1904-1957, 2013; J. BOGNAR, The Transatlantic Modernist Connection: Archbishop Patrick Riordan of San Francisco, the Jesuits, and George Tyrrell, 2016; D. MINCH, Eschatological Hermeneutics: Thinking Further with Edward SchillebeeckxonTheologicalAnthropologicalandHumanExperience, 2016; S. MARROUN, L’assimilationetl’expansiondumystèrepascalparl’existencechrétiennedanslapensée de Madeleine Delbrêl, 2016; X. DEBILLY, La théologie au creuset de l’histoire: MarieDominiqueChenuetsontravailaveclaMissiondeFrance, 2017.

XVI

M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL

an expert in it. For many years, Leo Kenis was involved in and contributed to Kultuurleven: Tijdschrift voor cultuur en samenleving (Journal for Culture and Society) with several substantial contributions and short notices15. He wrote several articles in books which were meant as dissemination of science, and contributed with biographical and other notes to several encyclopaedias, especially to the Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek. He (co-)edited books and booklets that dealt with the legacy of Vatican II, the history of the diocese of Antwerp, the relation between theology and religious studies in Louvain, the art and book collection in the Maurits Sabbe Library of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies. Leo Kenis always was an expert in the composition of bibliographies. We already mentioned his contribution to the ElenchusBibliographicus (ETL). In this regard, one should also mention the academic bibliography he compiled of all Louvain professors in 1996, a bibliography that existed of a nearly exhaustive survey of the publications of professors who had been teaching at our Faculty since its erection as an autonomous Dutch/ English Faculty in 1968, the year of the split of the KU Leuven in a French and Dutch section, the first finding a new home at Louvain-laNeuve, the latter remaining in Louvain16. Given the fact that his bibliographical work was always characterised by meticulousness, he was often asked to compile the bibliographies of colleagues, when a Festschrift was prepared for them17. No wonder that he was appointed as the representative of the Faculty in the supervisory committee for Academic Bibliography of the KU Leuven. Up to the current day, Professor Kenis is responsible for the approval of all bibliographical data as submitted by the professors and the researchers of the Faculty. In 2000, when Mathijs Lamberigts was elected as Dean of the Faculty, Leo Kenis became the Academic Librarian of the Maurits Sabbe Library. During 18 years of service, he invested time and energy in the selection and acquisition of books and book collections and reviews, followed developments with regard to the new media closely, took, together with 15. With regard to this journal that had an important impact on Flemish intellectuals, see his Van“christelijkhumanisme”naar“zondercomplexenchristelijk”:Kultuurleven, desociaal-culturelespreekbuisvandeVlaamsedominicanen(1930-2000), in M. LAMBERIGTS – M. DE CALUWÉ – A. MILH (eds.), Predikbroedersinwoordendaad:Dominicanenin Vlaanderenindetwintigsteeeuw, Antwerpen, 2016, 146-162. 16. It would be good to make this impressive bibliography available on the internet. 17. See, e.g., L. KENIS – C. NICOLAYE, BibliographiaAcademicaProf.Dr.B.Dehandschutter, in J. LEEMANS (ed.), Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Antique Christianity. Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter (BETL, 241), Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, 20010, XVII-XXXIII.

LEO KENIS, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY OF CHURCH AND THEOLOGY

XVII

the administrative librarian, care of the daily life and work of the library personnel, represented the library in several University Boards, not to forget his work on the national level. I do think that in this job Leo Kenis combined three favourite activities: an intellectual interest in new developments in theology; a deep concern for the preservation of our cultural book heritage; an engaged commitment for the welfare and wellbeing of the library and its personnel. Because of his work and commitment in the library, Leo Kenis became member of the scientific committee of KADOC18 between 2007 and 2017. As vice-president of KADOC he played an important role as liaison between the Maurits Sabbe Library of the Faculty and KADOC. III. THE INDEFATIGABLE EDITOR Leo Kenis has been member of several of the Louvain theological publications series. Since 1996 he has been serving the Revued’HistoireEcclésiastique as member of the editorial board. When in 1998 Professor Van Belle became the director of the Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Leo Kenis took over his function of secretary, officially qualified as a secretis. Since 2004, Professor Kenis has become a full member of the editorial board. For both reviews, Leo Kenis has written on a regular basis referee reports that are always to the point, often helping the authors to improve the presentation of their research. However, the journal one will most identify Leo Kenis with, is Louvain Studies. This journal, the Faculty’s international signboard review in the English world, founded at the American College, but becoming an integral part of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Study’s publications collection, functioned for many promising junior scholars as a point of departure for a great career. Leo was involved in the edition of this journal first as assistant (1991-1993), then became assistant editor (1994-1995) and editor since 1996. Without exaggeration one can say that Leo Kenis has played an important role in keeping this journal on an international level19. To the responsibilities of the academic librarian of our Faculty belongs the management of two series, Documenta Libraria and Instrumenta 18. KADOC is a Documentation and Research Center on Religion, Culture, and Society, focusing on the preservation, management, disclosure and research about the historical heritage of the interaction between religions, society and culture; see https://kadoc. kuleuven.be. 19. Since 2016, Leo Kenis is also the editor of Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, a book series that was founded by people also involved in the journal LouvainStudies.

XVIII

M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL

Theologica. Both series were founded at the end of the ’80s as a forum for publications related to library topics or dealing with issues that could function as important tools for research. It is one of Leo Kenis’ great merits that he not only continued these series in a period of changes, but also that he managed to increase the number of publications. Indeed, under his guidance, about 15 volumes were published in the Documenta Libraria, and 18 in the InstrumentaTheologica. However, the book series in which he invested most of his time and energy is without doubt Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia. In this regard it is worth noting that Leo Kenis was able to give a new élan to a series that in the past had functioned as a medium mostly informing its audience about Louvain related topics. It is to his merit that the scope of the series was very much broadened: studies about the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies are still welcome, but also the work of Louvain junior and senior researchers has received a place in this series. It goes without saying that this change in policy makes of AnnuaNuntiaLovaniensiaa series, attractive for many scholars. As a result, the series has published 36 volumes between 2000 and 201820. Given his well-known acumen, nobody will be surprised to read in several introductions of the works published words of thanks and appreciation for the carefulness with which Leo Kenis is reading manuscripts and offering suggestions both on the level of content and form. IV. TO CONCLUDE The Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies is most grateful to Professor Kenis who, since his first appointment in 1978, for 40 years has served his Faculty in many ways: as assistant, administrative staff member, professor, academic librarian, and editor Leo Kenis combined expertise with commitment, academic professionalism with sincere human kindness, and thus has become a friend of many. We do hope that Professor Kenis is willing to help the many people who will have to take over the responsibilities he took care of during the past years. Indeed, it would be a pity if future generations could not continue to benefit from the many skills and plethora of expertise Leo Kenis so generously shared with us during four decades. Mathijs LAMBERIGTS Ward DE PRIL 20. In the previous 20 years (between 1980-2000), 17 volumes had been published.

THE ANCIENT FACULTY OF THEOLOGY

THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY LOUVAIN FACULTY OF THEOLOGY AND THE DEBATE ABOUT BIBLE READING IN THE VERNACULAR THE POSITIONS OF CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

I. INTRODUCTION The year 1522 proved to be a pivotal year in the history of vernacular Bible reading in the Low Countries, when the Amsterdam printer Doen Pietersoen introduced a Dutch edition of the Gospel of Matthew into the market that was not based upon an existing late medieval translation, but having a text and glosses largely inspired by Erasmus’ NovumTestamentum and its accompanying Annotationes (in their version of 1519). In the subsequent years more translations of (parts of) the Bible in Dutch and French were published, especially in Antwerp. A large part was based upon Luther’s New Testament, as well as on his Old Testament that came gradually to public attention next to Erasmus’ version (other translations had a Vulgate text). Some of these editions were also provided with Reformation-minded prefaces, marginal glosses, and/or summaries heading the chapters, while others contained a liturgical calendar and reading schedule. Apart from making it possible and easier to follow the (Latin) readings of the official Church liturgy, these Bible editions were also brought along to secret ‘conventicles’, where they were read, discussed and often interpreted in a Reformation-minded way1. The Louvain theologians were challenged to take a stance towards these new Bible editions * I wish to thank fr. Benedict D. Fischer OSB, for having checked the English in the final version of this article. 1. For the early modern Bible production and censorship in the Low Countries, see the second part (ed. W. FRANÇOIS) in P. GILLAERTS etal. (eds.), DeBijbelindeLageLanden: Elfeeuwenvanvertalen, Heerenveen, Jongbloed, 2015, pp. 203-388; W. FRANÇOIS, Die volkssprachlicheBibelindenNiederlandendes16.Jahrhunderts:ZwischenAntwerpener BuchdruckernundLöwenerBuchzensoren, in ZKG120 (2009) 187-214; A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, De Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen: Dutch Translations of the Bible 1522-1545 (Bibliotheca Bibliographica Neerlandica, 33), Nieuwkoop, de Graaf, 1997. See also the digital database: www.bibliasacra.nl. An important reference work continues to be C.C. DE BRUIN, DeStatenbijbelenzijnvoorgangers:Nederlandsebijbelvertalingenvanaf deReformatietot1637, rev. F.G.M. BROEYER, Haarlem, Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap; Brussel, Belgisch Bijbelgenootschap, 1993.

4

W. FRANÇOIS

and the new reading practices that went along with them, just as they reacted against the treatises and books that were published by Erasmus, Luther and the other reformers. In this article, I will first summarize the position of the Louvain theologians as it evolved from the early 1520s until the middle of the 1560s. I will then add the viewpoint of Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’ and Josse Ravesteyn ‘of Tielt’ to the dossier: they formulated their stance in the pivotal years 1566-67, a period of intense politico-religious controversies in the Low Countries, although their contribution has never been dealt with in the literature. II. THE 1520S UNTIL THE 1540S It is good to start the overview with Jacobus Latomus (c. 1475-1544), who was one of the leading figures of the theological Faculty from the 1520s until the early 1540s and a formidable adversary of both Erasmus and Luther. Latomus briefly commented on Bible editions in general and on vernacular Bible translations in particular, in his Apologia pro Dialogo, written in 1525 but only posthumously published in 15502. In the passage concerned, we find already the contours of Latomus’ standpoint: he accepted, without much enthusiasm, that a person could legitimately read a Bible translation in the vernacular, especially when he did so with a view to the honor of God and the benefit of himself and his fellow men. This included that the translation had to be made in a good and faithful way (“bene et fideliter versa”), which may be interpreted as a requirement that the version be based upon the Vulgate. The readers, for their part, were supposed to be humble and modest (“humiles et mites”), and Latomus encouraged them unequivocally to avoid resisting and becoming annoyed when they either did not understand the Scriptures or when the Scriptures criticized their moral defects. Latomus also added a warning against those people who produced “new” versions, with the intention to 2. Jacobus LATOMUS, Prodialogodetribuslinguisapologia, in Opera,quaepraecipue adversus horum temporum haereses eruditissime, ac singulari iudicio conscripsit…, ed.Jacobus LATOMUS jr. – Ruard TAPPER, Leuven, Bartholomaeus Gravius et al., 1550, f. 169r-171r. A discussion of the latter passage in W. FRANÇOIS, VernacularBibleReading andCensorshipinEarlySixteenthCentury:ThePositionoftheLouvainTheologians, in A.A. DEN HOLLANDER – M. LAMBERIGTS (eds.), LayBiblesinEurope:1450-1800 (BETL, 198), Leuven, Peeters, 2006, 69-96, here pp. 71-72. For a broader discussion of this treatise, see E. RUMMEL, Erasmus’ConflictwithLatomus:RoundTwo, in ArchivfürReformationsgeschichte 80 (1989) 5-23, pp. 15-17; M. GIELIS, Scholastiek en Humanisme: De kritiek van de Leuvense theoloog Jacobus Latomus op de Erasmiaanse theologiehervorming(TFT-Studies, 23), Tilburg, Tilburg University Press, 1994, pp. 136-141.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

5

harm the Church and provide support to the heretics and their teachings, or with the aim to induce their own opinions under the words of the Scriptures. Latomus denounced such people as “impious and temerarious” (“impius et temerarius”) persons. In 1530, five years after the ApologiaproDialogo, Latomus published his Libellus de fide et operibus et de votis atque institutis monasticis3. In this book, Latomus repeated his ideas about the utility of reading the Bible in the vernacular, as long as people did so “humiliter et modeste”, while also reiterating his warning against the heretics and schismatics who pretended that their teachings were based upon the Scriptures. Latomus made a significant addition in what he presented as the “shorter and safer way” (“compendiosior ac tutior ratio”) for the Christian flock to be instructed, viz. to be provided with a compendium that explained the Twelve Articles of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the precepts of the Church (weekly mass etc.) and exemplary stories taken from the life of Jesus, Mary and the Saints. It was much safer and more efficient to catechize common people, thus argued Latomus, based on such a compendium, than to grant them permission to read the Scriptures individually and then interpret it literally (“ad verbum”). After all, there was a risk that these people would start discussing the faith and the sacraments, pass their own judgment and reject those elements that they could not or did not understand – an allusion to what happened in the secret conventicles. Latomus’ position regarding Bible reading in the vernacular may be considered as the mainstream view of the Louvain divines, who were torn between two attitudes. On the one hand, they maintained confidence in vernacular Bible reading that had been widely practiced by lay members of religious communities and the literate inhabitants of the urban centers in the late medieval Low Countries. On the other, they increasingly distrusted “new” translations of the Scriptures, which ran the risk of being (mis-)used by their readers as a basis of the “new faith” and circulated in semi-clandestine conventicles. However, it should be clear that the Louvain theologians were not necessarily all on the same wavelength. Martinus Dorpius (1485-1525) was unconditionally in favor of Bible reading by the laity, not to the exclusion of women, at least during his Erasmian humanist period. This emerges from a short passage included

3. Jacobus LATOMUS, Libellusdefide&operibus,&devotisatqueinstitutismonasticis, Antwerpen, Michiel Hillen van Hoochstraten, 1530; also in Opera, ed.LATOMUS jr. – TAPPER (n. 2), f. 134r-144v. See also FRANÇOIS, VernacularBibleReadingandCensorshipinEarlySixteenthCentury(n. 2), pp. 73-75.

6

W. FRANÇOIS

in his main work of these years, viz. his Oratioinpraelectionemepistolarum divi Pauli, an oration pronounced in 1516 but only published in 15194. John Driedo (1479/80-1535) for his part, who in his book De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (first published in 1533) expressed strong views about both the Scriptures and the (non-scriptural) traditions of the Church being a foundation of the Catholic faith, while also expounding the principles of biblical hermeneutics, showed himself surprisingly reluctant when dealing with vernacular Bible reading by the laity5. The first pages of Driedo’s book contain already a warning against the temerity of unlearned people who had produced vernacular Bible versions, in which they had not only inserted their own particular opinion, but which they also had provided with various annotations, prefaces and prologues (apart from their having forged other books dealing with the Scriptures). As a result “illiterates, commoners and unlearned women” (“idiotae, plebs, indoctae mulierculae”) had pushed their audacity so far that they disregarded the venerable antiquity of the Fathers and 4. Martinus DORPIUS, Oratio in praelectionem epistolarum divi Pauli: De laudibus Pauli, de literis sacris ediscendis, de eloquentia, de pernicie sophistices, de sacrorum codicumadGraecoscastigationeetlinguarumperitia …, Antwerpen, Michiel Hillen van Hoochstraten, 1519. We use the modern edition in: [Martinus DORPIUS,] MartiniDorpii Naldiceni Orationes IV. Cum Apologia et litteris adnexis, ed. I. IJSEWIJN (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig, Teubner, 1986, pp. 63-90, here p. 79 l. 5-11. For a commentary on this short passage, see FRANÇOIS, VernacularBible ReadingandCensorshipinEarlySixteenthCentury(n. 2), pp. 69-70. For a commentary on the Oratio, see ID., MaartenvanDorp,theOratioPaulina(1516/1519),andtheBiblical-HumanistVoiceamongtheLouvainTheologians, in Lias:JournalofEarlyModern IntellectualCultureandItsSources 39 (2012) 163-193; also J.H. BENTLEY, NewTestamentScholarshipatLouvainintheEarlySixteenthCentury, in StudiesinMedievaland RenaissanceHistoryN.S. 2 (1979) 53-79, pp. 57-60; E. RUMMEL, ErasmusandHisCatholicCritics, 2 vols. (Bibliotheca humanistica & reformatorica, 45), Nieuwkoop, de Graaf, 1989, vol. 1, pp. 10-12. 5. I used the editioprinceps: Johannes DRIEDO, Deecclesiasticisscripturisetdogmatibus Libri .4., Leuven, Bartholomaeus Gravius, 1533. Since the database The Digital LibraryoftheCatholicReformation (Alexander Street Press) offers a digitized and searchable version of this book, I was able to find some more references to vernacular Bible reading, in comparison to FRANÇOIS, VernacularBibleReadingandCensorshipinEarly SixteenthCentury(n. 2), pp. 76-78. For a thorough study of Driedo’s foundational book, see e.g. W. FRANÇOIS, John Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (1533): AControversyontheSourcesoftheTruth, in L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product: On the Meta-Question (BETL, 227), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 85-118; J.R. GEISELMANN, DieHeiligeSchriftunddieTradition:Zuden neuerenKontroversenüberdasVerhältnisderHeiligerSchriftzudennichtgeschriebenen Traditionen (Quaestiones disputatae, 18), Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 1962, pp. 166-183, and earlier works by the same author; J.L. MURPHY, TheNotionofTraditioninJohnDriedo (Diss. doct. Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana. Facultas Theologiae), Milwaukee, WI, Seraphic Press, 1959; repr. [Whitefish:] Literary Licensing, 2011; J. LODRIOOR, Lanotion detraditiondanslathéologiedeJeanDriedodeLouvain, in ETL 26 (1950) 37-53.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

7

the authority of the Catholic Church, while expressing only contempt for the elaborate interpretations of the sacred commentators6. Driedo’s book contains still other digs about vernacular Bible translation. In one instance, he argues elaborately that the Bible books are inherently obscure and difficult to interpret, referring explicitly to the Psalms, the Prophets, the Gospel of John, and Epistles of Paul. This is due to their subject matter, Driedo continues, so that a translation of these books in the vernacular does not automatically make them intelligible to all and sundry. In other words, for a comprehension of the obscurities in the Scriptures a mastery of the language (“lingua”) does not suffice, but an assiduous study of the mysteries of the faith (“res”), contained in the sacred books, is required. And the latter is beyond the range of the “more rude intellectual capacities of the general populace” (“crassiores vulgi animi”)7. In still another passage, Driedo contends that Hebrew, Greek and Latin are the languages of Sacred Scripture as well as the languages used by the “Christianorum schola” in order to demonstrate and strengthen the teachings of the Church against the heretics. The Louvain theologian explicitly claims that languages other than these three were invented precisely in order to signify and communicate human matters, but that the Fathers never permitted “that the Scriptures of Law and Prophets could indiscriminately be translated into these languages, with a view to corroborate matters that concerned the faith”8. In other words, in his Deecclesiasticisscripturisetdogmatibus, Driedo favorably receives the support of Hebrew, Greek and Latin for biblical scholarship, revealing himself as a propagator of the biblical humanist approach in Catholic theological milieus, but at the same time showed a good deal of reluctance towards translating the Bible into the vernacular and giving it to an intellectually unformed populace. The concrete policy of the politico-religious authorities in the Low Countries regarding vernacular Bible reading was, however, not only designed in Louvain, but also in Malines and Brussels9. The Habsburg rulers, and the Emperor Charles V in particular, cherished a Bible-based 6. DRIEDO, Deecclesiasticisscripturisetdogmatibus(n. 5), p. 1. 7. Ibid., p. 158. 8. Ibid., p. 56. 9. On Bible reading and Bible censorship, see FRANÇOIS, Vernacular Bible Reading and Censorship in Early Sixteenth Century (n. 2), pp. 79-89; ID., Die ‘Ketzerplakate’ Kaiser Karls in den Niederlanden und ihre Bedeutung für Bibelübersetzungen in den Volkssprache:Der‘Proto-Index’von1529alsvorläufigerEndpunkt, in DutchReviewof ChurchHistory 84 (2004) 198-247; A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Verbodenbijbels:BijbelcensuurindeNederlandenindeeerstehelftvandezestiendeeeuw(Oratiereeks), Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2003, pp. 6-10.

8

W. FRANÇOIS

faith inspired by Christian humanism and were, in addition, sensitive to the interests of Antwerp as an open port receiving merchants from all corners of Europe and housing an economically important printing industry (a town that also yielded the big part of the country’s fiscal incomes). The imperial anti-heresy edicts that were published from the years 152526 did not contain a general ban on vernacular bibles but strictly forbade Dutch and French translations of the Bible that contained Reformation-minded glosses, prefaces or summaries above the chapters. It was also forbidden to read the Scriptures in the vernacular in clandestine conventicles and to interpret them simply according to one’s own insight, or even to discuss how to interpret them. From the important anti-heresy edict of 1529 onwards, it was moreover stipulated that the permission of the authorities was required beforehand for the publication of any vernacular translation. Without any explicit mentioning in the edicts, Bible translations were supposed to be based upon the Latin Vulgate text: the Bible published by the Antwerp printer Willem Vorsterman in 1528 and designed by the Louvain theologians as an ‘orthodox’ alternative to the 1526 ‘Protestantizing’ Bible by Jacob van Liesvelt, nevertheless preserved several Reformation-minded readings in its New Testament, so that Willem Vorsterman hastened to publish, already in 1529, an emended text containing a ‘good’ Vulgate translation. Vorsterman’s editions became the ‘semi-official’ Dutch Bible versions of the Low Countries for the years to come, whereas the French Bible by Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, published in Antwerp by Martin Lempereur in 1530, served the same purpose for the French side. From the early promulgation of the anti-heretical edicts, which were largely aimed at curbing the distribution of Reformation-minded books, Louvain theologians were involved as book-censors; for these early years we may refer to Nicolas Coppin ‘of Mons’, amongst others. This Bible policy culminated in a genuine Index of Forbidden Books drafted by the Louvain theologians and promulgated by order of the imperial authorities on 9 May 1546. Forty-two Dutch and near to ten French Bible editions were seen as unreliable and censured10. Interestingly, only a few weeks later, the Augustinian canon Nicolaus van 10. For an analysis of the Louvain Index, see J.M. DE BUJANDA etal., Indexdel’UniversitédeLouvain,1546,1550,1558(Index des livres interdits, 2), Sherbrooke, Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance; Geneva, Droz, 1986. Regarding the Bible editions that were put on the Index, see in particular: W. FRANÇOIS, De Leuvense Bijbel(1548)endekatholiekebijbelvertalingenvandetweedehelftvandezestiendeeeuw, in GILLAERTS etal. (eds.), DeBijbelindeLageLanden(n. 1), 266-303, pp. 270-273; DEN HOLLANDER, Verbodenbijbels(n. 9), pp. 11-21.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

9

Winghe (living in the monastery of Saint-Martin’s Valley in Louvain), and the licentiate in theology Nicolas de Leuze, were each tasked with issuing authorized Dutch and French Vulgate versions, respectively. The translation work was supervised by senior members of the Louvain theological Faculty, among whom Pieter de Corte (Curtius) played a pivotal role11. For the Council of Trent, in its Fourth Session of April 1546, had promulgated the decree Insuper, which explicitly declared the Vulgate as the authentic version of the Catholic Church, but did not pronounce judgment regarding Bible translations in the vernacular, thus giving tacit approval to the prevailing customs of the local churches12. This opening allowed publication of the Dutch and French Louvain Bible (1548 and 1550, respectively) by the Louvain printer Bartholomew van Grave (Gravius), which replaced Willem Vorsterman’s Dutch Bible of 1528 (and its subsequent editions) and the French version of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples/Martin Lempereur of 1530. III. A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE 1550S? With the publication of both the Dutch and the French Louvain Bible, the history of Bible translation in the Low Countries entered a new phase. In particular the Dutch version would go through several reprints after its publication in 1548, although the Catholic Church and its theologians became gradually more restrictive regarding the laity’s right to read the Bible in the vernacular as the counter-reformational reflexes grew stronger. This becomes clear from the Louvain Faculty project to censure 11. Regarding the Dutch Louvain Bible, see especially FRANÇOIS, DeLeuvenseBijbel (1548) en de katholieke bijbelvertalingen (n. 10), pp. 276-294; P. VAN HERREWEGHEN, DeLeuvensebijbelvertalerNicolausvanWinghe:Zijnlevenenzijnwerk, in OnsGeestelijkErf 23 (1949) 5-38, 150-167, 268-314, 357-395. See also: J.-F. GILMONT, LaconcurrenceentredeuxBiblesflamandes, in ID., Lelivreetsessecrets (Cahiers d’humanisme et renaissance, 65; Temps et espaces, 2), Geneva, Droz; Louvain-la-Neuve, UCL. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres, 2003, 151-162,esp. pp. 152-155; DE BRUIN, De Statenbijbel en zijn voorgangers, 1993 (n. 1), pp. 141-147. On the French Louvain Bible see, amongst others, P.-M. BOGAERT – J.-F. GILMONT, LapremièreBiblefrançaise de Louvain (1550), in RTL 11 (1980) 275-309; ID., De Lefèvre d’Étaples à la fin duXVIesiècle, in P.-M. BOGAERT (ed.), LesBiblesenfrançais:HistoireillustréeduMoyen Âgeànosjours, Turnhout, Brepols, 1991, 47-106, esp. pp. 89-91. 12. E. AGTEN – W. FRANÇOIS, TheCouncilofTrentandVernacularBibleReading: WhatHappenedintheBuild-UptoandduringtheFourthSession?, in W. FRANÇOIS – V. SOEN (eds.), The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545-1700). Vol. 1: BetweenTrent,RomeandWittenberg (Refo500 Academic Studies, 35,1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018, 101-130. See there for further literature.

10

W. FRANÇOIS

Erasmus’ works, the draft of which was intended to be taken by the Louvain representatives to the Council of Trent in 1551-52. This censure campaign had to be carried on discretely, because the Humanist and his writings continued to be under the Emperor’s protection. In the Royal Library in Brussels, a manuscript is preserved in which the Louvain theologian John Henten has jotted down his own statements censuring Erasmus’ works, and these are accompanied by remarks which were probably made by one or more of his colleagues. Several statements also targeted Erasmus’ plea for Bible reading in the vernacular13. Furthermore, in the second half of 1552, or perhaps during the course of 1553, a dramatic meeting took place at the Louvain Faculty of Theology, on the reception of a letter sent by the Emperor Charles V in which he asked the theologians’ opinion regarding vernacular Bible reading. The direct occasion seems to have been the resurgence of the Anabaptist movement in Kortrijk (Courtray) – fostered apparently by the laity’s idiosyncratic reading of the Scriptures – which caused concern with the town’s Magistrate. As a reply to the Emperor’s request, the Louvain theologians formulated a recommendation, suggesting that he (the Emperor) promulgate a general prohibition against the reading of bibles in the vernacular, a recommendation that he appears to have ignored, preferring to continue his policy of tolerating ‘good’ Bible translations14. In the context of a growing rejection of vernacular Bible reading in Louvain theological circles, the name of Giovanni a Bononia now emerges. Bononia was a Sicilian aristocrat and theologian who only worked for a relatively short time at the Faculty, but attracted notice for his pronounced negative position regarding vernacular Bible reading. He gave vent to his umbrage in a short treatise, included as a kind of appendix to his book DeaeterniDei praedestinatione published in 1555, which can be considered as one of 13. CollectaneumeoruminquibusErasmusRoterodamusvideturerroneeautscandalose scripsisse..., Brussels, Royal Library, Ms. II, 194, f. 1-52. See also W. FRANÇOIS, TheCatholicChurchandtheVernacularBibleintheLowCountries:AParadigmShiftinthe1550s?, in S. CORBELLINI – M. HOOGVLIET – B. RAMAKERS (eds.), Discovering the Riches of the Word:ReligiousReadinginLateMedievalandEarlyModernEurope (Intersections, 38), Leiden, Brill, 2015, 234-281, pp. 241-243; R. CRAHAY, Lescenseurslouvanistesd’Érasme, in J. COPPENS (ed.), Scrinium Erasmianum: Historische opstellen gepubliceerd onder de auspiciën van de Universiteit te Leuven naar aanleiding van het vijfde eeuwfeest van Erasmus’geboorte, 2 vols., Leiden, Brill, 1969, vol. 1, 221-249, esp. pp. 233-237. 14. LiberLiterarumFacultatissacraetheologiaeinUniversitateLovaniensi(Book of Letters of the Louvain Faculty of Theology), Leuven, State Archives in Belgium, CollectionOld University of Louvain, 443, f. 21r-23v. See also FRANÇOIS, TheCatholic Church and the Vernacular Bible in the Low Countries: A Paradigm Shift (n. 13), pp. 243-248; BOGAERT – GILMONT, La première Bible française de Louvain (n. 11), pp. 291-297.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

11

the first expositions exclusively devoted to the topic of Bible reading in the vernacular written in the milieu of the Louvain theologians15. Almost immediately after, Fadrique Furió Ceriol, a Spanish biblical humanist resident in Louvain, published a work with the telling title Bononia,sivede Libris sacris in vernaculam linguam convertendis, libri duo. The book offers a detailed description of a debate on vernacular Bible translations between Bononia (opponent) and Furió (proponent)16. The dramatic meeting of 1552-53 and the ensuing controversy demonstrate that an important segment among the Louvain theologians favored a ban. They were obviously able to enforce their view upon the printers of the town, since in the same year 1553 the very last Bible edition, published by a Louvain printer left the presses of Antonis-Maria Bergaigne. It is also clear that the intellectual evolution evident among theologians in the Low Countries cannot be isolated from what was going on in the broader Catholic Church, and especially in Rome. The attempts to concentrate doctrinal authority in Rome from the midst of the sixteenth century onwards, did also involve a number of measures related to vernacular Bible reading, which were to apply increasing pressure on the local ecclesial authorities. Pope Paul IV promulgated in 1558-59 the first Roman Index which stipulated that the publication, purchase, possession and/or reading of vernacular bibles was in principle forbidden, unless explicit permission was given by the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition. This rigid measure never found real application, apart maybe from the Papal States themselves, and was already mitigated within the next few weeks, but it is significant for the counter-reformational mentality that increasingly won the day among an important part of the Catholic authorities and that considered vernacular Bible reading as a ‘Protestantizing’ 15. Johannes A BONONIA, BrevisappendixdeBibliorumversione, in ID., Deaeterna Deipraedestinatione,etreprobationeexscripturis,&Patrumauthoritatibusdeprompta sententia, Leuven, Antonis-Maria Bergaigne, 1555, 528-541, here pp. 528-538. See also FRANÇOIS, TheCatholicChurchandtheVernacularBibleintheLowCountries:AParadigmShift(n. 13), pp. 248-253. 16. Fridericus FURIUS CAERIOLANUS, Bononia,sivedeLibrissacrisinvernaculamlinguam convertendis, Libri duo, Basel, Johannes Oporinus [In colophon: Basel, Michael Martin Stella], 1556-1557. For a modern edition, see Fadrique FURIÓ CERIOL, Bononia, in Obracomplete.Vol. 1: Elconcejoyconsejerosdelpríncipe!Bononia, ed. H. MÉCHOULAN – J. PERÉZ DURÀ, València, Universitat de València, 245-621. For a discussion of the content, see especially E. AGTEN, FadriqueFurióCeriol,GiovannidiBononiaetlatraductiondelaBibleenlanguevernaculaire:AnalyseduBononia(1556), in W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. HOLLANDER (eds.), Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants: The Bible for the LaityandTheologiansintheLateMedievalandEarlyModernEra (BETL, 257), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, 219-252. Comp. FRANÇOIS, TheCatholicChurchandtheVernacularBible intheLowCountries:AParadigmShift(n. 13), pp. 253-262.

12

W. FRANÇOIS

(or even downright Protestant) religious practice. The Roman Index of 1558-59 was superseded by the so-called Index of Trent, which was still prepared by the fathers of the Council but promulgated in the wake of it by Pope Pius IV in 1564. The Index was not particularly enthusiastic about the practice of vernacular Bible reading – an understatement –, but the fourth of its renowned ten regulae allowed the faithful to read the Bible in the vernacular if they had received a prior individual permission by the bishop or the local inquisitor17. The Index of Trent’s fourth rule would become a reference point for the Catholic authorities for further discussion and lawmaking in the decades and even centuries to come, although the Congregation of the Roman Inquisition would not stop trying to impose a general ban on vernacular Bible reading, leaving a possible dispensation to the central Roman instances. The growing reluctance to allow lay Bible reading in the vernacular went hand in glove with stronger opinions about the role of the clergy as necessary mediators between God’s Word and his flock: it was considered the mission of priests and preachers – skillfully educated to that aim – to explain the basic truths of the faith and interpret the Epistle and Gospel readings at mass in the light of the ecclesiastical Tradition. In the Low Countries, where vernacular Bible production had stopped in Louvain in the 1550s, Catholic editions of the New Testament and even of the entire Bible continued to be published in Antwerp, with a population obviously eager to buy and read them. There is no doubt that the Habsburg rulers, including Philip II who had succeeded to his father Charles V in 1555, supported this policy, whereas the Louvain theologians, whatever their individual opinion may have been, were expected to collaborate with the said policy, especially in their capacity as book 17. J.M. DE BUJANDA et al., Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564: Les premiers index romainsetl’indexduConciledeTrente (Index des livres interdits, 8), Sherbrooke, Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance; Geneva, Droz, 1990. On the evolution of the Roman standpoint in these years, see also FRANÇOIS, TheCatholicChurch andtheVernacularBibleintheLowCountries:AParadigmShift(n. 13), pp. 262-265. For a more elaborate discussion of the matter, see G. FRAGNITO, La Bibbia al rogo: La censuraecclesiasticaeivolgarizzamentidellaScrittura(1471-1605) (Saggi, 460), Bologna, Il Mulino, 1997, pp. 75-109; further ID., Interdiction et tolérance des Écritures Saintes enlanguevernaculairedansl’Europecatholique(XVIe-XVIIesiècles), in W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), VernacularBibleandReligiousReformintheMiddleAges and Early Modern Era (BETL, 287), Leuven, Peeters, 205-220; G. FRAGNITO, L’Inquisizioneeivolgarizzamentibiblici, in A. BORROMEO (ed.), L’Inquisizione. AttidelSimposio Internazionale, Città del Vaticano, 29-31 ottobre 1998, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2003, 633-660; V. FRAJESE, Lapoliticadell’IndicedalTridentinoal Clementino(1571-1596), in Archivioitalianoperlastoriadellapietà 11 (1998) 269-345; further W. FRANÇOIS, La Iglesia Católica y la lectura de la Biblia en lengua vernácula, antesydespuésdelConciliodeTrento, in Mayéutica 39 (2013) 245-273, here pp. 262-272.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

13

censors. In 1566 Christopher Plantin was still able to publish a beautiful edition of the Dutch Bible (containing the text of the Louvain Bible) and a year later he brought the French New Testament translated by the Parisian priest and theologian René Benoist on the market. But 1566 and 1567 were years of strong politico-religious turbulence in the Netherlands. The iconoclastic riots ignited by a militant group of Calvinists and the ensuing restoration of Spanish rule by the Duke of Alba reinforced the counter-reformational spirit among the Catholic authorities in the country. It made publishers, printers and readers far more cautious. Taken together with an economic decline, the tense circumstances may have been responsible for the fact that the publication of entire Dutch bibles stopped after the events of 1566-67, whereas editions of the Dutch Catholic New Testament as well as French Bible editions continued to appear, at least for the time being...18. It is within the context of the ongoing discussion on the implementation and the interpretation of the Tridentine decrees, and what this meant in the difficult situation in the Low Countries, balancing on the edge of a civil war, that the Louvain theologians Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’ and Josse Ravesteyn ‘of Tielt’ pronounced themselves on Bible reading in the vernacular. IV. CORNELIUS JANSENIUS AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ON BIBLE READING IN THE VERNACULAR 1. CorneliusJansenius’Refutatie oft Wederlegghinghe teghen een ketters boecxken Cornelius Jansenius ‘of Ghent’ (1510-76)19, also called ‘of Hulst’ after his birth-place, or ‘the Elder’, to distinguish him from Cornelius Jansenius 18. FRANÇOIS, TheCatholicChurchandtheVernacularBibleintheLowCountries: AParadigmShift(n. 13), pp. 265-271. 19. On Cornelius Jansenius of Ghent see, for example, J. DE KORT – J. LOCKEFEER (eds.), Cornelius Jansenius van Hulst: Theoloog en Pastor. Bisschop van Gent, Hulst, Oudheidkundige Kring ‘De Vier Ambachten’, 2010; J.-P. DELVILLE, L’Europedel’exégèse auXVIesiècle:Interprétationsdelaparaboledesouvriersàlavigne(Mt20,1-16) (BETL, 174), Leuven, Peeters, 2004, pp. 474-490; J. ROEGIERS, Jansénius(Corneille), in DHGE 26 (1997) 942-947; ID., Cornelius Jansenius (1565-1576), in M. CLOET – L. COLLIN – R. BOUDENS (eds.), HetbisdomGent(1559-1991):Viereeuwengeschiedenis, Gent, Werkgroep de geschiedenis van het bisdom Gent, 1991, 35-50 and 540-541; H. DE VOCHT, HistoryoftheFoundationandtheRiseoftheCollegiumTrilingue. Vol. 2: TheDevelopment (Recueil de travaux d’Histoire et de Philologie 4e série, fasc. 4; Humanistica Lovaniensia, 11), Leuven, Librairie universitaire, 1953, pp. 512-515.

14

W. FRANÇOIS

‘the Younger’ – the seventeenth-century Louvain theologian who gave his name to ‘Jansenism’ –, can be characterized as a Catholic biblical humanist with a strong pastoral conscience. Jansenius was educated in Louvain and had been a parish priest in Courtray from 1547 to 1561, in the very period the resurgence of the Anabaptist movement gave cause for serious concern in the offices of the town’s Magistrate. He became a professor at the Louvain Faculty of Theology in 1562, where he was to make a name for himself as a skillful Bible commentator. From the summer of 1563 until the spring of 1564, he participated in the final sessions of the Council of Trent as part of a Louvain delegation that included his colleagues Michael Baius and John Hessels. On his return to the Low Countries, and being on the line of the Habsburg Catholic biblical humanist policy, he was appointed the first Bishop of Ghent. Due to the revolt in the Low Countries, however, he was not to take possession of his episcopal see until September 1568. In 1567, in the aftermath of the iconoclastic riots, Jansenius published the vernacular treatise Refutatie oft Wederlegghinghe teghen een ketters boecxken, Gheintituleert, het oudeChristengheloove,teghendenieuwedolinghederPapisten[Refutation of a Heretical Booklet, Entitled ‘the Ancient Christian Faith, Against the New Errors of the Papists’]20. Jansenius belonged to those leading clerics who, according to Judith Pollmann, “used the power vacuum of 1566-1567 to do at last what the government had discouraged and what many clerics themselves had for so long considered unwise, namely to offer detailed refutations of heretical arguments in the vernacular, not just in sermons but also on paper”21. Jansenius was among the first clerics who did share with the laity his theological argumentation and aided the corroboration of a genuine identity among the Catholics in the Low Countries, and thus their mobilization against the ‘Protestant party’. Also the position that Jansenius took with regard to vernacular Bible reading, testifies of a stronger reflex to consider the Catholic faithful as adults in their beliefs, more than was seen among his predecessors. In the 24th article of his ‘Treaties’, he responds to a statement made in the aforementioned anonymous work22, according to which “all people are 20. Cornelius JANSENIUS, RefutatieoftWederlegghinghetegheneenkettersboecxken, Gheintituleert, het oude Christen gheloove, teghen de nieuwe dolinghe der Papisten, Leuven, Jan Boogaerts, 1567. 21. J. POLLMANN, CatholicIdentityandtheRevoltoftheNetherlands1520-1635 (The Past & Present Book Series), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 78-80 (quotation on p. 79). 22. Het oude Christen gheloove jeghens de nieuwe dolinghe der Papisten, s.l., s.n., 1566. No copies are known to be extant.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

15

allowed to read the Sacred Scriptures in the vernacular, as well as to teach the same”23. Jansenius makes an immediate distinction between reading the Scriptures, on the one hand, and instructing others on the other. He boldly proposes that “nobody should be forbidden to read the Sacred Scriptures in the common language, in so far as this happens in an appropriate way”24. This ‘appropriate way’ assumes the fulfilment of three conditions. First, the translation has to be a faithful version – evidently meaning a translation based on the Vulgate – made by a Catholic and approved by the Church. Second, Jansenius insists that the reader should be motivated by the right intention, namely that he come to a better knowledge of God and withdraw himself from all the wickedness and idleness of this world. This implies that he will not scrutinize the Scriptures for arguments in order to rebuke another man’s life and doctrines. The third condition is that the Bible reader should not presume to understand everything he reads immediately. He should bear in mind, rather, that many passages of the Scriptures are very difficult to understand. Therefore, he should cultivate his attention to the preaching and sermons of the parish priest and other preachers, and prepare himself by reading the Scriptures at home in order to gain a better understanding of the sermons. Jansenius inevitably warns his readers that illiterate and unstable people run the risk of misunderstanding the challenging parts of the Bible, to their own potential ruin. But he repeats as a sort of inclusion that those who read the Scriptures, while respecting the aforementioned conditions, will draw much advantage and profit from this reading25. In a further section of his discussion of article 24, Jansenius deals with the question of whether someone should be allowed to teach others what he has learnt from the Scriptures and from preaching (in church). The Louvain theologian concludes that one might instruct one’s own family and even – if such was appropriate and edifying – use what one has learnt in daily conversation. Permission to teach the Sacred Scriptures through public preaching or in one or another meeting as a manner of a preaching was not granted to everyone. This was the prerogative of those who were canonically called, appointed and commissioned26. To gain insight and 23. JANSENIUS, RefutatieoftWederlegghinghe (n. 20), f. O2v: “... het lesen der heyligher schrift in ghemeene sprake, en de van die andere voort te leeren...”. 24. Ibid.: “... niemant verboden en is de heylighe schrift in ghemeene sprake te lesen, alsooverde als het selve bequamelyck ghesciet...”. 25. Ibid., f. O3r-v, among others: “... Die met dese conditien de schrifture leest, die mach uut het lesen groote bate ende profijt vercrijghen...”. 26. Ibid., f. O4r: “... dat niet en yeghelyck toe en behoort de heylighe schrift voort te leeren door publicke predicatien ofte in eenighe vergaderinghe bij maniere van predicatien...”.

16

W. FRANÇOIS

wisdom in the Scriptures required that people spend “free” time on study, in the sense that they would have few concerns about external matters. Hence, the wisdom of Scriptures was not set aside for farmers, carpenters, smiths, and potters27. Jansenius then goes on to discuss a few of the “auctoritates” to which the anonymous author of the abovementioned HetoudeChristengheloove jeghensdenieuwedolinghederPapisten had appealed in support of his plea for free reading, examination, and preaching of the Scriptures. The authorities in question are from John 5,39: “Search the Scriptures”, and Hebrews 5,12: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you...” [NRSV], together with two texts taken from Chrysostom’s homilies, the first from his HomiliesontheEpistle to the Hebrews, the second from the Second Homily on the Gospel of John. As regards the references to Chrysostom, Jansenius complains about the inaccuracy with which the contested booklet quotes the words of the Church father. His own comments relate to the said scriptural passages, as well as, we can assume, to Chrysostom’s ninth homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews28 – although the marginal note refers to Homily 13 – and Homily 2 on the Gospel of John29. Jansenius repeats that the said passages allow simple people to read the Scriptures, to listen to the explanations of preachers duly commissioned to that office, and even to instruct their family and children in the same. He emphasizes, however, that the laity are not permitted to interpret the Scriptures by themselves, let alone preach their insights to others, in “private conventicles” for example “which are rightly forbidden”30. Concluding our discussion of the extract from Jansenius’ Refutatieoft Wederlegghinghe, it is obvious that the Louvain theologian assumes a biblical humanist standpoint accompanied with genuine pastoral concerns. This stance aligns with decades of Habsburg policy, which imposed constraints on the mere reading, let alone discussing, of ‘heretical’ bibles – especially in conventicles – through edicts and Indices of Forbidden 27. Ibid., f. O4v-O5r: “... tot groote wijsheyt niet bequame en sijn ackermans, tummerliens, smeen, potbackers ... latende den gheroepene predicanten haerlieder officie ende werck doen, die vrij wesende van uutwendighe occupation in grooter neersticheyt de schrifturen ondersocht hebben ...”. 28. Chrysostomus, Hom. 9.1 inHebr., ed. J.-P. MIGNE (PG, 63), Paris, Migne, 1862, cols. 75-76; trans. Ph. SCHAFF (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, 14), repr. Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1996, pp. 408-409. 29. Chrysostomus, Hom. 2.5 in Joh., ed. J.-P. MIGNE (PG, 59), Paris, Migne, 1862, cols. 35-36; trans. Ph. SCHAFF (n. 28), pp. 8-9. 30. JANSENIUS, Refutatie oft Wederlegghinghe (n. 20), f. O5v-O7r: “private conventiculen … die seer redelyck verboden sijn”.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

17

Books, while at the same time allowing the reading of ‘good’ vernacular Catholic versions. It is striking that Jansenius does not mention the fourth rule of the Tridentine Index, but this may be due to the simple fact that this Index was not yet promulgated in the Low Countries and that this process would only start in 1569, at the impetus of the Duke of Alba31. 2. JosseRavesteynvs.MartinChemnitzontheInterpretationoftheCouncil ofTrent In another context and dealing with another interlocutor the Louvain theologian Jodocus or Josse Ravesteyn (c. 1506-70) gave his interpretation of Trent’s standpoint with regard to Bible reading in the vernacular32. Ravesteyn – also known by the Latinate name Tiletanus, after his birthplace Tielt33 – was present at the Council in 1551-52 together with three colleagues34, and he would have departed again for Trent in 1563 had he not been prevented from doing so by poor health. Ravesteyn belonged to the ‘old’ Augustinian-scholastic school as represented by his teacher Ruard Tapper35. In 1568, he published the first part of his Apologia,seudefensiodecretorumsacrosanctiConciliiTridentini[Apology orDefenceoftheDecreesoftheCouncilofTrent,againsttheCensures and Examinations of Martin Chemnitz]36, in which he discusses elaborately the decrees and canons issued from the Fourth until the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent. As the title suggests, Ravesteyn wrote his Apology as a reply to Chemnitz’ renowned four volume Examinisconcilii 31. E. AGTEN – W. FRANÇOIS, The Reception of Trent’s Regula Quarta (1564) and Vernacular Bible Reading in the Low Countries, in Trajecta 24 (2015) 33-60, esp. pp. 37-40. 32. On Josse Ravesteyn, alias Tiletanus, see, for example, DE VOCHT, History of the FoundationandtheRiseoftheCollegiumTrilingue,vol. 2 (n. 19), pp. 508-510, and the entries W. TROXLER, Ravesteyn,Josseod.JodokusTiletanus, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 7 (1994) 1422-1424; É. AMMAN, Ravesteyn (Josse van), in DTC 13 (1937) 1793; A. ROERSCH, Ravesteyn(Jossevan), in BN 18 (1905) 802-806. 33. It is not clear, however, whether reference is being made to the town of Tielt in West Flanders, or the smaller village of Tielt in East Brabant. 34. Ruard Tapper, John Leonard Van der Eycken (alias Hasselius), and Franciscus Sonnius. 35. See e.g. G. GIELIS, Eenpleidooivoorklerikaleherbronning:RuardTapper(14871559) en zijn ideeën over kerkhervorming, in V. SOEN – P. KNEVEL (eds.), Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Publicaties van de Vlaams-Nederlandse Vereniging voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis, 12), Maastricht, Shaker Publishing, 2013, 21-36. See there for further literature. 36. Iudocus RAVESTEYN, Apologiae, seu defensionis decretorum sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini … adversus Censuras et Examen Martini Kemnitii … pars prima, Leuven, Petrus Zangrius, 1568.

18

W. FRANÇOIS

Tridentini opus integrum [Omnibus Examination of the Canons and DecreesoftheCouncilofTrent]37, which was in turn a response to Diego Andrada de Payva’s Orthodoxarum explicationum libri decem [Ten BookswithOrthodoxExplanations]. The Portuguese theologian Andrada de Payva had been sent to Trent by his king in 1561 and had published his Orthodoxarumexplicationumlibri in 1564. The latter was intended as a defence of the German Jesuits against a libel associated with Chemnitz, but it also presented a broader, more general case for Tridentine theology and Church reform. The first book of Chemnitz’ Examinis concilii Tridentini opus integrum deals with questions of Scripture and Tradition and was published in 1565. Its seventh section is devoted to “the Conversion, or Translation, of Scripture into Other Languages”. Among other matters, Chemnitz discusses vernacular Bible translations, probably because he had taken Andrada de Payva’s deprecatory comments on vernacular bibles as a (semi-)official clarification of the position of the Council itself, although this is by no means a secure assumption. Chemnitz argues that the fathers of the Council had indirectly prohibited biblical translation with the decree Insuper, which only addressed Latin versions explicitly. He remarks, in passing, that the Council had issued such an open condemnation elsewhere, but it is not immediately clear what he means by this. It is possible, as has been said, that he considered Andrada de Payva’s Orthodoxarumexplicationum librias containing the (semi-)official explication of the Council’s decrees. Alternatively, he might have been referring to the extremely strict Index of Forbidden Books that Pope Paul IV had issued in 1558-59, and that forbade the reading of any vernacular Bible not expressly permitted by the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition, a prohibition superseded by the more relaxed provisions of the 1564 Tridentine Index, which Chemnitz does not seem to have taken into consideration38. Josse Ravesteyn also treats the question of the admissibility of vernacular Bible translations in the first part of his ApologyorDefenceofthe DecreesoftheCouncilofTrent,againsttheCensuresandExaminations

37. Martin CHEMNITZ, ExaminisconciliiTridentini...opusintegrum:Quatuorpartes, 4 vols., Frankfurt a. M., Petrus Fabricius, 1565-73. We consulted the edition published in Frankfurt a. M. by the heirs Sigmund Feyrabend in 1596. 38. For Chemnitz’ standpoint, see: Examinis concilii Tridentini ... opus integrum, vol. 1, 1596 (n. 37), pp. 54-55. For an English translation, see M. CHEMNITZ, Examination oftheCouncilofTrent, trans. F. KRAMER (Chemnitz’s Works, 1), Saint Louis, MO, Concordia, 1971; repr. 2007, pp. 196-201.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

19

of Martin Chemnitz39. Ravesteyn first insists that the Church assembly – meaning the Fourth Session of 1546 – had decreed nothing in this regard. This is a valid point: the Council had left it defacto to the local (ecclesiastical and civil) authorities to decide how they would deal with the issue of vernacular biblical translation, with a range of different positions being available. In reply to the accusations against popes and Catholics Chemnitz had formulated, Ravesteyn challenges the reformer to provide answers to a few questions: which Catholic theologian had written that the majestic character of the Scriptures was contaminated by being translated into the vernacular? Or that it is an offence if the Scriptures are translated in the vernacular? Or that it befits the dignity of Latin that the Scriptures may only be read in that very language? By confronting Chemnitz with his own assertions, Ravesteyn seems to be intent on demonstrating that reluctance with regard to vernacular translations of the Scriptures was not a general principle, but a response to the particular dangers of the time. Stirred up (“excitata”) by heretics, the common people in certain lands had claimed the authority and the liberty to judge the sense of Scripture for themselves, and had fallen into error40. Ravesteyn thus maintains that there is good reason to urge simple Christians to be satisfied with short and pious catechisms that would provide the main points of the Gospel’s teachings (“capita doctrinae evangelicae”). Laypeople should be content to hear the more extensive teachings of the Church and their interpretation explained by pastors during public preaching in the church41. Ravesteyn is clearly speaking up in support of the above-mentioned and more pronounced Catholic emphasis on the priest as mediator between God’s Word and the people. He cites four passages of Scripture in support of this position, which speak of the peculiar mission of the preacher, as well as the response of the flock, be it acceptance or rejection: Romans 15 (probably 14-21, Paul’s apostolate), Psalm 68 [Vulgate] (prefiguration of Christ’s rejection by unbelievers), Isaiah 6 (1-13, Isaiah’s vocation as a prophet and preacher), a passage that is also referred to in John 12 (probably 37-50, Jesus’ preaching in Jerusalem and the unbelief He encounters). Ravesteyn is most clear in concluding: “It is most obvious to everybody that heresies are nowhere more rampant than in those places where people have unrestricted access 39. RAVESTEYN, Apologiae(n. 36), f. 100r-101v. 40. Ibid., f. 100rv. 41. Ibid., f. 100v: “… consultum fore, si populares Christiani iuberentur brevibus et piis catechismis, qui capita doctrinae evangelicae complecterentur, contenti esse, et copiosiorem ecclesiae doctrinam et explicationem a suis pastoribus in publicis concionibus expectare et accipere…”.

20

W. FRANÇOIS

to vernacular translations of the Scriptures”42. He praises those kings and princes who had sought to curb the curious temerity (“curiosam temeritatem”) of the common people by severe edicts. At the same time, however, he regrets that the maintenance of these edicts left something to be desired43. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Ravesteyn is particularly critical when Chemnitz argues that, since it was obvious that the preaching of the Gospel had to be in the language of the people, it followed that the Scriptures should also be translated into the language of the people, to allow the latter to read them for themselves. In short, Ravesteyn reveals himself to be far more restrictive about vernacular Bible reading than Jansenius, aligning himself with the restrictive position that the Louvain theologians had formulated in 1552-53. The same Ravesteyn, however, was among the theologians who issued official approval to Benoist’s French Bible in 1567, showing again that the theologians were supposed to put aside their personal theological standpoints when they acted as book censors and gave execution to the official Habsburg Bible policy. V. CONCLUSION The complexity of the Louvain theologians’ positions regarding vernacular Bible reading continues to be puzzling. First, it should be taken into account that the Faculty was not a monolithic ideological bloc and that its members reacted in an often different way to the politico-religious challenges that presented themselves from the 1520s onwards. For the years 1520 to 1540, we showed how Jacobus Latomus, one of the policy makers of the Faculty in the period concerned, continued to grant – albeit reluctantly – the people of the Low Countries the right to read the Bible in the vernacular, as long as they used ‘Catholic’ translations and were prepared to submit themselves humbly to the official interpretation of the Church. He opposed the ‘new’ translations, issued from humanist and, especially, Reformation-minded milieus, and temerariously read and commented upon in semi-clandestine conventicles. This position fitted with the book-and-Bible-policy that the Habsburg rulers implemented in the Low Countries and that by no means included a general ban on

42. Ibid., f. 100v: “Id sane omnibus compertissimum est, in istis regionibus haereses nusquam latius serpsisse, quam ubi scripturarum in vulgares linguas translationes passim populo permissae sunt”. 43. Ibid., f. 101r.

CORNELIUS JANSENIUS ‘OF GHENT’ AND JOSSE RAVESTEYN ‘OF TIELT’

21

vernacular bibles but only on those editions that contained Reformationminded glosses, prefaces, and summaries heading the chapters. It was also forbidden to read the Bible in conventicles where those assembled interpreted the Scriptures in an erroneous and even ‘heretic’ way. Vernacular Bible editions continued to be printed, especially in Antwerp, and the actual control on this production was executed by book censors among whom several theologians of the Louvain Faculty. After a quarter of a century, around the middle of the sixteenth century, the book-and-Bible policy in vigor proved to have not been able to stop the tide of the Protestant ‘heresy’. Among Catholic leaders and opinion makers, several voices plead to issue a blunt prohibition on vernacular Bible production and reading, as a special measure to be taken given the tense politico-religious circumstances. This was the standpoint voiced at the dramatic Faculty meeting somewhere in the years 1552-53, especially by Giovanni a Bononia, and in Louvain no vernacular bibles were printed after Antonis-Maria Bergaigne had brought a revised version of the Dutch Louvain Bible onto the market in 1553. In Antwerp, however, the book-and-Bible policy of the Habsburgs continued in the 1550s and 1560s, with several editions of the Louvain Bible and the New Testament being published, and a population increasingly eager to read them. The iconoclastic fury of 1566, the destructions it caused and the harsh repression it provoked from the Spanish side, led to a dramatic decrease of vernacular Bible production, with the printing of complete Dutch Bibles even coming to a standstill. In these years, two important Louvain theologians voiced their opinion regarding vernacular Bible reading. And again, we are faced with a variety of positions living within the Louvain Faculty of Theology. Cornelius Jansenius, Catholic-humanist theologian and biblical scholar, appointed Bishop of Ghent, found himself in line with the Habsburg religious policy when he wrote a vernacular booklet displaying a seldom seen optimism regarding the Catholics’ ability to deal in a mature way with vernacular Bible reading. While including a warning against the temptation to interpret and preach the Bible in an idiosyncratic and thus erroneous manner, he emphasized the link between personal Bible reading and the sound interpretation of the Scriptures given in the church by Catholic priests and preachers. Josse Ravesteyn, for his part, in his (Latinlanguage) controversy with Martin Chemnitz regarding the interpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent, aligned himself with the very reluctant position that had gained the upper hand at the Faculty of Theology in the years 1552-53. In this view, vernacular Bible reading should be denied to the laity, not as a principal position, but as an emergency

22

W. FRANÇOIS

measure, given the proven incapacity of a ‘liberal’ policy to stop the advance of Protestant ‘heresy’ – quite the opposite: this lenient policy may even have accelerated the growth of Protestantism… But again, it would be politico-religious circumstances in the field which dictated the course of the events. Following the Dutch Revolt and the Calvinist takeover of several cities in the South, Antwerp among them (1577-85), the production of Catholic Bible editions completely stopped – including New Testament editions, both in Dutch and in French. After Alexander Farnese had reconquered the town (1585), the production of Catholic Bible versions did not resume and religious life in the southern part of the Low Countries was reorganized along strict counter-reformational lines. No Catholic vernacular bibles were printed in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, and the reluctance with respect to Bible reading in the vernacular displayed by a significant segment of the Louvain theologians – and Roman authorities and Spanish Inquisition! – was implemented defacto on the terrain44. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies St.-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Wim FRANÇOIS

44. FRANÇOIS, TheCatholicChurchandtheVernacularBibleintheLowCountries: AParadigmShift(n. 13), pp. 273-275.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM LEUVEN THEOLOGIANS, ECCLESIASTICAL REFORM AND THE ‘EPISCOPAL TURN’ IN THE EARLY MODERN LOW COUNTRIES

The momentous bull SuperUniversas, proclaimed by Pope Paul IV on 12 May 1559, went down in history as the birth certificate of the new diocesan lay-out for the Habsburg Netherlands. Although in the collective memory of early modern church historians this fact does not have the same allure as the publication of Luther’s 95 theses in 1517, it is at least an equally important historical milestone for the history of the Low Countries. Insofar as dates can already be regarded as actual ruptures, that 12 May 1559 was for the inhabitants of the Low Countries – certainly in the short run – an even more radical tipping point than the events of 31 October 1517. After 12 May 1559 the Habsburg Netherlands were virtually a different ‘nation’, at least on the ecclesial level. Super Universas announced enormous changes in the infra-stucture of the Church: the bull drastically redefined the longstanding ecclesiastical landscape, provided old religious institutions with new ‘superiors’, created new authorities, laid the foundation for new financial constructions and currents, and more. This papal concession to the ruler of the Habsburg Netherlands cut across contemporary, entrenched practices and cultures. Its progressive character is also evident from the fierce resistance the plan evoked, which contributed to cause political tensions. This momentous document was the basis of a crucial episode in the (church) history of the early modern Low Countries. That is probably why we are rather well informed on the ecclesial and political consequences of SuperUniversas, but less on (the origins of) the groundbreaking mindset of the bull. It seems to me that it has been insufficiently emphasized how revolutionary, progressive and even improbable Super Universas was in its ecclesial concepts and its ambitions for church renewal in the Habsburg Netherlands. Indeed, ever since the seminal study of Michel Dierickx on SuperUniversas and its problematic execution, the bull and the consequent creation of new dioceses are often easily taken for granted in historiography on the early modern Low Countries, as a logical step towards the Counter Reformation era1. SuperUniversas was given the status of 1. M. DIERICKX, DeoprichtingdernieuwebisdommenindeNederlandenonderFilips II,1559-1570, Antwerpen, Standaard; Utrecht, Het Spectrum, 1950.

24

G. GIELIS

a threshold announcing the beginning of a new period in church history2. However, as I will contend in this contribution, it must also be seen as the apogee of a development within the Church that started much earlier and for which in the third section of this contribution I want to coin the term ‘episcopal turn’. The bull indeed confirmed a fundamental shift in ecclesiastical culture that had been manifesting for a long time: a renewed attention for the cura animarum and the reappraisal of the bishop’s office. Historiography on the new dioceses has not yet paid attention to the connection between the ‘episcopal turn’ and Super Universas. The genesis of the bull was discussed in articles by Ambrosius Erens and Folkert Postma, but just like Dierickx in his seminal study, they concentrated on the decision-making process, the organizational aspects of the proposal and the political context3. None of these (church) historians asked the question of where these seemingly revolutionary ideas, which with the benefit of hindsight seem so self-evident, actually originated. On what grounds did their highly innovative character actually rest? The pastoral ambitions of Super Universas primarily focused on the bishop and the diocesan staff. In retrospect this seems quite obvious, but the bull was definitely at odds with ecclesiastical policies and cultures of the first half of the sixteenth century4. That this was possible was in essence due to the ‘episcopal turn’. To substantiate this claim, I would like to pay attention to the preliminary process, in which Super Universas was only one milestone. I will argue that this epoch-making bull has its roots in a mentality shift that took place at the theological faculty of Leuven (and in Latin Christianity in general) in the first half of the sixteenth century. I want to show how 2. M. CLOET, EenkwarteeuwhistorischeproductieinBelgiëbetreffendedereligieuze geschiedenisvandeNieuweTijd, in Trajecta 4 (1995) 198-223; G. MARNEF, Belgianand DutchPost-warHistoriographyontheProtestantandCatholicReformationintheNetherlands, in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 100 (2009) 271-292; D. VANYSACKER, Bilanciostoriograficodellastoriadellediocesinell’areaBelga-Olandesedopolariorganizzazione del 1559, in L. VACCARO (ed.), Storia della chiesa in Europa tra ordinamento politico-amministrativo e strutture ecclesiastiche, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2005, 121-138 and recently, V. SOEN, Which Religious History for the (Two) Early Modern Netherlandsbefore1648?, in RHE 112 (2017) 758-788, pp. 772-773. 3. A. ERENS, DezendingvanSonniusomtrenthetoprichtendernieuwebisdommenin deNederlanden,1558-1559, in BijdragentotdeGeschiedenisbijzonderlijkvanhetaloude hertogdomBrabant14 (1922-1923) 101-127; F. POSTMA, Nieuwlichtopeenoudezaak: De oprichting van de nieuwe bisdommen in 1559, in Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 103 (1990) 10-27. 4. H. COOLS, Bishops in the Habsburg Netherlands on the Eve of the Catholic Renewal, in J. MARA DESILVA (ed.), Episcopal Reform and Politics in Early Modern Europe (Early Modern Studies, 10), Kirksville, MO, Truman State University Press, 2012, 46-62.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM

25

intellectual developments at that time in the faculty have given shape to the ecclesiastical landscape of the early modern Habsburg Netherlands. In this way, this article combines two areas of interest of Leo Kenis: the history of dioceses in the Netherlands and the history of the Leuven theological faculty. The title of this contribution thus refers not only to the content of the article, but can also be read as an allusion to the distinguished emeritus. I. REMODELING THE DIOCESES: MORE

THAN

DRAWING NEW BORDERS

Plans for a reform of the dioceses in the Burgundian-Habsburg Netherlands were not a novelty of the sixteenth century. Such plans had already emerged at the end of the fourteenth century5. They have never been put into practice mostly due to political circumstances. New attempts at reform were made in the 1520s, but they were thwarted by the death of Pope Adrian VI and then by the deteriorated relations between Emperor Charles V and Pope Clement VII6. The plan to set up five (later six) new dioceses that largely coincided with the then-political frontiers undoubtedly fit into a political agenda. Somewhere around 1550, and perhaps earlier, the still dormant wish of the diocese reform flared up again. We find the precipitation of this in a detailed scheme that represents a thorough redrawing of the ecclesiastical landscape through the creation of new (arch)dioceses7. The author of that plan was Franciscus Sonnius, as Folkert Postma has shown8. Sonnius was canon of the chapter of Sint-Marie in Utrecht and active as inquisitor in the northern regions of the Low Countries9. He edited this plan when he participated in the second period of the Council of Trent (autumn 1551 – winter 1552). Just as the reorganization of the dioceses thirty years earlier, 5. DIERICKX, Oprichting (n. 1), pp. 26-32. 6. M. DIERICKX, Documents inédits sur l’Érection des nouveaux Diocèses aux PaysBas(1521-1570), I, Brussel, Paleis der Academiën, 1960, pp. 80-85. 7. ARAB, Audiëntie, 593, nr. 28, edited by DIERICKX, Documents (n. 6), I, pp. 107151. See ERENS, Dezending (n. 3) and G. GIELIS, Eenpleidooivoorklerikaleherbronning: RuardTapper(1487-1559)enzijnideeënoverkerkhervorming, in V. SOEN – P. KNEVEL (eds.), Religie, hervorming en controverse in de zestiende-eeuwse Nederlanden (Publicaties van de Vlaams-Nederlandse Vereniging voor Nieuwe Geschiedenis, 12), Maastricht, Shaker Publishing, 2013, 21-36. 8. POSTMA, Nieuw licht (n. 3), pp. 14-17. Previously, Dierickx had thought of the famous Leuven theologian Ruard Tapper as the author of the reformation scheme (DIERICKX, Documents[n. 6], I, p. 151). 9. P. BEGHEYN, FranciscusSonniusalsinkwisiteur:Eenbijdragetotzijnbiografie, in BosscheBijdragen30 (1971) 85-154.

26

G. GIELIS

the establishment of new dioceses de facto constituted the foundation of the plan. In 1550 there were only five dioceses for about 3 million inhabitants. Scaling down the dioceses would help to adapt them to the dynamic geographical situation and demographic explosion of the sixteenth century. In Sonnius’ proposal, nine or ten new dioceses would depend on two archdioceses, Utrecht in the north, and Mechelen or Leuven in the south. The seats of the dioceses and archdioceses would be on Habsburg territory. This plan, too, served the political agenda of the landlord of the Habsburg Netherlands, which had since 1548 formed a political unity in the Burgundian Kreits. To provide proper financial resources for the new dioceses was of course a tricky issue. Sonnius suggested two possibilities: either a kind of tax on monastic and parochial property, or the incorporation of an abbey in the episcopal mensa. The abbot or prior of the abbey or monastery in question could be appointed as its first bishop. The reorganization scheme clearly also bore a pastoral and intellectual ambition. Quintessential in the plan is Sonnius’ proposal to engage highly educated clerics in the administration of the diocese. Sonnius proposed to reserve nine prebends in each cathedral chapter for doctors in theology or law. These prebends would be granted in turn by the Pope, by the ruler or by the bishop. Sonnius immediately suggested that the bishop should present the papal candidate, since the Pope was too far away to know apt candidates. The introduction of an academically trained episcopal staff also allowed for a more effective monitoring of the lower clergy in the future. Due to the disappearance of the church discipline, which Sonnius noticed all through the Holy Roman Empire, these regions “were flooded with sins”10. By guaranteeing the intellectual level of the leaders of the Catholic Church, Sonnius hoped to reinforce Catholic faith and improve clerical culture in the Dutch provinces. Young intellectuals would no longer turn their backs on the Church, but would be enticed by the (financially) attractive functions11. Sonnius therefore in his plan proposed that the episcopal sees were established in existing centers of study and intellectual education, for example Utrecht, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Deventer, and Leuven. Sonnius wanted Leuven to have an archiepiscopal seat. In his original project text from 1551-52 he proposed two possible archiepiscopal seats for the dioceses in the South: Mechelen or Leuven. In the further text of his project he did not start from Mechelen, but rather from Leuven as the intended archbishopric. Thus, Sonnius clearly favored Leuven. If the new dioceses 10. DIERICKX, Documents(n. 6), I, p. 119. 11. Ibid., pp. 146-147.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM

27

were to be established in intellectual centers, as Sonnius proposed, then the city of Leuven obviously possessed a huge asset with its university. On a political level it also seemed an obvious choice: plans to make Leuven a bishop’s seat already existed in the 14th century. John III, Duke of Brabant, aspired to establish a ‘diocese of Brabant’ in order to escape the jurisdiction of the prince-bishop of Liège12. Partly this wish was met when an episcopal court was set up in Leuven in the second half of the fifteenth century13. Maximilian I’s request to the Pope (1483) to split Liège into two dioceses, Leuven and Namur or Maastricht, was refused14. In different respects Leuven seemed to be a pre-eminent candidate for becoming a bishop’s city. This is what Sonnius himself had in mind. His preferred candidate for the archiepiscopal seat was the abbot of Tongerlo, Arnold Streyters. Not only would the abbey be a decent endowment to both the archdiocese and the diocese of ’s-Hertogenbosch, it would also substantially improve the pastoral care provided by the abbey to its thirty incorporated parishes. Since Sonnius did not think much of monks, he proposed to transfer all ‘religiosi’ to Leuven to study theology there. The property and revenues of the abbey had to be divided into three parts, and after the death of the abbot a third part had to be split in two again. That sixth part had to be incorporated in the cathedral chapter of St. Peter’s in Leuven, “for the benefit of seven or eight or all of the prebends connected to chairs in theology and both laws”15. Sonnius considered these too poorly paid. He explicitly emphasized that such ‘stipends’ should only be granted to the best candidates possible. This would be the joint responsibility of the Leuven magistrate and the archbishop. In this way, the archbishop of Leuven would of course exert great influence on the university and its most prominent faculties. An archdiocese and a university that were closely connected with each other, that was Sonnius’ ambition. It would push the Church in the Low Countries to new heights, he assumed. II. SOURCES OF INSPIRATION: RUARD TAPPER AND JACOBUS LATOMUS As yet, insufficient attention has been paid as to the intellectual roots of Sonnius’ innovative ideas. Although the pastoral aspirations of the reform scheme were indeed Sonnius’ input, the focus on the bishop as a

12. 13. 14. 15.

DIERICKX, Oprichting(n. 1), pp. 27-29. Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., p. 31. DIERICKX, Documents(n. 6),I, p. 135.

28

G. GIELIS

pioneer of clerical renewal was not his original idea. Sonnius himself did not mention his sources of inspiration, but there are good arguments to assume that they must be searched for in the Leuven theological milieu. All traces point in particular to the Leuven theologian Ruard Tapper (1487-1559), the leader of the theological faculty16. When Sonnius drafted the scheme in the early 1550s, he had left already for several years the faculty where he had studied and also lectured for a few years. Yet Sonnius still had a strong connection with his alma mater, not in the least intellectually. Like many of his fellow students, Sonnius was profoundly influenced by Tapper, who had also been his praeceptor (mentor)17. Sonnius had lived in Tapper’s house for a while, where no doubt they had discussed the situation of the Church and the solutions to remedy the deplorable state of affairs. When we take a closer look at Tapper’s vision on church reform, the parallels between both theologians are obvious. Tapper’s vision resonates in two writings that have fortuitously survived. They were published by Wilhelmus Lindanus, like Sonnius a former student of Tapper, in his edition of Tapper’s Operaomnia. Posthumously Lindanus gave them notable and prolix ‘headings’, which I will here abbreviate to Aureumcorollarium and Refutatio18. Possibly Lindanus had found these documents in Tapper’s surviving papers in the library of the Pope’s College during his exile in Leuven at the end of the 1570s. They were already in poor condition, because Lindanus had to abort the text of the Refutatio with the message: “I can not read these things, eroded by decay and old age”19. Although never intended for publication, Lindanus found it worthwhile to have these writings printed. In addition to the two writings, we also have some orations held by Tapper at the

16. On Ruard Tapper: J. ÉTIENNE, Un théologien louvaniste, Ruard Tapper: Notice biographique, in Scriniumlovaniense:MélangeshistoriquesE.vanCauwenbergh, Leuven, Duculot, 1961, 381-392; P. FABISCH, RuardTapper(1487-1559), in E. ISERLOH (ed.), KatholischeTheologenderReformationszeit, IV (Katholisches Leben und Kirchenreform im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 47), Münster, Aschendorff, 1987, 58-74; M. SCHRAMA, RuardTapperunddieMöglichkeitGuteWerkenzuverrichten:“Nonomniaoperahominis mala”, in M. LAMBERIGTS (ed.), L’Augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie à Louvain (BETL, 111), Leuven, Peeters, 1994, 63-98. 17. GIELIS, Pleidooi (n. 7), pp. 32-33. 18. The Aureum reverend. D.Ruewardi Lovaniensis Decani corollarium, de veris afflictaehaeresibusGermaniae,acpotissimumBelgicaecausis,unacumsolidisearundem sanandarumremediis,utadconcordiamcumcatholicaChristiEcclesiareducantur, and RefutatioesteiusdemR.D.Ruewardiquorundamfalsorumremediorumaulicorum,cum explicationeveriremedii,adBelgicamabhaeresibusliberandum,potissimumcomparati are edited in Ruardi Tapperi Opera, ed. Wilhelmus LINDANUS, Köln, Birckmann, 1582, pp. 378-380 and pp. 380-382. 19. TAPPER, Opera(n. 18), p. 382. All translations of Tapper’s Latin text are mine.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM

29

occasion of his students’ promotions20. On the basis of these writings we can form an impression of Tapper’s vision about reform of the church in the Low Countries. The next paragraph offers a survey of Tapper’s ideas. In connection with the medical metaphor that frequently appears as a topos to describe the state of the religio in the Low Countries, Tapper in these writings suggested remedia, ‘medicines’, for the Catholic Church. These remedies found their origins in an analysis of the problematic state of affairs in religion as perceived by theologians. In the Corollarium Tapper mentioned three causes: firstly the negligentia, the negligence of the secular authorities (mainly provincial courts and city magistrates) in the performance of their responsiblilities, more specifically the juridical repression of heresy; second, the poor administration of bishops and prelates, negligent and ignorant as they were in the execution of their duties; and third, the inadequate competences and morality of the clergy in general21. From his further explanation it appears that substandard (pre-university as well as academic) education was also considered a grave problem. In the Refutatio Tapper equally pointed to the negligentia of both ecclesiastical and secular officials22. Tapper therefore attributed the responsibility for the problems and thus for the dissemination of heterodoxies principally with Church officials. He stated that “the cause of faith is common to every Christian, and it is not especially the cause of prelates and clergy, though their vows and ‘status’ require a greater care and concern for the salvation of the souls. Every Christian has responsibility for the right faith, but the clergy has a special responsibility” 23. Tapper’s reform ideas therefore focused to a considerable extent on the clergy, both high (bishops, canons, abbots) and low (pastors and chaplains) clergy, both secular and regular. The core of the problem, according to Tapper, lay in the clergy neglecting ecclesiastical discipline and not complying with the canons. “Who does not see how much the discipline of ecclesiastical laws is neglected? Who does not regret that they are not enacted, except for the benefices and matters that concern the forum contentiosum. If compliance would be strict, and the prelates, whose task it is to execute them, do not neglect their office in matters affecting morals and discipline, then in the Church all things would be particularly prosperous, and it would not be necessary 20. Ruard TAPPER, Orationes theologicae, in ID., Opera (n. 18), 325-377. See for a discussion: L. ELLIES DUPIN, Histoiredel’Egliseetdesauteursecclesiastiquesduseiziéme siecle, 2, Paris, André Pralard, 1703, pp. 94-97 and GIELIS, Pleidooi(n. 7), pp. 30-32. 21. TAPPER, Corollarium (n. 18), p. 378. 22. TAPPER, Refutatio (n. 18), p. 380. 23. Ibid.

30

G. GIELIS

to tire the bishops with general councils to reform the Church and deprive the sheep of their shepherds for seven years, to the great disadvantage of their salvation”, Tapper wrote in 155224. Tapper’s solution thus emphasized obedience to and compliance with existing church laws and regulations. In 1545 he wrote: “It will therefore be worthwhile to implement a canonical reformation in both the spiritual and the secular ‘state’ (status), so that in both ‘states’ the scandals are eliminated that are the main causes of the heresies of this time, because if these are not eradicated, then there is, in my opinion, no hope for the restoration of religion or the preservation of faith”25. Shortly thereafter, he continues: “For if the canonical discipline is restored and maintained, then there is good hope that the clergy will be ‘reformed’”26. In his oration at the occasion of Lindanus’ promotion in 1552 he expressed this hope again: “For if the canones, which organize the deposition of the pastors, abbots and bishops, in case they deserve it, would be honored, proper pastors for the churches would remain, without which there is no hope of a renewal (reformatio) of the Church”27. Tapper thought that compliance with the canones would almost automatically lead to a reformation of the clergy28. Ruard Tapper therefore repeatedly insisted on the vital role of the bishops as leading initiators of reform and improvement29. According to him, a reform could only be imposed from above. Only the bishop was able to enforce the canones30. In the Refutatio Tapper stated: “Against these [heretical priests] they [the bishops] must safeguard church discipline and severity, which can only be maintained by the bishop, and if he fails to do so, who will watch over the shepherd, who will keep an eye on the guards?”31. As the responsible person in charge of the pastors in his diocese, the bishop became the driving force of the reformatio cleri32. Only through personal presence in the community could he, as a shepherd of the herd, perform an exemplary role. Tapper therefore emphasized the crucial importance of the duty of residence33. 24. TAPPER, Oratiotheologicadecima (n.20), p. 374. 25. TAPPER, Corollarium (n. 18), p. 378. 26. Ibid., p. 380. 27. TAPPER, Oratiotheologicadecima (n. 20), p. 374. 28. TAPPER, Corollarium (n. 18), p. 379. 29. Ibid., p. 378; TAPPER, Refutatio(n. 18), p. 331; TAPPER, Oratiotheologicasexta (n. 20), p. 358; TAPPER, Oratiotheologicadecima (n. 20), p. 374. 30. TAPPER, Refutatio (n. 18), p. 382. 31. Ibid., p. 381. 32. TAPPER, Oratiotheologicasexta (n. 20), p. 358; TAPPER, Refutatio (n. 18), pp. 380381. 33. TAPPER, Oratiotheologicadecima (n. 20), p. 374.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM

31

In his exacting task, the bishop, at least according to Tapper’s design, had to be assisted by competent collaborators. In 1545 he mentioned as one of his remedia an episcopal staff with clergymen “of considerable erudition and exemplary lifestyle”34. They had to assist and support the bishop, among other things, in the visitation of churches and monasteries and, if necessary, to carry out reforms there. An appropriate prebend had to make these offices appealing. The bishop and his close collaborators were to act as an example, both in lifestyle and in intellectual reputation. In the preserved writings Tapper did not put much explicit emphasis on these aspects. Yet one can easily read this insight between the lines. Tapper may have considered this self-evident. The bishop had to see to it that the clergy in his diocese was in every way (but in any case morally and intellectually) fit and competent. Therefore, the bishop had to become responsible for the screening and selection of the pastors. In order to be able to entrust the care of souls, a demanding task, to suitable candidates, it was found best to organize in advance a thorough screening to test the candidate’s intellectual competences and moral qualities35. At the time, this was a controversial reformist idea that went against prevailing practices. After all, bishops had the right of nomination only for a limited number of parishes36. In fact, most nominations were made by noblemen and abbeys disposing of the patron’s rights. For Tapper, the bishop was responsible not only for the pastors in his diocese, but also for the rest of the flock. With reference to Ezekiel 34 – the prophesy concerning the shepherds of Israel – he made it clear that the bishop had to ensure that heresy had no chance of success in his diocese. He had to save his flock from the wolves, including those in sheep’s clothing37. Such pastoral ideas are already traceable in the Leuven theological environment even before Tapper. In the quaestio quodlibetica held in 1517 or 1518, Jacobus Latomus (c. 1475-1544), then a licentiate in theology, defended his ideas about the office of the pastor38. For this annual 34. TAPPER, Corollarium (n. 18), p. 380. 35. Ibid. 36. See for instance R.R. POST, KerkelijkeverhoudingeninNederlandvóórdeReformatie,Utrecht – Antwerpen, Het Spectrum, 1954, pp. 81-96. 37. TAPPER, Corollarium (n. 18), p. 378. 38. Jacobus LATOMUS, Disputatio quodlibetica, tribus quaestionibus absoluta, in J. LATOMUS (J. LATOMUS jr. ed.), Opera, Leuven, 1550, pp. 208v°-214. At the time Latomus was still a professor at the arts faculty. On the disputatio see M. GIELIS, Scholastiek enhumanisme:DekritiekvandeLeuvensetheoloogJacobusLatomusopdeErasmiaanse theologiehervorming, dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Tilburg, Tilburg, 1994, pp. 62-67.

32

G. GIELIS

dispute contest of the Arts Faculty he was asked, among other things, to provide an answer to the question whether for a prelate an active or a contemplative life was better suited. Latomus stated that for a prelate a combination of both, vita mixta, mixed life, was preferable. That implied, however, that a prelate in charge of pastoral care personally attended to his pastoral duties and did not outsource them to a mercenary, which Latomus regarded as an unacceptable situation39. Latomus thus made a plea for the duty of residence, which according to him was obligated by God’s law. Half a century later, the Council of Trent would put this requirement into a decree40. Latomus accused the Pope and the Curia of allowing unauthorized cumulation of benefices and granting dispensations on residency. As a result, absenteism had become the order of the day, a situation which Latomus lamented. He saw even fault in the general practice of incorporating benefices in abbeys and chapters; this should be allowed only exceptionally. Latomus therefore used this quodlibetica to broaden his ideas about the office of the pastor. With a whole series of Bible quotations, he argued that “the office of a priest who has pastoral care consists of praying for his sheep, celebrating the Eucharist for himself and for them and above all proclaiming Christ’s law in words and deeds”41. The parallels between the ideas of Tapper and Latomus and those of Sonnius are evident. For Sonnius, too, bishops had to act as the forerunners of renewal and reform. As in Tapper’s discourse, they were to be personally present in his diocese to watch over the shepherds. Sonnius, like his former professors, emphasized the crucial importance of residence: “(...) because the despair of the times and the bad attitude [of the countries previously mentioned by the author] certainly require the constant presence of apt men”42. The selection and control of pastors had to be the responsibility of the bishop, as Tapper had also advocated. He thus reformulated insights, but also made them concrete in new ideas. Like Tapper, Sonnius placed particular emphasis on the importance of the episcopal entourage. Sonnius had a certain mistrust of the bishop’s figure, perhaps fueled by the policies of bishops of that time who were often more political figures than shepherds. He wanted to avoid that “ecclesiastical policy would depend on the voluntas (free will or discretion) of one person, who was sometimes more inadequate than everyone else and 39. LATOMUS, Disputatioquodlibetica (n. 38), p. 211v° (D)-212 (A-C). 40. N. TANNER (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, II, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 1990, pp. 742-753. 41. LATOMUS, Disputatioquodlibetica (n. 38), p. 211 (D)-211v° (A-B). 42. DIERICKX, Documents(n. 6), I, p. 119.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM

33

fell short in his duties”43. According to Sonnius, an ecclesiastical council (senatusecclesiasticum) consisting of archpriests, archdeacons and apostolic and episcopal inquisitors, could, counter-influence and prevent the bishop gaining too much power, if necessary. The council also had to urge the bishop to fulfill his duties properly. Although these consiliarii dioecesani remained jurisdictionally subordinate to the bishop, they themselves would be hierarchically higher than their fellow canons. Sonnius emphasized the importance of the erudition and morally excellent way of life of the episcopal staff. In Sonnius’ plan this council was composed of six canons (three archpriests and three archdeacons), to which one canon of noble descent was added, and it was chaired by the bishop himself. The appointment in the diocesan administration of noble political pawns without any training and affinity with pastoral care would in any case be out of the question, because “like the moth in the clothes, so is the nobility without erudition amongst the clergy”44. The three archpriests (one in the episcopal city, two outside) were to supervise preaching activities and the administration of the sacraments. The powers of this council would be diverse: determination of the diocesan policy, jurisdiction, management of all matters clerical, organization of the examinations for the pastor candidates, and other related duties. These six canons would also have inquisitorial authority. Sonnius’ scheme therefore also involved a restructuring of the inquisitorial apparatus. In his plan, Sonnius curiously remained somewhat on the surface as regards the personal qualities of the bishop. Only in the introduction does he speak of the bishop as a shepherd, with reference to Matt 9,36-3845. There was nothing in his plan about the education of the future bishop. This may have had to do with the proposals for the financing of the dioceses. In case an abbey had to be incorporated in the episcopal table, the abbot could become a bishop, but in those years not all abbots had obtained an academic degree. Sonnius’ pragmatic proposals were focused on a higher goal: to provide appropriate pastoral care to the faithful in order to counteract heresies. That was exactly what Ruard Tapper intended: church reform and reorientation of clerical culture as a strategy against heresy. The bishop – and his collaborators – constituted the driving force in that movement.

43. Ibid. 44. Ibid., p. 117. 45. Ibid., pp. 108-109.

34

G. GIELIS

III. THE ‘EPISCOPAL TURN’ OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY AND ITS IMPACT ON ECCLESIAL REFORM IN THE LOW COUNTRIES The writings of Latomus and Tapper reflect a renewed concern for pastoral needs and duties in the sixteenth-century Church. The Protestant Reformation and the spread of heterodox convictions made these pastoral considerations even more urgent. This ‘pastoral turn’ went hand in hand with a renewed focus on the figure of the bishop. Both the theoretical approach and the practical realization of the reassessment of the bishop’s office and its duties had already begun elsewhere in Latin Christianity46. In the first decades of the sixteenth century, long before a general council was organized where the episcopal office was being discussed, several bishops in Western Europe (like Gian Matteo Giberti in Verona, Guillaume Briçonnet in Meaux, Nicolas Psaume in Verdun, John Fisher in Rochester) attempted to put into practice a regenerated, pastoral approach of the bishop’s office47. Individual bishops thus played an active role in the reform and renewal of the Church. In addition, this reorientation also received a more theoretical framework in treatises of some ecclesiastical authors who redefined the episcopal function as a role model48. In 1517, for example, the Venetian diplomat and later cardinal Gasparo Contarini had written an important treatise on the episcopal office49. For him, the bishop was ideally a shepherd and a teacher leading the grassroots faithful. He also stressed the importance of good instruction of the faithful by the bishop. Yet that was only possible if the residence requirement was maintained. Contarini stayed at the court of Charles V between 1521 and 1525 and for a few months he also resided in the Netherlands50. It is 46. See H. JEDIN, L’évêquedanslatraditionpastoraleduXVIesiècle, transl. P. Broutin, Brugge, Desclée de Brouwer, 1953; G. BEDOUELLE, TheReformofCatholicism,14801620,Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008,pp. 59-63; M.A. MULLETT, TheCatholicReformation, London – New York, Routledge, 1999, pp. 17-22; J. BERGIN, TheCounter-ReformationChurchandItsBishops, in Past&Present 165 (1999) 30-73. 47. A. PROSPERI, Tra Evangelismo e Controriforma: G.M.Giberti (1495-1543), Roma, Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1969; M. VEISSIÈRE, L’évêque Guillaume Briçonnet (14701534): Contribution à la connaissance de la Réforme catholique à la veille du Concile de Trente, Provins, Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, 1986; B. ARDURA, NicolasPsaume,pionnierdelaRéformecatholique:Histoired’unPrémontrédevenuévêquedeVerdun(1548-1575) ausiècleduconciledeTrente (Lotharingia, 17), Nancy, Société Thierry Alix, 2010; M. DOWLING, FisherofMen:ALifeofJohnFisher,1469-1535, New York, Palgrave MacMillan, 1999. 48. JEDIN, L’évêque (n. 46). 49. Ibid., pp. 38-43; F. CESAREO, TheEpiscopacyinSixteenth-CenturyItaly, in K. COMERFORD – H. PABEL (eds.), EarlyModernCatholicism.EssaysinHonourofJohnW.O’Malley, S.J., Toronto – Buffalo – London, University of Toronto Press, 2001, 67-83, pp. 70-71. 50. E. GLEASON, GasparoContarini:Venice,RomeandReform, Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – Oxford, University of California Press, 1993, pp. 29-31.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM

35

presumable that Contarini met Leuven theologians and exchanged ideas about these matters with them. The restoration of the episcopal office was a vital component in the refashioning of early modern Catholicism51. For this momentous turning point in the evolution of the early modern Church, I would like to coin the term ‘episcopal turn’. This term points to the processes of reinvigoration of the episcopal office and of the restoration of the bishop as the principal pastor of his flock and as the leader of the diocesan clergy. This was a very gradual, but general evolution in the entire early modern Catholic world. Nonetheless, this shift in mindset incited major consequences in all echelons of the Church. The ‘episcopal turn’ was ultimately codified in the decrees of the Council of Trent (in particular, the reformation decrees of Session VI in 1547, of Sessions XIII and XIV in 1551 and of Sessions XXIV and XXV in 1563), thus heralding a ‘new age of the bishop’52. Sonnius was present during both the first and second term of the Council. Undoubtedly, the conciliar decrees have also influenced Sonnius and confirmed his ideas, which had previously been imbued by Tapper. Sonnius’ reform scheme and SuperUniversas breathe the same spirit. The ‘episcopal turn’ was by no means a Leuven innovation. The ideas of Latomus and Tapper did not come completely out of the blue: they subscribed to an ‘undercurrent’ already existing within the Church. From secondary literature on Catholic reform it appears that the lukewarm restoration of the episcopal office and its pastoral duties in the first half of the sixteenth century was primarily a matter of a few bishops, acting as pioneers in the episcopal turn. Authors reflecting on the episcopal office were often in some way involved in the administration of the Church. The ‘episcopal turn’ did indeed occur in a significant way on the diocesan level. Remarkably, this was not the case in the Low Countries. There, the Leuven faculty of theology played a pioneering role. The writings of Latomus and Tapper demonstrate that in the decades before the Council of Trent and SuperUniversas, ideas about the revitalization of the bishop’s office circulated and fermented in the Leuven theological milieu. The faculty constituted a platform for development and transfer of such ideas. In response to the Reformation, the faculty grew into a pioneer of Catholic reform, while promoting the regeneration of clerical culture53. 51. BERGIN, TheCounter-ReformationChurch (n. 46). 52. TANNER, Decrees (n. 40), pp. 686-689. 53. G. GIELIS, Hemelbestormers:Leuvensetheologenenhunstrevennaargeloofseenheidenkerkvernieuwing, unpublished dissertation, KU Leuven, 2014.

36

G. GIELIS

This is an important conclusion. Many alumni of the theological faculty secured high positions in the ecclesiastical apparatus. In this way, in the course of the sixteenth century a shift of mentality occurred amongst a substantial part of the high clergy in the Low Countries. Numerous alumni zealously supported the program of Catholic reform, certainly after the establishment of the new dioceses in the 1560s. Franciscus Sonnius, too, was first initiated to ideas about church reform while studying at the faculty of theology. As demonstrated, the diocesan scheme shows in its pastoral dimension strong parallels with Tapper’s ideas about clerical disciplining and especially about the bishop as a spearhead of renewal and reform. In this sense, the new bishopric scheme can be considered as a reflection of the ‘episcopal turn’. Which of Sonnius’ proposals ultimately made it to SuperUniversas? Intermittent steps in the negotiation process show that his pastoral ambitions and proposals have effortlessly survived the many negotiations, suggesting that a broad consensus existed54. However, not all of his ideas readily appear in Super Universas. The bull merely discusses the geographical reorganization, the (provisional) financing of the dioceses and the right of nomination granted to the landlord, so as to propose candidate bishops to the Pope for appointment (with the exception of the archdiocese of Cambrai). The bull also refers to the person of the bishop, even more than Sonnius’ diocese plan does. The Pope wanted “to appoint such bishops, that they may edify the sheep entrusted to them by both their example and by their words”55. The bull also mentions the requirement that bishops had the degree of doctor or licentiate in theology or both rights. The bishops indeed had to be assisted by “a good number of pious and learned men”, but SuperUniversas does not speak of the episcopal collaborators56. Only in the circumscription and dotation bulls Exinjuncto nobis, De statu ecclesiarum and Regimini universalis Ecclesiae, issued in 1561-62, Sonnius’ proposal to make an episcopal staff of nine graduated canons was adopted57. These canons were indeed given extensive responsibilities in the administration of the diocese. The duty of residence was once again stressed. The reform of the inquisitorial apparatus in the 54. A. MIRAEUS – J. FOPPENS, Diplomatum Belgicorum collectio nova, III, Brussel, Foppens, 1734, pp. 517-520. 55. ARAB, Audiëntie, 592, nr. 5. Edited in G. BROM, Romeinschebronnenvoorden kerkelijk-staatkundigen toestand der Nederlanden in de 16de eeuw, ’s-Gravenhage, Nijhoff, 1922, pp. 69-74, esp. 69. 56. Ibid. 57. The bulls are edited in MIRAEUS – FOPPENS, Diplomatum (n. 54), I, pp. 476-481, 482-488, 610-617 and II, pp. 903-911, 1066-1073, 1077-1083, 1085-1091 and 1298-1304 and in BROM, Romeinschebronnen (n. 55), pp. 76-95, 99-114.

VIRIDOCTIETPERITIRERUMDIVINARUM

37

way Sonnius had in mind, however, was not mentioned in the bulls. Nor did Leuven become an archdiocese, probably much to Sonnius’ disappointment. The university city did not even get an episcopal see. That proposal must have died on the negotiating table, even before Sonnius left for Rome. In Philip’s instructions for Sonnius (March 1558), Leuven as an archdiocese had already disappeared from the picture58. Instead of Sonnius’ two-fold organization, the committee opted for a tripartite structure with an archdiocese in Utrecht, one in Mechelen and one in Cambrai. By choosing Mechelen, the committee prevented the theological faculty from becoming an extension of the archbishop and his chapter59. In the process of realization of Super Universas, Leuven re-emerged several times as a candidate for the see, but political circumstances ultimately made governor-general Alva discard the idea and a see was erected in Antwerp instead. Sonnius was forced to deal with even more disappointments. As the first bishop of ’s-Hertogenbosch and later of Antwerp, he, like all other bishops, had to experience first hand how difficult it was to achieve reform60. Worse still, the reform of the dioceses contributed indirectly to the outbreak of a revolt in the Low Countries, because the realization of the revolutionary measures – in combination with a harsh policy in heresy repression, the implementation of the Tridentine decrees and a headstrong king – put the political situation in the Low Countries under strain. A few newly established dioceses in the northern provinces have therefore never really got on the rails and as a result of the civil war they were dissolved. To assess the results of SuperUniversas is not the aim of this contribution. It is clear, however, that the ‘episcopal turn’ had a major influence on the diocesan scheme via the Leuven theological faculty. The bulls remodeling the ecclesiastical landscape of the Low Countries echo the vision of Leuven theologians such as Sonnius, Tapper and Latomus. Although Super Universas can thus to a certain extent be labeled as a ‘Leuven project’, its realization at first was not. It is known that many bishops who were appointed to the new sees had a Leuven background: they were professors or had obtained their doctor’s degree at the university of Leuven – since Leuven was the only university of the Low Countries, this is of course self-evident. However, several of these ‘Leuven 58. MIRAEUS – FOPPENS, Diplomatum(n. 54), III, pp. 517-520. 59. POSTMA, Nieuwlicht(n. 3), p. 24. 60. T. GOOSSENS, Franciscus Sonnius, in Bossche Bijdragen 1 (1917-18) 47-55; 2 (1918-1919) 49-78; J. VAN DEN NIEUWENHUIZEN, FranciscusSonnius,eerstebisschopvan Antwerpen (1570-1576), in Post Factum. Jaarboek voor Geschiedenis en Volkskunde 2 bis (2010) 61-99.

38

G. GIELIS

bishops’ were not the initial candidates. It was only when other candidates passed away or were otherwise dismissed that the government looked to Leuven professors as possible candidates61. The introduction of the new dioceses equally incited an upsurge in Leuven alumni in the diocesan administration, although this was often a slow process. A substantial overview of the ‘personnel’ of the episcopal curias after 1559 is still lacking, but there are good indications that the bishops have tried to surround themselves with proper collaborators – viridoctietperitirerum divinarum62. This shift was in line with Sonnius’ desire for the development of a well-trained senior staff and with the stipulations of the Council of Trent. Through SuperUniversas a significant change occurred in the professional profile of the bishops and their collaborators. The great majority of the bishops who were appointed in the decades after 1559 had a very different profile and mindset than before SuperUniversas63. Thus, the ‘episcopal turn’, cultivated in the Leuven theological milieu and concretized in Sonnius’ plans, had a major impact in the Low Countries. SuperUniversas foreshadowed a new era: on the basis of Sonnius’ suggestions it redefined the episcopal office and its pastoral responsibilities in a Tridentine sense. SuperUniversas was put into practice by fits and starts. Not only did it adapt the ecclesiastical geography better to pastoral needs, but the diocesan administration equally, and importantly, received a make-over. In the Southern provinces the new bishops and their collaborators would play a pioneering role in the Catholic offensive of the Counter-Reformation, just as Sonnius had anticipated. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Gert GIELIS

61. GIELIS, Hemelbestormers (n. 53), pp. 398-401. 62. Ibid., pp. 402-404. 63. D. PASSCHYN, HetepiscopaatindeSpaanseenOostenrijkseNederlanden(15591801):Eenvergelijkendestudienaardeafkomst,socialestatus,studiesenpre-episcopale loopbaan,unpublished thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1998.

A PROTESTANT POLEMIST AMONG THE ALUMNI OF THE LEUVEN FACULTY OF THEOLOGY HENRICUS BOXHORNIUS DURING THE EIGHTY YEARS WAR IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

In a long foregone past, scholars described the religious history of the early modern Low Countries as a progressive polarization between Catholics and Protestants. Both from a confessional and a nationalist perspective, there were good reasons to focus research on the stark differences among the early modern churches and confessions. From the 1960s onwards, though, Juliaan Woltjer, and many historians of the Reformation alongside and after him, emphasized the existence of large centrist groups in the “Seventeen Provinces” around the estuaries of Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt. The argument went that, between the extremes of Tridentine Catholics and Orthodox Calvinists, there existed a broad spectrum of those who were indifferent, undecided, or those who refused both extremes and composed their own opinions and beliefs. According to Woltjer, these “middle groups” (middengroepen) played an important role in events of Revolt in the Low Countries before they were finally forced to take a side during the final decades of the sixteenth century. Today, scholars are once again paying attention to the controversies among different confessions, and especially to the role of converts and exiles in the religious radicalization process of the Eighty Years War. In contrast to the 1960s, historians no longer attempt to prove the authenticity of their “own” confessional groups, but rather to study early modern conversions and exile experiences as complex and contingent processes that are embedded in a specific social and cultural context1. Through this lens, the conversions of an alumnus of the Leuven Faculty of Theology, the Brabantine Hendrik Bochorinck or Henricus

1. J. POLLMANN, CatholicIdentityandtheRevoltoftheNetherlands, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011; G.H. JANSSEN, The Exile Experience, in A. BAMJI – G.H. JANSSEN – M. LAVEN (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to the Counter- Reformation, Farnham, Ashgate, 2013, 73-90. A review essay on these changing historiographies: V. SOEN, WhichReligiousHistoryforthe(Two)EarlyModernNetherlandsbefore1648?Questions,TrendsandPerspectives, in RHE112 (2017) 758-788. The authors wish to thank Dr. Jane Judge (Research Group Early Modern History, KU Leuven) sincerely for her invaluable help with translating and editing this chapter.

40

V. SOEN – J. FRANÇOIS

Boxhornius (1545-c.1631)2 provide an interesting case study. His several confessional changes of heart, and his multiple relocations, sparked a centuries-long war of positions fought between Catholic and Protestant authors. For Catholics, Boxhornius was a deserter who fled from the Southern Netherlands to become a minister in the Calvinist church in Breda and Leiden for profit and to feed his sexual appetite for Sibylla Styls; for Protestants, the same Boxhornius was converted to the “true” church by God’s grace and after thorough theological study3. Post-Second World War historiography would have placed Boxhornius in Woltjer’s “middle groups” because over the course of his eighty-six years he consecutively confessed Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinistic faiths, thus illustrating the great elasticity in churches and confessions possible at the time. Yet Boxhornius is better assessed within the recently rediscovered group of converts and radicalizing refugees during the religious conflict of the Eighty Years War: he was able to take up leadership roles in all three churches, and engaged himself in the polemical battle with his respective theological opponents. His concubinage with and marriage to Sibylla Styls became, for his opponents, targets for attack; for the man himself, his relationship represented only one facet of his conversion to Protestantism and his flight from Brabant to the Dutch Republic. While many lacunae in the records remain, Boxhornius’s life is documented in a series of printed and archival sources. First and foremost are his printed polemics and epistolary debates with the Jesuit Johannes van Gouda, with theologian and priest Peter van Dornick, and especially with the bishop of Roermond, Henricus Cuyckius, whom he met as a professor of theology in Leuven. Some of the printed sources can be found in the Maurits Sabbe Library in Leuven, in the preciosa for which Leo Kenis

2. Referring correctly to this historical figure is a tricky business: in the first part of his life, he went by Hendrik Bochorinck or even Bocherinc, himself signing as Boxhoren and Bochoren, but gradually he refashioned himself in Latin as Henricus Boxhornius, thereby deliberately (but falsely) associating himself with the noble Brabant lineage of this name. Eventually, his Latinized name became decisive, as his grandchildren took it to carry on his legacy. Hence, Henricus will appear as ‘Boxhornius’ throughout the article, which makes his identification easier from an international perspective. 3. Catholic denunciations of Boxhornius: J.-N. PAQUOT, Mémoirespourserviràl’histoire littéraire des dix-sept provinces des Pays-Bas, de la principauté de Liège, et de quelques contrées voisines, I, Leuven, Imprimerie académique, 1765; C. RAHLENBEEK, Bochorinc (Henri) ou Boxhorn, in BN 2 (1868) 548-551. Protestant defenses: Hendrik Boxhorn, in A.J. VAN DER AA, BiographischwoordenboekderNederlanden, II, Haarlem, Van Brederode, 1855, 1120-1122; Hendrik Boxhorn, in H. VISSCHER – L.A. VAN LANGERAAD, Biografisch woordenboek van protestantsche geleerden in Nederland, I, Utrecht, Kemink & Zoon, 1907, 550; Boxhorn, in P. MOLHUYSEN – P. BLOK (eds.), Nieuw NederlandschBiografischWoordenboek, II, Leiden, Sijthoff, 1912, 236.

HENRICUS BOXHORNIUS DURING THE EIGHTY YEARS WAR

41

has worked so hard. The municipal archives in Tienen house a manuscript, written in Latin and Dutch, in which Boxhornius lists finances, together with love letters and an overview of his library; it offers an exceptional biographical testimony that has not yet been studied in its totality4. This chapter brings together this extraordinary combination of printed and archival documents for the first time, but many riddles remain about the curious way of life of this as yet obscure former priest. This contribution mainly aims to provide inspiration for future research into Boxhornius, with preference and priority for projects using the rich collection of rare books in the Maurits Sabbe Library and the University Library in Leuven5. I. CATHOLIC Little is known about Henricus Boxhornius’s parents or his own youth. Around 1545 he was born to Goedele Labuse and Melchior, a gravedigger for the Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-ter-Kapelle church. It was probably a member of the chapter of this Brussels church, Ghislenus de Vroede, who made sure that Boxhornius studied in Leuven. His registration between 1568 and 1569 in the university records is a rare trace of his student days6. The young man certainly did not distinguish himself, and only graduated twenty-fifth in his cohort at the Faculty of Arts. He started the baccalaureate at the higher Faculty of Theology, where he received instruction from professors Henricus Gravius, Cornelius Jansenius, and probably also his patron Ghislenus de Vroede7. Given this theological training, Boxhornius must have been aware of the controversies surrounding the method popular theology professor Michael Baius used, trying to convert Protestants by 4. Tienen, Hagelands historisch documentatiecentrum (formerly: City archives of Tienen), Kerkelijke archieven van Brabant, nr. 2.281, Ms. Hendrik Boxhornius (concerns the years 1576-1586 specifically). Former city archivist Staf Thomas is planning to edit the inventory of books in this particular manuscript in the near future. 5. J. FRANÇOIS, HendrikBoxhorinck(1544-1631):Tussenpaus,LutherenCalvijn.Deziel indeweegschaal,unpublished MA-thesis, Department of History, KU Leuven, 2014, in which she elaborated some of the subjects analyzed in this chapter. Though she wanted to publish her research results, her career as a high school history teacher refrained her from doing so. The current contribution co-authored by her supervisor aims to put Boxhornius in a broader perspective, opening avenues for further research, especially in the field of the history of theology. 6. Leuven, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Archives Old University of Leuven, QuartusLiber Intitulatorum28February1529-31augustus1569, nr. 682, matriculation records 15681569, fol. 441. 7. B. BOUTE, AcademicInterestsandCatholicConfessionalisation:TheLouvainPrivilegesofNominationtoEcclesiasticalBenefices, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2010, p. 229.

42

V. SOEN – J. FRANÇOIS

discussing grace and free will in an Augustinian vocabulary. According to Cuyckius’s later testimony, however, Boxhornius was mainly to be found among the enthusiastic supporters of Robert Bellarminus, who taught at the Leuven Jesuit College between 1570 and 15768. In any case, the student must have become acquainted with the theological stakes of the schism between Catholicism and Protestantism at this early stage. Though Boxhornius was not predestined for a career at the Faculty of Theology, he did take the usual ecclesiastical cursus honorum, giving no direct indication that he would later switch to the Protestant side. After completing his baccalaureate in theology, Boxhornius was ordained a priest, and on 1 July 1571, he celebrated his first mass in Brussels in the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwter-Kapelle. As with his studies, he probably was able to preach in his childhood parish church through the intervention of de Vroede9. From 1572 onwards, then, Boxhornius made a swift career in the church at Tienen (or Tirlemont in French), a trade and textile Brabant city. Boxhornius became chaplain and then priest at the collegiate church Saint Germanus, the town’s most important parish and the most impressive church of the surrounding countryside and towns. The establishment of the new ecclesiastical province of Mechelen in 1559, part of the larger bishopric reform brought about by King Philip II, meant that the region’s church landscape had undergone major changes not long before Boxhornius’s arrival. Tienen had fallen under jurisdiction of the new metropolitan see in Mechelen; in this constellation, Boxhornius was then promoted to rural dean of Tienen in 1574, when such appointments were made for the entire ecclesiastical province. In that position, he became responsible for the clergy of the city of Tienen and its surroundings – in practice about forty parishes10. Around 1576 (or earlier?) he was designated an archpriest, and in 1578 he was appointed dean of the chapter of Saint Germanus, which ceremonially held the first dignity within the clergy of Tienen. Boxhornius certainly owed this remarkable and swift advancement to important patrons, but the ongoing Dutch Revolt also created the need for available and competent staff11. 8. H. CUYCKIUS, ParaeneticadeHenricoBochorinck,DesertoreCatholicaeReligionis, Antwerp, Johannes Masius, 1595, p. 8. 9. W. MEINDERSMA, Over het protestantisme in Westelijk Brabant, in Nederlands ArchiefvoorKerkgeschiedenis 8 (1915) 297-321, pp. 309-310. 10. F. DE RIDDER, Thienen,GeschiedenisderCollegialeKerkvandenH.Germanus, Tienen, Jos. Vanhoebroeck-Goidts, 1906, p. 17. 11. Although the right of patronage for Saint Germanus was officially granted to the Liège chapter of Saint John the Evangelist, it seems rather that the curia of the Mechelen archbishop intervened. Given this, Ghislenus De Vroede could once again have aided Boxhornius, especially because he was also member of the Liège episcopal court.

HENRICUS BOXHORNIUS DURING THE EIGHTY YEARS WAR

43

Through its central location in Brabant, Tienen was at the crossroads of the ongoing religious and political troubles of the time. On the first page of his manual, Boxhornius scrawled an adage of Desiderius Erasmus – Dulcebelluminexpertis – in both Latin and Greek12. Those were not empty words. As a rural dean, Boxhornius managed the church in Tienen and surrounding area during the crucial years of the Revolt led by prince William of Orange; in particular, the duchy of Brabant endured heavy violence of marching and mutinying soldiers. In September 1572, insurgent Orangist troops sacked the city, but it was taken back in December by marauding royal troops. Four years later, on 14 September 1576, these royal troops defeated the rebellious party in nearby Vissenaken. In 1578, however, Governor Don Juan of Austria had to leave Tienen unguarded, whereupon the insurgents plundered the city repeatedly in the following month. On 2 May 1582, troops of the insurgent Estates General once again burned the city13. These repeated sackings by both contending parties meant that Boxhornius’s ecclesiastical career in Tienen was much more than a sinecure. As many other clergyman of the time, when danger came too close, Boxhornius chose to leave his flock, albeit temporarily. It appears from the sources that he fled Tienen for the first time in the turbulent year 1576. In the aftermath of the battle at Vissenaken in September of that year, the archpriest seems to have left for the prince-bishopric of Liège. His later opponents believe that while there he made preparations to join the Jesuits, while others maintained it was the Carthusians – in any case, he entered neither order14. More is known about his flight in 1578, when he stayed in Liège, a fact confirmed by his hand and not just the claims of his antagonists15. Perhaps his adversaries were ultimately mistaken about the flight in 1576, believing it to be what was actually his 1578 escape, when he may well have tried to gain protection by entering an order. In 1578, Boxhornius documented his love for Sibylla Styls for the first time, alongside accompanying doubts about the merits and necessities of celibacy. Sibylla might have belonged to Tienen’s city patriciate, but almost nothing is known about her origins. In a love letter, hastily written 12. Ms. Boxhornius, fol. 1. 13. P. BETS, GeschiedenisdergemeentenOplinter,BunsbeekenHauthem,alsookder abdijvanOplinter, Leuven, Fonteyn, 1870, p. 87, all under the jurisdiction of Boxhornius were totally destroyed in 1576; P. BETS, Histoire de la ville et des institutions de Tirlemont, Leuven, Fontegor, 1860, p. 142; J. TARLIER – A WAUTERS, Lavieancienneet moderne:GéographieethistoiredescommunesBelges.ArrondissementdeLouvain.Ville deTirlemont,Brussels, Decq et Duhent, 1874, p. 5. 14. RAHLENBEEK, Bochorinck(Henri)ouBoxhorn (n. 3), p. 550. 15. Ms. Boxhornius, fol. 9.

44

V. SOEN – J. FRANÇOIS

in Liège in September 1578, Boxhornius did not seem to be plagued by remorse or regret. On the contrary, he praised his beloved with Biblical comparisons, especially references to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. The priest encouraged his beloved to take heart, comparing her to the Biblical Judith, and urged her to continue to pray to God and to ignore the many spiteful rumors swirling round her. He gave the impression that he believed that God had predetermined and approved their relationship. Since Boxhornius wrote to her from his exile in Liège, they were at least then not living in concubinage, something which the first provincial Council in Mechelen in 1570 had forbidden with harsh stipulations. At the time, he continued to deny the relationship to his superiors. Around 1580, however, he fled with his pregnant lover to Mondorff, near Aachen, where he married her (according to the Protestant version of the story). The birth of their daughter Anna marked the start of a tumultuous life together. In the eighteenth century, the biographer Paquot asserted that Sibylla must have had to account for the child in 1580 in Leuven and pay a fine for her relationship with the rural dean of Tienen16. It appears that despite his concubinage and fatherhood, both of which coincided with turbulent times in Brabant, Boxhornius maintained his role as a rural dean, probably because of the ongoing religious and civil strife and the lack of Catholic clergy available. In May 1582 he returned to Tienen from Mondorff. After the relentless looting of the previous year, the rural dean especially tried to restore the Saint Germanus church back to its former state. He immediately made an inventory of the damage in the collegiate church, also listing all the goods he collected from neighboring churches with which to decorate the devastated collegiate church17. He borrowed robes, silverware, monstrances, and even clocks and relics from priests from local hamlets. Moreover, private patrons gave generously to restore damaged churches in the area. Boxhornius apparently attached importance to the visual and material representation of faith, which was also prescribed by the Council of Trent. Later, his Catholic opponents would accuse him of having stolen many of these treasures, feeding his ambition to maintain his own luxury and standard of living. Again according to his opponents, Boxhornius hoped to gain the episcopal seat of ’s-Hertogenbosch (Bois-le-Duc) around this time, in particular after the death of bishop Laurentius Metsius on 18 September 1580. Allegedly he attempted to contact the president of the Grand Council of Mechelen 16. PAQUOT, Mémoires (n. 3), p. 104. Also here, it might be possible that the author is referring to Cuyckius’s 1584 investigations. 17. Ms. Boxhornius, fol. 65.

HENRICUS BOXHORNIUS DURING THE EIGHTY YEARS WAR

45

to solicit the position, yet before he could be granted the bishop’s seat, Boxhornius first had to acquire a licentiate in theology. Paquot stated that in these circumstances, once again, Boxhornius received the help from his old professor Gravius and graduated on 24 August 158618. However, over the course of the search for Metsius’s replacement, Boxhornius was never mentioned as a possible successor, and, in any case, episcopal succession in ’s-Hertogenbosch was arranged before he could graduate. More clear from the sources though is that at that juncture, Boxhornius’s behavior was being evaluated by his superiors. An official investigation, led by his later archrival Cuyckius, concluded that, though he had violated his vow of celibacy, he at least not contravened his duties as a rural dean. Perhaps obtaining his master’s degree in theology presented as an opportunity to find rehabilitation after he was passed over, and he was mainly helped by old friends who feared he would otherwise transfer to another church. Cuyckius’s rather favorable conclusion may also have been meant as a means to preserve Boxhornius within the Roman Catholic fold. II. LUTHERAN Posterity will probably never know the exact year of Boxhornius’s conversion to Protestantism, as indeed he recorded different versions about it himself. Sometimes the man claimed that his conversion to Protestantism followed the birth of his daughter, which would date it to sometime around 1580 in Mondorff. However, the conversion would then have happened before his return to Brabant in 1582, when he tried to restore the Saint Germanus and still acted in his capacity as Catholic rural dean. In 1584, then, he made an inventory of his books, showing that he was already reading humanist authors such as Erasmus and reformed authors including Luther and Calvin. Later on, Boxhornius situated his resignation and final break with the Catholic church around 1585, and indeed, sometime before 1586 his demise as rural dean and archpriest of Tienen followed, as did his replacement by Martinus Witters19. Regardless of when exactly he was spiritually reborn, after his conversion to Lutheranism, Boxhornius was able to stay in Mondorff and Warmskirchen (Wermelskirchen) in the Duchy of Berg, then under the 18. PAQUOT, Mémoires(n. 3), p. 104. 19. DE RIDDER, Thienen (n. 10), pp. 77-78. Again, there seems to be confusion amongst his opponents regarding when this visitation took place. It must have occurred sometime between 1584 and 1586.

46

V. SOEN – J. FRANÇOIS

rule of the mediator Lutheran Duke William V of Cleves (1516-1592)20. Little is known about Boxhornius’s time in the Duchy of Berg. He probably tried to calm the tumultuous effects of his conversion. In 1592, he left the area and moved with his family to Woerden, in the former Catholic archdiocese of Utrecht, then a Lutheran enclave between Calvinist church communities21. Whether the family moved on their own initiative or at the request of fellow believers in Woerden remains unclear to date. Boxhornius’s conversion also produced confessional boundaries within his family. Cuyckius drew attention to the grief it caused his mother, employed as a housekeeper in Leuven by noble lords, but there are no concrete sources for this22. Boxhornius’s older brother Gaspar, however, seemed to be inspired to convert to Lutheranism too. In 1586, after his monastery had been destroyed then rebuilt following an uprising in Scheut, he attempted to poison his superior at Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-ter-Pore in order to escape his monastic life. Apparently, during the monastery’s sacking, Gaspar had met a Protestant woman from Antwerp. His attempt to murder his superior ultimately paved the way for a marriage to this woman, after which they, too, fled to Warmskirchen23. Cuyckius’s account (and later Paquot’s) about the attempted murder is confirmed in the 1629 Rerum gestarum held by the Brussels branch of the Carthusian Order, which strikingly also identifies Henricus as the cause of his brother’s apostasy24. Memories about the apostasy of both brothers thus survived long in the Brussels region. Ultimately, especially Cuyckius took Boxhornius’s conversion very personally; probably feeling betrayed after having concluded his investigation of concubinage in Boxhornius’s favor. When the converted Protestant later professed a denigrating view of the Leuven Faculty of Theology, Cuyckius was livid. Boxhornius’s attack on Leuven was likely the basis of the conflict that raged between the two gentlemen after 1595. Cuyckius, for example, reproached him for changing his name from Bochorink to Boxhorn (or in Latin Boxhornius) after his apostasy25. The altered version forged an imagined affinity with the prominent Brabantine Boxhorn family, which for many centuries had been connected with the Leuven city council and with whom Cuyckius cherished warm relations. The allegations were not without 20. PAQUOT, Mémoires(n. 3), p. 104. 21. VISSCHER – VAN LANGERAAD, HendrikBoxhorn (n. 3), p. 550. 22. CUYCKIUS, Paraenetica (n. 8),p. 14; [G. DE VRINDT], Worm=CruytvoorM.Hendrick Boxhorinck,PredicantendeMinistertotBreda, Brussels, Rutgeert Velpius, 1606, p. 8. 23. CUYCKIUS, Paraenetica (n. 8), p. 15; PAQUOT, Mémoires(n. 3), p. 103. 24. Brussels, Royal Library Albert I, ms. 7044-7046, fol. 164: Collectaneum Rerum gestarumetEventuumCartusiaeBruxellensiscumalijsexternistumpatriaetumOrdinis. Scheut(Anderlecht)>Brussel (http://www.cartusiana.org/node/13?q=node/1010). 25. CUYCKIUS, Paraenetica(n. 8), p. 26.

HENRICUS BOXHORNIUS DURING THE EIGHTY YEARS WAR

47

substance. From his conversion on, the former rural dean for Tienen began signing his letters Boxhoren as well as Bochoren, while he fashioned himself Boxhornius on his printed matter. For Cuyckius, then appointed as bishop of Roermond, this was megalomanic. Certainly, the name change put certain later historians on the wrong track, wrongly associating Boxhornius with the Brabant family to whom he actually had no connections26. III. CALVINIST Eventually, in Woerden, Boxhornius converted to Calvinism and convinced his Lutheran church community to end their confessional isolation and do the same. As a result, he became involved in a conflict with the local magistrate, which cost him his position on 29 June 160027. Nevertheless, he stayed in Woerden for a while. The registers of Holland show that Boxhornius asked permission to go to Breda in 1602 (at the latest). There, he proved himself an extremely active preacher and polemist within the Calvinist church. He soon found himself in the city’s intellectual circles, befriending John Polyander and Lazare Bayard, while also successfully currying favor with Justinus van Nassau28. He also became rector of the local Latin school, where he showed himself capable enough that he was soon entrusted with the oversight of the city’s other schools29. He became involved in an intense polemic with several Catholic priests and clergy members. Mainly during the years just prior to and during the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621), Boxhornius was active in disputes with Jesuits30. He actively interfered with Catholic church services, even at an advanced age when he was plagued by gout. Nevertheless, as a way of discrediting his principles, his Catholic enemies Cornelis Hanecop and Paulus van Wouw claimed Catholic elements could still be discerned in Boxhornius’s theology31. Family life remained important: by 1617, his nuclear family was reunited in Breda. His daughter Anna had married the preacher Jacob 26. L. MORERI etal., Legranddictionnairehistoriqueoulemélangecurieuxdel’histoiresacréeetprofane, II, Paris, Libraires Associés, 1725, p. 436. 27. VISSCHER – VAN LANGERAAD, HendrikBoxhorn (n. 3), p. 551. 28. PAQUOT, Mémoires(n. 3), p. 104. 29. C. BROK, De verhouding openbaar-bijzonder onderwijs in Breda gedurende de negentiende eeuw, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, Faculty of Arts, 1965, p. 3. 30. O. VAN DER MEIJ, TussenOranjeenSpanje:DeleefwereldvandeBredaseregenten 1550-1700, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Leiden, Faculty of Arts, 2012, p. 17. 31. S. ZILVERBERG, HanecopCorneli(us), in Biografischlexiconvoordegeschiedenis vanhetNederlandseprotestantisme, III, Kampen, Kok, 1988, 163-164.

48

V. SOEN – J. FRANÇOIS

Zuerius (1579-1617) around 1610, as she fled from the southern Netherlands, but after the latter’s death, she went to live with her parents in Breda32. From then on, Boxhornius regarded his grandsons Henricus and Marcus as his intellectual heirs; both boys also took the name Boxhornius, and either dropped their father’s name or included a double family name. Henricus and Marcus also studied with their grandfather. In all probability the curriculum included Latin, classical literature, and a first exploratory study of the Bible. The lessons complemented the study material that the Latin school of Breda provided both boys33. During Spinola’s siege of Breda in 1624, the Boxhornius-Styls family was once again at the center of events. The Catholic propagandist Herman Hugo wrote an influential report of the battle in which he described Styls as a sibylline oracle who called for the destruction of a statue of the Virgin Mary in the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwe church34. After the fall of Breda in 1625, several prints and poems appeared that denounced and mocked the couple. Hieronymus van Suerck (1596-1655) wrote a piece decrying the unchaste ‘Sibylleken’ (little Sibylla)35. A contemporary satirical poem characterized Sibylla as a wife who distrusted her husband’s words36. Leiden was Boxhornius’s last stop, as he moved there with his wife and grandchildren after Breda fell into Habsburg hands37. On 12 August 32. F. VAN LIEBURG, RepertoriumvanNederlandsehervormdepredikantentot1816, I, Dordrecht, [Published by the author], p. 243; J. NIEUWSTRATEN, HistoricalandPolitical ThoughtintheSeventeenth-CenturyDutchRepublic:TheCaseofMarcusZueriusBoxhorn (1612-1653), unpublished doctoral dissertation, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Department of History, 2012, p. 35. Zuerius worked as preacher in Bergen-op-Zoom, and he had four children, the twins Henricus (1612-1640) and Marcus (1612-1653) and two girls Sibylla (°1614) and Constantia (°1617). 33. NIEUWSTRATEN, HistoricalandPoliticalThought (n. 32), p. 38. 34. (The other) M. SABBE, BrabantscheSpotdichtenopdeNederlaagvanChristiaan IVvanDenemarkenteLutterin1626, in VerslagenenmededelingenvandeKoninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde 45 (1931) 747-757, p. 753. H. HERMAN, ObsidioBredanaarmisPhilippiIIIauspiciisIsabellaeductuAmbr.Spinolae, Antwerpen, C. Plantin, 1626, p. 120. 35. [C.H.] LANGENHUYSEN, Bijgelegenheidvaneenhuwelijk, in Dietsche Warande 10 (1874) 321-322, p. 322: MevrouwPredikants,alderliefsteSibylleken,/Aenmerkttochwel ensteltopuwbestebrilleken,/Ofthetoocknaemaalssoogaensalmetuwilleken:/Ghy leeft met een meneedich Priester qualijck ghehoudt,/Ghy leeft oft het al waer tot den bodemtoegoudt,/GhyleeftmeteenApostaetgherustendestoudt;/Ickseggheu:voorwaer (’tenisgecknochgrilleke),/Ghysultnochseerqualijckafrockenditspilleken,/’tEnsal nietwelvergaen:geloofmySibylleken. 36. SABBE, BrabantscheSpotdichten (n. 34), p. 753: quoting Sybille: Maersout’oock waer zijn/ datmen zeyt soo sterck?/Is dan den Deen verdreven voor ghewis/Ghaet het voorwaernietandersinzijnwerck/Soozietmenwel/datGodtnietGeusis/Enaenghezien hetisalzoogheschiet/PreecktnuzoozeerteghendePapenniet. 37. L. BARLAEUS, OratioFunebrisInExcessumClarissimiViri,MarciZueriiBoxhornii, Leiden, P. Leffen, 1653, p. 1.

HENRICUS BOXHORNIUS DURING THE EIGHTY YEARS WAR

49

1626, the eighty-one-year-old enrolled as a philosophy student at the university, together with his two grandsons38. In 1630, the two still mentioned the family patriarch in correspondence, but soon afterwards they ceased to write about him39. Judging by this, the assumption is that he died around 1631; strangely, there have not been any more official extant sources regarding his death uncovered until now40. His family continued to fair well. Grandson Henricus, like his father and grandfather, became a preacher, sermonizing in Terneuzen and Kruisschans, but died in 164041. Marcus Zuerius-Boxhornius, in his turn, surpassed the fame that his grandfather and brother had acquired and became a professor at the University of Leiden. In his prosperity, he did not forget his grandparents and, in his version of the Breda surrender, Historia obsidionis Bredae, he did his best to clear his grandmother’s name42. IV. CONTROVERSIALIST In this last section, we focus on the controversy and polemics which Boxhornius either initiated or provoked throughout his turbulent lifetime. His oeuvre consists of a modest series of pamphlets and tracts that he published with various printers in the Dutch Republic. Unfortunately, only some of these printed works remain as originals, but extant editions (most of which are present in the collections of rare books in the Leuven university libraries) make it possible to assay the theology and polemics of the apostate among the alumni of the Leuven Faculty of Theology. As mentioned at several instances above, Boxhornius engaged in polemic foremost with Henricus Cuyckius, theology professor, rector and chancellor of the University of Leuven, vicar-general of the ecclesiastical province of Mechelen, and eventually bishop of Roermond. The two men first corresponded, and later, each commented on the basis of their edited letters. Boxhornius and Cuyckius had met each other in person at some point, possibly when the latter conducted an investigation into the former’s 38. W. DU RIEU, Album studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae MDLXXVMDCCCLXXV, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1875, p. 194. 39. MarciZuerriiBoxhornii:Epistolaeetpoemata, Amsterdam, Caspar Commelinus, 1662, p. 2. 40. PAQUOT, Mémoires(n. 3), p. 104. 41. NIEUWSTRATEN, HistoricalandPoliticalThought (n. 32),p. 69. 42. M. ZUERIUS BOXHORNIUS, HistoriaobsidionisBredaeetRerumAnniMDCXXXVII gestarum, Leiden, Commelin, 1640, p. 165. In folklore, Sibylla’s name is still associated to the iconoclasm of the statue of Our Lady, De Zwarte Lieve Vrouw van Breda, 2013 (http://www.verhalenbank.nl/items/show/47145).

50

V. SOEN – J. FRANÇOIS

concubinage with Sibylla. Cuyckius himself stated that he knew Boxhornius when he opposed his possible entry to the Jesuits. As mentioned earlier, Boxhornius’s dismissive statements about the Leuven University after he obtained his licentiate probably launched their epistolary battle. Their theological controversy, unsurprisingly, included debates about concubinage and teachings about the Eucharist. In 1595, Cuyckius had Johannes Masius in Antwerp print the ParaeneticadeHenricoBochorinckDesertore Catholicae Religionis, of which reprints and additions followed in 1596 and 159843. The pamphlet, written in Leuven, excoriated Boxhornius, attributing his conversion to pure egoism and the diabolical charms of Sibylla. Boxhornius then counter attacked, defending his new faith (and his marriage) in several printed works. The Anticuykius,written and repeatedly enlarged by Boxhornius, certainly deserves further scholarly investigation to unravel the professed theological stances and nuances. The argument between the two gentlemen dragged on until Cuyckius’s death in 160944. Boxhornius also engaged in contention with Jesuit Johannes van Gouda. First, in his Predicatie of Pr. Joannes de Gouda, he responded to the sermons the Jesuit had pronounced on All Saints Day 1609 in Antwerp, while the Calvinist preacher rejected the mediation of the saints in obtaining salvation. In the subsequent back and forth, Boxhornius framed priestly celibacy as the source of all evil, and dreamed of a new ecumenical council where both parties could enter into debate with each other45. A diligent polemist, Johannes van Gouda struck back, continuously publishing against Boxhornius and other Calvinist preachers, in particular about transubstantiation46. At the same time, Jan Cloeting printed for 43. CUYCKIUS, Paraenetica(n. 8); Henricus CUYCKIUS, Panegyricaeorationesseptem. Addita est, paraenetica in Henricum Bochorinck, catholicae religionis desertorem, Leuven, Philippe Zangre, 1596 (edition available in Maurits Sabbe Library); ID., Epistola paraenetica de Henrico Bochorinck desertore catholicae religionis, [Leuven], Antwerp, Joannes Masius, 1598. 44. Henricus BOXHORNIUS, Commentariorum de eucharistica harmonia libri tres, Leiden, Jan Paets Jacobszoon & Louis Elzevier, 1595; Anticuyckiusetcommentariorum deeucharisticaharmonia,libritres,adversusHenriciCuyckii[…]orationemparaeneticam, Leiden, Louis Elzevier, and Woerden, Andries Verschout, 1598. 45. Henricus BOXHORNIUS, PredicatievanPr.JoannesGoudaIesuwyt,…ghezonden aenHenricusBoxhornium, …, Rotterdam, Felix van Sambix, 1610; ID., Anti-paterGouda, datispatrisJoannisdeGaudapriestersvanJesu-wijtnederslach,oversynpredicatieop den Paeps-alder-heylighen dach ghedaen, Rotterdam, Felix van Sambix, 1611; Daniel, dat is, Godts oordeel voor de victorie […] der waerheyt, tegen het advijs […] Joannis Goudae,Schiedam, A. Van Delft, 1613. 46. BewiisIoannisdeGovda[...]datHenricusDanielBoxhorn[...]is1.eenenqualijck ghereformeerden,2.eenenonverstandighendialecticus,3.eenenvervalscherendebeliegher der schrifturen ende autheuren, 4. eenen beliegher vanden eer. heer pastoor in Halstere, Antwerp, Hieronymus Verdussen, 1614 (KU Leuven, BRES-R5A15001:4) and other tracts.

HENRICUS BOXHORNIUS DURING THE EIGHTY YEARS WAR

51

Boxhornius his more generally dressed Antidotumcatholicum in Delft “in order to fortifye all Christ-loving souls”47. Finally, Boxhornius was involved in a fierce debate with the Catholic priest Peter van Dornick. This lesser-known opponent was from Geel, studied in Leuven and Douai, and became priest in Princenhage, a mainly Catholic village located near Breda, where he had to compete as a Catholic cleric against the Protestant wave in the young Republic48. Around the start of the Twelve Years’ Truce, Boxhornius and Van Dornick and their supporters openly slung insults at each other in the streets. A more formal disputatio was aborted (according to the Catholics because Boxhornius could not match Petrus van Dornick’s talents in Greek and Hebrew) and the city magistrate forbade any revival of the disagreement49. By the time the ruling was passed down, Van Dornick had already exchanged the Dutch Republic for a position as provost of Saint Peter’s church in the university city of Douai, where he died in 1614, abruptly ending the exchange of views. In addition, we should mention the Catholic texts that denounce or ridicule Boxhornius. Of particular note is the piece Worm=cruyt voor M.HendrickBoxhorinckby Godt-gaff de Vrindt, printed in Brussels in 160650. The work is written as a conversation among people from Tienen, Brussels, Leuven, and Breda, gathered in Turnhout as they wait for passports. All conclude that there is no redemption possible for Boxhornius who would rather stay in the arms of “his beloved Sybilla”. In the form of a so-called “chat”, the seemingly godly preacher is unmasked as a greedy, unchaste, and blasphemous figure. The satirical undertone and the Brussels printing address on the pamphlet indicate that the work’s author belonged to the Catholic camp. The author could possibly even be Boxhornius’s established adversary Johannes van Gouda, known for his sense of humor. Such sources prove that Boxhornius was known as a notorious figure in the Southern Netherlands, an example of the danger that a conversion to Protestantism and a flight to the Dutch Republic posed. 47. Henricus BOXHORNIUS, Antidotumcatholicum:datis,Alghemeynteghen-ghift,ter versterckinghevanalleChrist-lievendezielen, Delft, Jan Cloeting, 1610. 48. Dornick(Petervan), in NieuwNederlandschbiografischwoordenboek, VII, Leiden, Sijthoff, 1974, p. 377; VAN DER MEIJ, TussenOranjeenSpanje (n. 30), p. 10. 49. Sommatie D.Henrici Boxhornii [...] aen Iohannem de Gouda iesuvvijt, ende M.PeetervanDoornick,paepschemisendewoordendienaers,The Hague, Hillebrandt Jacobszoon van Wouw, 1613, and the reaction in Waerachtig verhael vande disputatie […] tussen D.Henricus Boxhornium […] ende M.Peeter van Dornick, Schiedam, Adriaen Delf, 1613. 50. [G. DE VRINDT], Worm=CruytvoorM.HendrickBoxhorinck (n. 22).

52

V. SOEN – J. FRANÇOIS

CONCLUSION In his well-received Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion, Andrew Pettegree developed a model trajectory of early modern conversions, on the basis of four successive phases, and these can well be discerned in the life of Boxhornius analyzed in this essay. First, early modern believers had to be aware of the existence of alternative religious doctrine51. In the case of Boxhornius, the Brabantine university city of Leuven was probably the first place he encountered reform-oriented ideas, as well as their refutation. The book list included in his diary shows that he owned all of the most important sixteenth-century theological works, both those of Christian humanists as well as Reformers. The next step in the conversion process outlined by Pettegree came when he married Sibylla Styls and they had their daughter Anna. This phase was eventually formalized by Boxhornius’s conversion to Lutheranism. Andrew Pettegree purports that the third major step in religious transition is theological strengthening. The epistolary debates in which Boxhornius engaged testify to the broadening of his conversion experience, eventually resulting in his transition to Calvinism. The last step in this process of religious conversion is then actively propagating the newly adopted religion. In the case of the Brabantine preacher, there was always a clear externalization and proselytism after conversion. His repetitive flights and relocations only added to his fervor. While at first sight Boxhornius belongs to one of Woltjers’s so-called “middle groups”, his story is a classic example of an early modern convert and refugee who played an important role in the religious controversies in the Netherlands during the Eighty Years War. For his professors in Leuven, however, he was an enfantterrible among the alumni of the Faculty of Theology. KU Leuven, Department of History Blijde Inkomststraat 21, box 3307 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Violet SOEN Jolien FRANÇOIS

51. A. PETTEGREE, ReformationandtheCultureofPersuasion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 6-7.

A MANUAL FOR FUTURE PASTORS THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

In 1689, the Louvain theologian Johannes Opstraet published a monograph, entitled Pastorbonus,seuidea,officium,spiritusetpraxispastorum. He considered his work a practical and spiritual guide for the pastors of his time. The work soon proved to be an influential bestseller in the area of pastoral and practical theology. At that time, Opstraet was counted among the greatest theologians of the Louvain Faculty of Theology1, but he was also known as an ardent defender of the Jansenist cause. The aim of this contribution is to shed light on the ideal of the pastor bonus according to Johannes Opstraet. The description of this ideal will proceed in three steps. First, attention will be paid to the life and works of Opstraet in order to trace the origins of his Jansenist sympathies. The second step deals with the historical background of Opstraet’s Pastor bonus. Two important background factors will be discussed: on the one hand the impact of the Tridentine decrees on ecclesiastical discipline and pastoral care, and on the other the influence of Jansenism in Louvain. The third and final step focuses on the content of the Pastorbonus and its major influence on pastoral and practical theology in the 17th and 18th centuries. I. AN ‘ORACLE’

WITH A

GOLDEN QUILL

Jo(h)annes Opstraet2, also known as Jean or Jan Opstraet, was born on 3 or 9 October 1651 in the small city of Beringen, at that time part of 1. J. ROEGIERS, De Leuvense theologen en de verlichting: Onderwijs, wetenschap, polemiekenpolitiekvan1730tot1797, vol. 1 (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Arts, KU Leuven), Leuven, 1979, pp. 25-26. 2. Biographical information on Jo(h)annes Opstraet was retrieved from: M. LAMBERIGTS, Opstraet,Johannes,in LTK7 (1998) 1075; L. CEYSSENS, Opstraet(Jean),in DictionnairedeSpiritualité11 (1982) 821-824; L. CEYSSENS, Opstraet,Johannes, in NationaalBiografischWoordenboek9 (1981) 573-574; A. SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus” des Johannes Opstraet: Zur Geschichte eines pastoraltheologischen Werkes aus der GeistesweltdesJansenismus(Trierer Theologische Studien, 26), Trier, Paulinus Verlag, 1971, pp. 92-172; C.-P. GOUJET, Bibliothèquedesauteursecclésiastiquesdudix-huitième siècle pourservirdecontinuationàcelledeM.Du-Pin, vol. 3, Farnborough, Gregg, 1970 [= 1736], pp. 102-152; F. CLAEYS BOUUAERT, Opstraet(Jean), in BN30 (1958) 643-646;

54

E. AGTEN

the County of Loon and the Prince-Bishopric of Liège. Already at a young age he went to Louvain to pursue his secondary education at the Holy Trinity College that was reputed for its competent and Jansenistminded professors. Opstraet would spend most of his life in and around this university city. In 1669, he was admitted to the two-year philosophy course at the Pedagogy of the Pig (PaedagogiumPorci), one of the four paedagogia or schools of instruction of the Louvain University3. This formation was followed by four years of theology, also in Louvain. Around that time, Opstraet must have been familiarized with the controversies on penance between the Jansenist-minded rigorists and the antiJansenist probabilists, for instance via the work Methodusremittendiet retinendipeccata(1674) of the Louvain professor Gommarus Huygens (1631-1702) or via the so-called Louvain deputation that went to Rome in 1677-1679 to defend Louvain Augustinianism (see infra)4. In 1675, Opstraet was named professor of Latin syntax at the Holy Trinity College. Two years later, he became professor of Latin poetry in that same college, while at the same time continuing his theological formation. Opstraet was ordained a priest in 1680 and the next year he obtained the degree of licentiate in theology. In 1685, the Jansenist professor and writer Gommarus Huygens appointed him professor of theology and vice-president of the Pope Adrian VI College, also known as the Pope’s College. Opstraet resided there in the company of famous Jansenists such as Huygens himself, François Van Vianen (1615-1693) and Zeger-Bernard van Espen (1646-1728). On 1 October 1686, undoubtedly under the influence of these Jansenists, Alphonse De Berghes (16241689), the then Jansenist-minded Archbishop of Mechlin, appointed Opstraet as professor at the seminary of Mechlin. However, five years later, De Berghes’ successor, the anti-Jansenist Humbert Guillaume de Precipiano (1626-1711), Archbishop from 1689 to his death in 1711, requested Opstraet on 28 February 1691 friendly yet urgently to leave the ID., L’ancienneUniversitédeLouvain:Étudesetdocuments(BETL, 28), Leuven, Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1956, pp. 267-270; J. CARREYRE, Opstraet,Jean,in DTC11 (1931) 1075-1076; G. MONCHAMP, Opstraet (Jean), in BN 16 (1901) 243-245; E.H.J. REUSENS – V. BARBIER, Analectespourserviràl’histoireecclésiastiquedelaBelgique,vol. XXI, Leuven, Peeters, 1888, pp. 95-96; 309-324. 3. The other paedagogia were those of the Castle (PaedagogiumCastri), the Falcon (Paedagogium Falconis) and the Lily (Paedagogium Lilii). “Each pedagogy had four philosophy professors, who lived in their pedagogies and taught the two-year curriculum consisting of courses in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and moral philosophy”. See S. BERGER, TheArtofPhilosophy:VisualThinkinginEuropefromtheLateRenaissance to the Early Enlightenment, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2017, pp. 121-122. 4. See SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus” (n. 2), pp. 95-98.

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

55

seminary and took away his authorization to preach and to hear confession5. The government in Madrid also considered Opstraet a suspect (Jansenist-minded) theologian who was not qualified for promotion6. Opstraet returned to Louvain and resumed his teaching activity at the Pope’s College. Almost immediately after his return, he entered into a debate with the anti-Jansenist professor Martinus Steyaert (1647-1701)7. Furthermore, he replaced Jean-Libert Hennebel (1652-1720) as president of Viglius’ College from 1693 to 1701 because the latter had been sent to the Holy See in Rome as representative of the Louvain University in the case of the anti-Jansenist Formulary of Pope Alexander VII8. In the meantime, Opstraet prepared himself for a doctorate in theology and successfully defended his first theses. However, because of his rigorist ideas, Steyaert and Martinus Harney (1634-1704)9, another anti-Jansenist professor at the Louvain Faculty of Theology, offered resistance to his promotion, unless he would be admitted by the King and the Pope. Eventually, the Privy Council of King Philip V in Brussels issued a royal arrest that prevented Opstraet from gaining his doctoral degree10. In 1704, after a few relatively peaceful years, Opstraet, suspected of Jansenist inclinations, was forced to leave the Spanish Low Countries together with several other Jansenists during the Anjouin period11 (1700-1706). However, after the 5. T. QUAGHEBEUR – J. ROEGIERS, Onvredeenonrustineigenrangen(1690-1759),in J. DE MAEYER et al. (eds.), Het Aartsbisdom Mechelen-Brussel: 450 jaar geschiedenis. Deel 1, Antwerpen, Halewijn, 2009, 185-233, p. 208; J. LAENEN, Geschiedenis van het seminarievanMechelen,Mechelen, Laurent, 1930, pp. 99-100. 6. CLAEYS BOUUAERT, L’ancienneUniversitédeLouvain (n. 2), pp. 160-161. 7. Before he turned into a vehement anti-Jansenist, Steyaert was known in 17th-century Louvain as a theologian with Jansenist sympathies. See E. AGTEN, MartinusSteyaertand His235RulesforReadingScriptureinSeventeenth-CenturyLouvain,in RHE108 (2013) 780-808, pp. 785-788. 8. This formulary condemned five propositions, said to be taken from Jansenius’ Augustinus,as heretical in the sense meant by the author. See L. CEYSSENS, Quepenser finalementdel’histoiredujansénismeetdel’antijansénisme?, in RHE88 (1993) 108-130, pp. 116-126. 9. Before he turned into an anti-Jansenist, Harney too was known as a Jansenist. On the basis of an exchange of letters between Harney and the Louvain theologian François Van Vianen dating from the period 1673-1675, Lucianus Ceyssens indeed sets up the hypothesis that Harney was initially a theologian with Jansenist sympathies, before turning into a vehement anti-Jansenist. See L. CEYSSENS, CorrespondanceromaineduP.Martin Harney,dominicainbelgeavecFrançoisVanVianen,professeuràl’universitédeLouvain (1673-75), in Archivumfratrumpraedicatorum18 (1948) 303-326. 10. QUAGHEBEUR – ROEGIERS, Onvredeenonrustineigenrangen (n. 5),p. 208. 11. “The Anjouin period refers to the years during the Spanish regime when Brussels was ruled by Philip d’Anjou, a grandson of Louis XIV, who ascended the Spanish throne as Philip V (r. 1700-1724, 1724-1746)”. See P.F. STATE, Historical Dictionary of Brussels (Historical Dictionaries of Cities, States and Regions, 14), Lanham, MD, Scarecrow, 2004, p. 33.

56

E. AGTEN

French defeat in Ramillies (1706), he could return to the university city and resume his function of theology professor at the Pope’s College. Three years later, in 1709, Opstraet was named president of the Grand College of the Falcon, a position he held until his death. As a Jansenist supporter he made a stand against the introduction of the anti-Jansenist form and the papal bull Unigenitus(1713) in Louvain. This way he actively supported the recalcitrant clergy in the Northern Low Countries where he had stayed during his exile. It is therefore not surprising that he was nicknamed the ‘Oracle of the Jansenists’12. A few days before his death, however, Opstraet appears to have submitted all his writings to the Church for assessment13. He died in Louvain on 29 November 1720 at the age of 69. The French Jansenist Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694) characterized Opstraet as “a very habile theologian who possesses just as much piety as science”14. These qualities are reflected in his extensive written production15. Schuchart mentions in his study a list of 122 titles on the basis of Willaert’s BibliothecaJansenianaBelgica and notes in addition that several works were not even printed. Being known as one of the most ardent defenders of Jansenism, a major part of Opstraet’s (polemical) works were dedicated to the defense of the Jansenist theses and written against opponents such as Steyaert. One of his most important works was the satirical work Bellumpoeticum(1685), directed against the Carmelites P. Alexander and St. Theresia. In spite of Opstraet’s Jansenist sympathies, however, only a very limited number of his works was put on the Index of forbidden books16. The biggest part of Opstraet’s dogmatic works dealt with pastoraltheological themes, such as the sacrament of penance. In his Dissertatio 12. “Opstraet, l’oracle des jansénistes de Hollande”. See H. HILLENAAR, Fénelon,Louvainetl’Augustinisme,in M. LAMBERIGTS (ed.), L’AugustinismeàLouvain(BETL, 111), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1994, 309-332, p. 322: “Dum viveret, Jansenistarum in Belgio erat oraculum (…)”. See H. HURTER (ed.), Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologiae catholicae: Theologos exhibens qui inde a Concilio Tridentino floruerunt aetate, natione, disciplinis distinctos, vol. 2, Innbruck, Libraria Academica Wagneriana, 1910, p. 723. 13. “Licet vero moriturus suam declararet submissionem sub Ecclesiae auctoritate atque scripta subjiceret sedis ap. judicio, plures e collegis ejus exsequiis assistere recusarunt”. See ibid. 14. “Un très habile théologien qui a autant de piété que de science”. See CEYSSENS, Opstraet,Johannes (n. 2), p. 576. 15. For an overview of Opstraet’s written production, see CEYSSENS, Opstraet(Jean) (n. 2),pp. 822-823; CLAEYS BOUUAERT, L’ancienneUniversitédeLouvain (n. 2), pp. 269270; REUSENS – BARBIER, Analectes (n. 2),vol. XXI, pp. 310-324. 16. SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus”(n. 2),pp. 118-119. See also F.H. REUSCH, Der IndexderverbotenenBücher:EinBeitragzurKirchen-undLiteraturgeschichte, vol. 2, Bonn, Cohen, 1885, p. 664.

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

57

theologica de conversione peccatoris (Louvain, 1687), one of his first publications written in a pastoral-rigorist spirit, Opstraet urged confessors not to give absolution continually, but instead to behave as leaders of souls who would help the penitents to pass from sin to the virtue and love of God. Another famous work of Opstraet that also dealt with pastoral practice, was his Pastorbonus, which is considered the first manual of pastoral theology (Louvain, 1689). This work, his most widespread, will be discussed in the third part of this contribution. As a professor of theology educating future priests, Opstraet furthermore taught his students how to sanctify themselves with a view to the sanctification of their flock. He wrote these ideas down in his Theologuschristianus(Louvain, 1692), a work that was also reprinted several times and that served as an answer to the commotion caused by the Pastor bonus. To conclude, Opstraet was known as a big letter-writer with a clear and neat handwriting. He for instance addressed some 297 letters to his (Jansenist) colleague Jean-Libert Hennebel (1652-1720) who stayed in Rome between 1692 and 1700 as representative of the Louvain University in the case of the anti-Jansenist Formulary of Pope Alexander VII17. II. TWO IMPORTANT BACKGROUND FACTORS Two important background factors seem to have inspired Opstraet to write his Pastorbonus. On the one hand, there were the aftereffects of the long-awaited Council of Trent (1545-1563) and, more specifically, the decision to strive for a more pastoral and missionary church. The Council indeed showed a deep concern for pastoral care, as testified by the decrees on instruction and preaching, and the sacraments18. The third part of this article will demonstrate that these topics also occupied a prominent place in the Pastor bonus. On the other hand, Opstraet was known for his Jansenist sympathies. The Jansenists too were concerned with, among others, pastoral practice and lay spiritual discipline. In addition, the Louvain debates involving the Jesuits, the University and the Church, have profoundly influenced both Opstraet’s ecclesiastical career and written production.

17. L. CEYSSENS, LettresdeJeanOpstraet,professeuràLouvain,àsoncollègueJean LibertHennebel,enmissionàRome(1694), in Bulletindel’InstitutHistoriqueBelgede Rome55-56 (1985-1986) 167-206, pp. 168-171. 18. J. O’MALLEY, TrentandAllThat:RenamingCatholicismintheEarlyModernEra, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2000, p. 64.

58

E. AGTEN

1. TheCouncilofTrentandPastoralCare The Council of Trent, the nineteenth ecumenical Church Council, was solemnly opened on 13 December 1545. Eighteen years later, a span of time during which the Council Fathers gathered in twenty-five sessions spread over three periods, the Council closed on 4 December 1563. The conciliar agenda of the Council was dominated by two important issues, namely doctrine and reform. First, the Council aimed at defining a ‘right’ Catholic answer to the challenging doctrinal questions raised by Martin Luther and other reformers on justification and the sacraments. Luther for instance recognized only two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist, instead of the traditional seven sacraments. He allowed penance, but denied its sacramental character. Furthermore, Luther seemed “to deny intrinsic efficacy to the sacraments, as if they were merely privileged incitements to greater faith”. Finally, the German reformer appears to have minimized “the role the sacraments play in justification and the pursuit of holiness”19. A second important issue on the agenda in Trent was “the reform of the clergy and the Christian people”20, particularly reform of the papacy, the episcopacy and the pastorate. Indeed, in the course of time, numerous abuses had affected the discipline and the inner life of the Church and the Christian people. Special attention was paid to the office of the bishops and the pastors. Instead of accumulating benefices, they had to focus on their main job, namely a more effective care of souls. The Council therefore urged a reform of both the priestly formation and the ministry of preaching. Indeed, there were no valid rules for the theological formation of the clergy in the Catholic Church. In addition, the Bible was not being properly taught and studied21. On 17 June 1546, during its fifth session, the Council promulgated the decree Super lectione et praedicatione (On Instruction and Preaching) that included two measures. The first part of the text discussed the question of the institution and the financing of lectureships for the Bible and the liberal arts in order to solve the problem of clerical ignorance. With regard to the biblical focus, John O’Malley notes that “the emphasis on the Bible as touchstone for clergy education found favour with the bishops at the Council, but was received with reserve by the theologians, who had been trained in Scholasticism and favoured that more systematic

19. J.W. O’MALLEY, Trent:WhatHappenedattheCouncil, Cambridge, MA – London, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013, p. 118. 20. Ibid., p. 14. 21. Ibid., pp. 12-22.

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

59

program”22. The second part of the text dealt with the office of preaching, which was considered the bishops’ main duty. Bishops and pastors had to preach to their flocks on Sundays and Holy Days. The preaching of the Gospel was considered no less necessary to a Christian than the reading thereof. If, however, a bishop was legitimately impeded to fulfill his duty, he was to designate a competent substitute23. With regard to the sacraments, on 3 March 1547, during its seventh session, the Council promulgated the decree on the sacraments in general, on baptism and confirmation. This decree was almost exclusively composed of canons. The thirteen canons on the sacraments in general discussed a series of fundamental assumptions that constituted the Council’s starting point of the discussion of each individual sacrament. The Council affirmed, among others, that Christ had instituted the sacraments and that there were not more nor less than seven. Moreover, the sacraments had “an intrinsic effect on the soul of the recipient” and were “more than a mere nourishment of faith (they are thus ‘efficacioussigns’)”24. In other words, the Council approved the number and the efficacy of the sacraments. The fourteen canons on baptism emphasized, among others, the importance of infant baptism and the fact that it was not optional. To conclude, the three canons on confirmation only provided very little information25. In the second and third period of the Council, respectively from 1551 to 1552 and from 1562 to 1563, the individual sacraments, for instance the Eucharist, penance, and matrimony, were discussed into more detail. 2. JansenisminLouvain26 Jansenism takes its name from Cornelius Jansenius (1585-1638), Louvain theologian, professor of Holy Scripture, bishop of Ypres (16361638) and author of the famous, posthumously published work Augustinus(1640)27. It is an umbrella term that refers to a general and elaborate 22. Ibid., p. 99. 23. Ibid., pp. 99-102. 24. Ibid., p. 120. 25. Ibid., pp. 116-121. 26. This section is based on the section JansenismintheSouthernLowCountriesfrom my PhD-dissertation. See E. AGTEN, “Meint gy dat gy ook wel verstaet, het gene gy leest?”: The Catholic Church and the Dutch Bible. From the Council of Trent to the JansenistControversy(1564-1733) (unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven), Leuven, 2014, pp. 36-57. 27. There is extensive literature on the definition of the terms Jansenism and anti-Jansenism. See for instance M. LAMBERIGTS, Hetjansenismealspogingtotkatholiekehervorming indeNederlanden,in P. NISSEN (ed.), GelovenindeLageLanden:Scharniermomentenin degeschiedenisvanhetChristendom,Leuven, Davidsfonds, 2004, 132-140; M. COTRET,

60

E. AGTEN

spectrum of ideas pertaining to theology, pastoral practice, lay spiritual discipline, Bible reading and catechism, in line with the Counter-Reformational doctrines of the Council of Trent. The Jansenists specifically aimed at representing an image of Christianity that was faithful and loyal to its origins. They were often considered as traditionally conservative and Augustinian. One of the central discussion points with their opponents was the question of God’s grace and its efficaciousness in relation to the possibilities of human freedom and free will. However, it is important to note that Jansenism never emerged as an explicitly organized doctrine. The term seems to have been invented by their opponents as the so-called Jansenists never labelled themselves as such28. Besides, the term soon morphed into an invective and received different connotations depending on the region, the period and even the group under study. In short, it would perhaps be better to speak of various ‘Jansenisms’ according to the spatio-temporal context. In Louvain, for instance, Jansenism received its own interpretation in the debates involving the Jesuits, the University and the Church29.

Laquerellejanséniste,in M. VENARD (ed.), L’Âgederaison(1620/30-1750)(Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours, 9), Paris, Desclée, 1997, 351-407; J. ROEGIERS, Jansenisme en katholieke hervorming in de Nederlanden, in M.J. MARINUS – H. STORME – E. PUT (eds.), Geloveninhetverleden:Studiesoverhetgodsdienstiglevenindevroegmoderne tijd, aangeboden aan Michel Cloet, Leuven, Universitaire Pers, 1996, 43-64, pp. 44-47; CEYSSENS, Quepenserfinalementdel’histoiredujansénismeetdel’antijansénisme? (n. 8), pp. 1-25. 28. Lucianus Ceyssens stated for instance: “Le jansénisme, c’est le contraire de l’antijansénisme”. In other words, he considered Jansenism to be a creation of the antiJansenists who were opposed to a set of ideas that they considered Jansenist. See L. CEYSSENS, Le jansénisme: Considérations historiques préliminaires à sa notion, in Nuovericerchestorichesulgiansenismo.Studipresentatinellasezionedistoriaecclesiastica del Congresso internazionale per il IV centenario della Pontificia Università Gregoriana13-17ottobre1953(Analecta Gregoriana, 71), Roma, Universitas Gregoriana, 1954, 3-32, p. 28. 29. Information on Jansenism in the Southern Netherlands and seventeenth-century Louvain can be retrieved from: J. ROEGIERS, AwkwardNeighbours: TheLeuvenFacultyof TheologyandtheJesuitCollege(1542-1773),in R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), TheJesuits of the Low Countries: Identity and Impact (1540-1773) (BETL, 251), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, 153-175; T. QUAGHEBEUR,Quelquescaractéristiquesdelaquerelleentrel’UniversitédeLouvainetleSaint-OfficesurlejansénismelouvanisteduXVIIesiècle,in R. DEKONICK – J. DESMULLIEZ – M. WATTHEE-DELMOTTE (eds.), Controversesetpolémiquesreligieuses: Antiquité – Temps modernes (Structures et pouvoirs des imaginaires), Paris, L’Harmattan, 2007, 87-96; J. ROEGIERS, LejansénismedeLouvainàlafinduXVIIesiècle, in G. COOMAN – M. VAN STIPHOUT – B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-BernardVanEspenatthe CrossroadsofCanonLaw,History,TheologyandChurch-StateRelations (BETL, 170), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 1-17; ROEGIERS, JansenismeenkatholiekehervormingindeNederlanden (n. 27), pp. 43-64.

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

61

In the sixteenth century, the Louvain Faculty of Theology represented the Augustinian line of thought and adhered to the new method of positive theology that consisted of a historical and philological approach to Scripture and the Church fathers. The Jesuits, on the contrary, were in favor of Thomism and the humanistic ideas, particularly the emphasis on the human values and the potential of the whole human person. They expressed the desire to open a college in Louvain and to grant academic degrees. This way, they aimed not only at gaining a strong foothold in the University town in order to teach their own doctrinal and theological system, but also at training young Christians to confront the Protestant threat. The two factions entered into heated discussions with each other, particularly on the themes of grace and free will. Eventually the conflict resulted in the so-called CensuraLovaniensisof 1587, the Faculty’s official censure of 34 propositions on Scripture, grace and predestination originating from the teachings of the Jesuit Fathers Leonard Lessius (1554-1623) and Joannes Hamelius (1554-1589). Even Rome tried to put a stop to the discussions, but the Congregationesdeauxiliisdivinaegratiaedid not result into a decision, even up to this day30. It is in this context that Cornelius Jansenius started his studies in theology in Louvain. In 1618-1619, the dispute on grace and free will that previously had opposed the Faculty of Theology and the Jesuits was brought into prominence once again. This time, Jansenius was awarded an important role: as a defender of the Augustinian line of thought he twice accepted to defend the interests and privileges of the Louvain University at the royal court in Spain. The Jesuits, for their part, later reacted against Jansenius’ posthumously published Augustinus that discussed the doctrine of grace and free will on the basis of Augustine’s ideas. The work was intended as a reactivation and a contribution to put an end to the unsettled debates of the Congregationes de auxiliis. However, the Jesuits, who considered the work as a pure and simple provocation, started a campaign to prevent its publication. In the end, Jansenius’ ideas and his interpretation of Augustine were condemned many times in various papal bulls. At the same time, the position of the University was (again) put on the line. In the years 1660-1690, the tenor of the discussions between the two factions changed and was now characterized by discussions on the moral and practical pastoral level between the rigorists (c.q. Jansenists) and the laxists (c.q. Jesuits) who defended probabilism. The practice of penance 30. CEYSSENS, Quepenserfinalementdel’histoiredujansénismeetdel’antijansénisme? (n. 8),pp. 110-111.

62

E. AGTEN

was for instance put on the line31. In the spring of 1677, a Louvain delegation even went to Rome to consult the Holy See in order to defend Louvain Augustinianism and to reject the opposing doctrines. However, as the years went by, the Jesuits eventually managed to win the support of the Pope and the government. The anti-Jansenists increased their influence in the University by creating a secret society that brought several Louvain professors into discredit, including Johannes Opstraet. The most important success of this secret society was the nomination of the vehement anti-Jansenist Humbert Guillaume de Precipiano (1626-1711) as Archbishop of Mechlin in 168932. As a result, the Jansenist resistance at the University was broken by 1685. III. PASTOR BONUS, A MANUAL FOR FUTURE PASTORS Johannes Opstraet conceived his Pastorbonusas a general manual or guideline for the pastors of his time in which he focused not only on spirituality, but also on the actual pastoral practice. He probably wrote the work by order of Alphonse De Berghes, the then Archbishop of Mechlin. It can rightfully be considered one of the most influential Jansenist contributions to pastoral theology33. Opstraet’s main objective was to react against the Jesuit’s handling of pastoral care. He states in his Commonitoriumsupercommonitorioadorthodoxos(1702) that the first edition of the Pastorbonuswas printed in Mechlin in 168934. However, no copies of this first edition seem to have been preserved. In 1689/1690, Opstraet’s Pastorbonuswas also printed in Liège by Henri Hoyoux. Some copies are divided in two parts and have an additional title page for the second part with an imprint dated 1689. The title page of other copies mentions the year 1690 and the remark editionesecunda. 31. L. CEYSSENS, De Leuvense deputatie te Rome (1677-1679), in ID., Jansenistica: StudiëninverbandmetdegeschiedenisvanhetJansenisme,vol. 1, Mechelen, St. Franciscus, 1953, 167-253, pp. 171-172. 32. ROEGIERS, LejansénismedeLouvainàlafinduXVIIesiècle (n. 29),pp. 14-15. 33. ROEGIERS, DeLeuvensetheologenendeverlichting (n. 1),vol. 1, p. 25. 34. “Fuit is Liber primum impressus Mechliniae anno 1689 cum Approbationeduorum Examinatorum Synodalium & Censorum Leodiensium; duorum item Examinatorum Synodalium & Censorum Mechliniensium, quorum alter Decanus Metropoliticus, alter totius Dioecesis Archi-Diaconus; item cum Approbatione Censorum, Lovaniensis & Antverpiensis: qui omnes doctrinam & praxim illius commendant”. See J. OPSTRAET, Commonitoriumsupercommonitorioadorthodoxosdeaccusatisinurbedoctrinis.Sive Imposturaelibelli,cuititulus:Accusatio&querelapopuliBelgici&c.diuanonymi,nunc nomineeximiipatrisBernardiDesirantprodeuntis,Liège, Henri Hoyoux, 1702, p. 75. See also SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus”(n. 2), pp. 176-177.

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

63

Approbation for Opstraet’s manual came from six censors in the summer of 1689: H. du Mont and I. Le Beau, synodal examiners and book censors from Liège, I.D. Cuyper and J. Lacman, synodal examiners and book censors from Mechlin, B. Pasmans, book censor and doctor in theology from Louvain and finally A. Eyben, book censor from Antwerp. All censors agreed upon the value and the usefulness of the book, not only for the spiritual and ascetic formation of priests, but also for the formation of shepherds of souls. Notwithstanding the positive approval of his work, Opstraet was forced to take up his pen in the years following the publication, for instance in 1693 and 1698 when he had to react against accusations of Bernhard Désirant. 1. AFourfoldIdeal Opstraet’s Pastorbonus, seuidea,officium,spiritusetpraxispastorum insexpartesdivisa can be considered as one of the bestsellers of practical theology35. The title already reveals the four main objectives of the author36: he aims at describing not only the ideal of priestly being and action (idea), but also their duties and responsibilities (officium) and the necessary spiritual disposition (spiritus). He combines this description with good and bad examples of the pastoral practice (praxispastorum). The dedication points out that priests should be instructed after the example of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, the example par excellence. Opstraet refers in this context to John 10,1-18, 1 Pe 5,4 and 1 Pe 2,2437. A variety of sources lay at the basis of his pastoral-practical manual. Opstraet uses not only arguments from the Holy Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers Augustine, Chrysostom and Gregory the Great, but

35. U.L. LEHNER, Introduction: The Many Faces of the Catholic Enlightenment, in ID. – M. O’NEILL, ACompaniontotheCatholicEnlightenmentinEurope(Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 20), Leiden, Brill, 2010, 1-62, p. 28. 36. J. OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus,seuidea,officium,spiritusetpraxispastoruminsex partesdivisa,Leodii, Henrici Hoyoux, [1689]. For this article, we consulted three copies of the Pastor bonus that are available in the Maurits Sabbe Library of KU Leuven. All copies were printed by Hoyoux in Liège according to the information on the title page. Two copies (2-006925/A and 2-019297/A) are dated in 1689, while the third copy (LEUVEN MU 1122 C 29) mentions the year 1690 on the title page. The latter copy also has a different lay-out. 37. “Christo Jesu Pastori bono (a) animam suam pro ovibus suis ponenti. Principi pastorum (b) a quo Immarcessiblime Gloriae Coronam percipient qui pascunt gregem Dei forma facti gregis ex animo. Pastori et episcopo (c) animarum nostrarum oves suas adhuc errantes ad se convertenti & adducenti, ut fiat unum ovile et unus pastor (d). (a) Ioan. 10.; (b) 1 Pet. 5.; (c) 1 Pet. 2.; (d) Ioan. 10.”.

64

E. AGTEN

also invokes the RitualeRomanum, rituals of various dioceses, and canons of ecumenical councils, especially the Council of Trent38. The Pastor bonus consists of four main parts and is structured in accordance with the four objectives that are outlined in the title. The table below provides a condensed table of contents of the manual as a guideline. Pastor bonus, seu idea, officium, spiritus et praxis pastorum in sex partes divisa Praefatio

(no page numbers)

Pars 1. Ideapastoris Pars 2. Officiipastoralis

1-14 1. Oviumcognitio 2. Deobligationepastorisad pascendumovesverbo 3. Exemplum 4. Sacramentorumadministratio 5. Oviumcustodia 6. Oratio

14-31 31-134 134-177 177-533 534-564 564-606

Pars 3. Spirituspastorum

606-635

Pars 4. Praxispastorum

635-700

Epilogusadpastores

700-704

Nota

705-706

Index

707-725

The work starts with a preface directed to the pastors in which Opstraet focusses on the importance of a legitimate vocation to pastoral care. He starts by affirming that up until then nobody (in the Low Countries) has ever written a book on the priestly office. Next, he elaborates on the necessity of a pastoral vocation and the signs of vocation of both those that are called and those that call for it. Opstraet emphasizes the following dispositions: the need for science and knowledge, intellectual prudence, love and zeal for God and one’s neighbors, and also fortitude and aptitude to teach and preach the words of God. Next, Opstraet discusses the idea, the officium, the spiritus and the praxis pastorum in four main parts. The first part of the Pastor bonus describes the essence of a good pastor. Opstraet starts by rejecting a 38. SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus”(n. 2), pp. 204-205.

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

65

series of examples with a worldly origin that continue to persist. The office of pastor implies for instance more than just preaching God’s word and administering sacraments39. He clearly connects the ideal of a good pastor with the biblical image of the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10,11). According to Opstraet, a shepherd knows his sheep, feeds them, protects them against evil and danger, prays for them and leads them. In his view, a pastor should do exactly the same. The second and largest part of the Pastorbonusdiscusses the duties and responsibilities of pastors in six sections. First and foremost, a pastor is to know the individual members of his flock (deoviumcognitione) and should be well acquainted with the context in which they live and possible factors that might influence this context40. In the second section, Opstraet discusses the duties and responsibilities of pastors on the basis of the metaphor of the Good Shepherd. He does not have the intention to develop practical tools for homiletics and catechetics, but underlines that he only discusses the main questions with regard to this topic. This way he wants to avoid possible controversies with his opponents. A good pastor has the obligation to feed his flock by preaching the Word of God (pascere oves verbo). This obligation can be derived from natural and divine law, but also from the Tridentine dispositions41. Next, Opstraet discusses the main topics that a pastor should address in his sermons and catechetical teachings. He names for instance the trinity, the fall of man, the role of Christ as savior and mediator, or the various Christian virtues. As a Jansenist, Opstraet was greatly concerned with these themes42. He affirms furthermore that the proclamation of faith and the instruction of the faithful can happen in various ways: through sermons, catechesis and/ or private lessons. He also pays attention to the specific dispositions of pastors and discusses, among others, the necessary religious qualities of preachers, the preaching preparation through prayer, study and meditation, the rules for the composition and the delivery of sermons, and the theme, object and method of catechesis43. Subsequently, Opstraet focusses on the ways in which pastors have to teach and exhort. In this context, he deals with the important ability of pastors to adapt to the spiritual state of their flock and emphasizes the importance of their auditory skills and openness to dialogue44. Finally, herecalls the Tridentine stipulations with 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus(n. 36), pp. 1-14. Ibid., pp. 14-31. See also SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus”(n. 2), p. 207. OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus(n. 36), pp. 31-43. Ibid., pp. 43-75. Ibid., pp. 76-113. Ibid., pp. 113-119.

66

E. AGTEN

regard to the days, moments and occasions during which pastors are supposed to preach and teach45. The third section on the duties and responsibilities of pastors emphasizes the exemplary conduct of a priest. Opstraet affirms that a good pastor should set an example for his flock and behave the way he wants them to behave. He then elaborates on both good and bad illustrations of this principle by opposing a series of priestly attitudes and violations that might annoy the faithful to a catalogue of priestly virtues that might strengthen and encourage them46. The following fourth section discusses the administration of the sacraments. Opstraet approaches this topic in a very detailed, almost casuist way in more than 300 pages. He first examines the specific dispositions of those who administer the sacraments in two chapters. Next, he dedicates a chapter to the difficulties that accompany a right administration of the sacraments. The pastor as well as the faithful should have the right attitude to begin with. This is both the main task of the pastor and his main struggle, namely making the faithful worthy of receiving the sacraments. In the following chapters, Opstraet discusses the seven sacraments individually and pays extensive attention to the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and matrimony47. Schuchart is right when he considers this section to be the heart of the Pastorbonus and an illustration of the fact that the sacraments are the be-all and endall of a Jansenist-inspired pastoral theology. In line with the Jansenist ideas that were inspired by the method of positive theology, Opstraet relied on Scripture, Tradition, the Church Fathers and the liturgical practice of the early Church as sources for his theological approach. He did not make use of contemporary rituals because they had been contaminated with (Jesuit) probabilistic ideas48. Fifth, a pastor should exercise vigilance in order to protect his flock. Opstraet distinguishes two ways to put this vigilance into practice. First, all evil that emanates from people and places, and from bad habits and traditions, has to be turned away from the community. Second, this source of danger has to be suppressed by promoting the good and by joining forces. Opstraet enumerates in this context a series of some fourteen sources of good and evil, including priests and ministers, secular superiors, schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, male or female servants, but also the sacraments, (bad) sermons and (bad) books. Concerning the latter origin of 45. Ibid., pp. 120-134. 46. Ibid., pp. 134-177. 47. He dedicates 120 pages to the sacrament of penance, writes 52 pages on the Eucharist and elaborates on matrimony in 41 pages. 48. Ibid., pp. 177-533. See also SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus”(n. 2), pp. 209-212.

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

67

evil and good, Opstraet provides a catalogue of recommended books. Furthermore, he mentions more worldly sources, like taverns, weddings or dinner parties49. Whereas the five preceding sections discussed outward appearances of the pastor’s work, Opstraet focusses in the sixth section on prayer as an important inward and hidden power. Indeed, through the necessary prayer of a pastor, God will bestow the faithful with grace. He furthermore discusses the timing for prayer, the ways of both vocal and mental prayer, the spirit of prayer and finally the aim of prayer50. The third part of the Pastorbonusdeals with the spirituality (spiritus) of a pastor. Opstraet states that the life work of a pastor consists in promoting not only the honor of God, but also the salvation of the faithful. The love for God and his neighbors enables him to do so. This radical love includes not only the contempt for wealth, pleasures and honors, but also the love for the poor, for the cross, or the outcasts. It also lies at the basis of other virtues, such as prudence, justice, fortitude, patience, perseverance, temperance or humility. Finally, the spirituality (spiritus) of a pastor also includes the carnal, worldly and political spirit51. In the fourth and final part of the Pastorbonus, Opstraet provides both good and bad practical examples of pastoral practice. He already announced in the preface that his book would serve as a mouthpiece for the experiences and pastoral methods of competent pastors. This way he aims at convincing his readership (and possible doubters) both of his Jansenist-inspired pastoral approach and its feasibility. Opstraet provides various examples of bad and good pastoral practices with regard to, among others, the preaching of God’s Word, the administration of the seven sacraments, the contacts with children and youth, and the frequentation of taverns, weddings and similar places and events. He concludes this part with a digression on pastors who have already put into practice his method52. Finally, in his epilogue, Opstraet encourages the (future) pastors to persevere and to be patient, especially when his method at first does not seem to meet with approval53.

49. OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus(n. (n. 2), p. 212. 50. OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus(n. (n. 2), p. 212. 51. OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus(n. (n. 2), pp. 212-213. 52. OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus(n. (n. 2), p. 213. 53. OPSTRAET, Pastorbonus(n. (n. 2), pp. 213-214.

36), pp. 534-564; SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus” 36), pp. 564-606; SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus” 36), pp. 606-635; SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus” 36), pp. 635-700; SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus” 36), pp. 701-705; SCHUCHART, Der“Pastorbonus”

68

E. AGTEN

2. Nachleben:ReprintsandCondemnation After the first two editions in 1689, printed in Louvain and Liège respectively, Opstraet’s Pastor bonus was reprinted several times. He affirms in his Commonitorium that the third edition of his work was again published in Louvain in 1689 or 169054. According to Schuchart, a fourth edition was again printed in Liège in 1690. In 1699, the Pastor bonuscrossed the borders of the Southern Netherlands when a new edition with a royal privilege of Ludwig XIV appeared in Rouen. Jacques-Nicolas Colbert (1655-1707), archbishop of Rouen (1691-1707) recommended Opstraet’s work and asked Jean Hermant, priest of Maltot to translate it into French. This translation, entitled LebonPasteur,ou l’idée, le devoir, l’esprit et la conduite des pasteurs, was published in two volumes in 1702-1703 in Rouen by J.B. Besongne and would be reprinted several times. It seems, however, that the translator introduced numerous changes into his text. According to the title page, the Louvain printer Aegidius Denique issued a so-called editiocorrectioretemendatiorof the pastoral manual in 1705. This edition, however, did not differ much from previous editions55. The Pastor bonus again gained popularity around 1760 when a new edition appeared in Liège. Leopold Ernst von Firmian, prince-bishop of Passau, ordered a revision in 1764 that was to serve as a standard for acting and teaching as the subtitle indicated (pro norma agenda, docendique proposita). Several corrections and reductions were introduced but this reprint was eventually condemned on 27 February 1766 by the Holy Office in Rome56. Notwithstanding the condemnation, reprints of the Pastor bonus continued to appear, for instance in Bamberg-Würzburg (1776, 1785) and Venice (1764, 1769, 1771, 1783, 1788). Empress Maria Theresa of Austria asked Thomas Du Jardin to make an adapted version of the (Latin) Pastorbonusthat would serve as a manual in the theological schools. IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS Johannes Opstraet had several grounded reasons for writing his Pastor bonusand defining in this way his ideal of the pastorbonus. His main 54. OPSTRAET, Commonitorium(n. 34), p. 75. 55. REUSENS – BARBIER, Analectes (n. 2),vol. XXI, p. 311. 56. SCHUCHART, Der “Pastor bonus” (n. 2), pp. 189-190; REUSCH, Der Index der verbotenenBücher(n. 16), vol. 2, p. 664.

69

THE PASTORBONUSOF JOHANNES OPSTRAET

objective was to react against the Jesuits’ handling of pastoral care. Inspiration from his work came from two sides: on the one hand, there were the ideas and decrees of the long-awaited Council of Trent (1545-1563) concerning instruction, preaching and the sacraments. On the other hand, he used the Jansenist ideas with regard to pastoral practice and lay spiritual discipline. He considered his work a manual for pastoral theology and a general guideline for pastoral care for (future) pastors. His ideal of the pastorbonusconsisted of four characteristics. First, a good pastor should in essence behave like the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep. Second, a good pastor should be reminded of his duties and responsibilities. He not only has to know his flock, feed them with the Word of God and protect them, a pastor also should have an irreproachable life and consider prayer as an important inward and hidden power. Most importantly, the sacraments were to occupy a central place in his life, as they also did in Opstraet’s book. Third, the spirituality of a good pastor should not only be centered around the honor of God, but also include the salvation of the faithful. Finally, Opstraet states that being a good pastor is essentially a matter of practice, as he demonstrated with various examples of bad and good pastoral practices. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven St.-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Els AGTEN

THE MODERNIST CRISIS

PIUS X, CARDINAL RAFAEL MERRY DEL VAL AND THE CASE OF GEORGE TYRRELL

The two “arch-heretics” of “modernism”1, Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell2, were treated very differently by the Roman Magisterium3. The case of Loisy enjoyed the personal interest of Pius X4 and received a full and complex treatment by the relevant Roman Congregations of the Index and the Inquisition leading to the Syllabus of 1907 and the subsequent extended discussion in the Holy Office concerning Loisy’s excommunication in 19085. The case of the ex-Jesuit George Tyrrell, on the other hand, never came up before the two Congregations, but was very close to the heart of Rafael Merry del Val, the Cardinal Secretary of State of Pius X. Already during the pontificate of Pius X the “goodness” of the Pope was often falsely contrasted with the “severity” of his Cardinal Secretary of State6. Nevertheless “Modernism” is the “big topic” of the entire Pontificate of Pius X, having attracted a considerable international

1. Cf. the exemplary comparative approach to the topic in L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernismintheLowCountries (BETL, 255), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 2013. 2. On Tyrrell see N. SAGOVSKY, OnGod’sSide:ALifeofGeorgeTyrrell, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990; J.J. LIVINGSTON, GeorgeTyrrellas“Modernist”:His KeyTheologicalPrinciplesandHisRepliestoHisAnti-ModernistCritics, in H. WOLF – J. SCHEPERS (eds.), InwilderzügelloserJagdnachNeuem:100JahreModernismus und Antimodernismus in der katholischen Kirche, Paderborn, Schöningh, 2009, 239259; O. RAFFERTY (ed.), GeorgeTyrrellandCatholicModernism, Dublin, Four Courts Press, 2010. 3. For the making of the modern Roman Magisterium see the seminal study of K. UNTERBURGER, Vom Lehramt der Theologen zum Lehramt der Päpste? Pius XI., die ApostolischeKonstitution“DeusscientiarumDominus”unddieReformderUniversitätstheologie, Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 2010. 4. Cf. É. POULAT, Alfred Loisy: Sa vie – son œuvre, par Albert Houtin et Félix Sartiaux. Manuscrit annoté et publié avec une bibliographie Loisy et un index bio-bibliographique, Paris, C.N.R.S., 1960, pp. 118-127; M. GUASCO, Alfred Loisy in Italia. Con documentiinediti, Torino, Giappichelli, 1975, pp. 95-117. 5. For the details cf. C. ARNOLD – G. LOSITO, Lacensured’AlfredLoisy(1903):Les documentsdesCongrégationsdel’IndexetduSaintOffice(Fontes Archivi Sancti Officii Romani, 4), Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2009; C. ARNOLD – G. LOSITO, Lamentabili sane exitu (1907): Les documents préparatoires du Saint Office (Fontes Archivi Sancti Officii Romani, 6), Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011. 6. Cf. A. ZAMBARBIERI, Dialetticheaivertici:MerrydelVal,DellaChiesa,PioX(18831907), in A. MELLONI – G. CAVAGNINI – G. GROSSI (eds.), Benedetto XV: Papa Giacomo dellaChiesanelmondodell’“inutilestrage”, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2017, vol. 2, 68-84.

74

C. ARNOLD

scholarship and even today determining the judgment on Papa Sarto7. The historiography on “modernism”, which had been very rich since the 1960s8 and had come to a certain conclusion and synthesis in the 1990s9, has since been stimulated afresh by the opening of the Archivio della CongregazioneperlaDottrinadellaFede (ACDF)10 and by other newly accessible archival material, especially from the “Segretariola” of Pius X in the ArchivioSegretoVaticano(ASV)11. The centenary of the encyclical Pascendi in 2007 was the occasion for conferences that led to an aggregation of the new research12 and also to some monographic syntheses of the topic13. Generally speaking, the new archival research 7. Cf. A.M. DIEGUEZ – S. PAGANO (eds.), Le carte del “Sacro Tavolo”: Aspetti del pontificatodiPioXdaidocumentidelsuoarchivioprivato (Collectanea Archivi Vaticani, 60), Città del Vaticano, Archivio Segreto Vaticano (ASV), 2006, vol. 1, p. XXIV: modernism is “senza dubbio il ‘grande tema’ del pontificato piano, quella più indagato, il cui interesse attrae ancora in misura notevole l’attenzione degli storici, sia italiani che stranieri [...] e la cui analisi ha determinato e ancora determina il giudizio che sovente si pronuncia su Pio X”. 8. Cf. for instance É. POULAT, Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste, Paris, Albin Michel, 1962, 31996; L. BEDESCHI, La Curia Romana durante la Crisi Modernista:Episodiemetodidigoverno, Parma, Guanda, 1968. 9. A. BOTTI – R. CERRATO (eds.), Il Modernismo tra Cristianità e Secolarizzazione: AttidelConvegnoInternazionalediUrbino1-4ottobre1997, Urbino, Quattro venti, 2000; D. JODOCK (ed.), Catholicism Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism andAnti-modernisminHistoricalContext, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000; H. WOLF (ed.), AntimodernismusundModernismusinderkatholischenKirche:Beiträge zumtheologiegeschichtlichenVorfelddesII.Vatikanums, Paderborn, Schöningh, 1998. 10. Helpful tools for research in the Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (ACDF) are the volumes Grundlagenforschung, ed. by H. WOLF in his series RömischeInquisitionundIndexkongregation. Cf. for instance H. WOLF (ed.) – H.H. SCHWEDT (author) – T. LAGATZ (collab.), ProsopographievonRömischerInquisitionundIndexkongregation1814-1917, vol. 2, Paderborn, Schöningh, 2005. 11. A.M. DIEGUEZ, L’ArchivioparticolarediPioX:Cennistoricieinventario(Collectanea Archivi Vaticani, 51), Città del Vaticano, ASV, 2003; ID. (ed.), CartePioX:Scritti, omelie,conferenzeeletterediGiuseppeSarto.Cennistorici,inventarioeappendicedocumentaria (Collectanea Archivi Vaticani, 71), Città del Vaticano, ASV, 2010; ID. (ed.), Lanuova documentazione dell’Archivio Vaticano per una migliore comprensione della figuraeoperadiGiuseppeSarto–PioX, in AnuariodeHistoriadelaIglesia 23 (2014) 169-185; S. PAGANO, Ineditisucelebri“modernisti”barnabitidallaSegretarioladiPioX edaaltrefontivaticane, in BarnabitiStudi 22 (2005) 7-94. 12. WOLF – SCHEPERS (eds.), In wilder zügelloser Jagd (n. 2); M. NICOLETTI – O. WEISS (eds.), Il modernismo in Italia e in Germania nel contesto europeo (Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico. Quaderni, 79), Bologna, Il Mulino, 2010. 13. C. ARNOLD, Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus, Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 2007; G. VERUCCI, L’eresiadelNovecento:LaChiesaelarepressionedelmodernismoinItalia, Torino, Einaudi, 2010; C. ARNOLD – G. VIAN (eds.), Lacondannadelmodernismo:Documenti,interpretazioni,conseguenze, Roma, Viella 2010; G. VIAN, Ilmodernismo:LaChiesa cattolicainconflittoconlamodernità, Roma, Carocci, 2012. Cf. G. VIAN, Ilmodernismo: Un itinerario tra fonti e documenti, in Rivista di Storia del Cristianesimo 14 (2017) 191-212.

PIUS X, MERRY DEL VAL AND THE CASE OF GEORGE TYRRELL

75

has contributed to a more differentiated picture of the workings of the Roman Curia14 under Pius X and to a more specific evaluation of the different theological orientations which were present within the Curia at the times of antimodernism. Concerning Pius X himself, it has become clearer that as a part of his immense personal workload, which is mirrored in the mass of his autographical minutae in the ASV, the topics of razionalismo and riformismoreligioso have played an important role for him right from the beginning of his Pontificate and not only from 1905/06 onwards15. In 1905/06 the works of Paul Viollet, Lucien Laberthonnière and Antonio Fogazzaro were put on the Index, and the Pope himself, in the Encyclical Pienil’animo (July 1906), warned against the infection of the younger clergy by the “atmosfera di veleno” in the secular society16. But already in his inaugural Encyclical Esupremiapostolatusof August 1903 he had addressed the danger of rationalism and semi-rationalism amongst the clergy17. Given this personal interest of Pius X in the fight against “rationalism” and “modernism”, it stands to reason that his Cardinal Secretary of State acted in close cooperation with him also in the case of George Tyrrell. When Pius X had published his encyclical Pascendi against modernism in September 1907, the entire episcopate of England, gathered around Archbishop Francis Bourne of Westminster, wrote the following to the Pope: The outrageous and insane errors that Pius X had condemned, had luckily infected only a very small portion of England’s Catholics18. This 14. On the Roman Curia in general cf. F. JANKOWIAK, LaCurieromainedePieIXà PieX:Legouvernementcentraldel’ÉgliseetlafindesÉtatspontificaux(1846-1914), Roma, Publications de l’École française de Rome, 2007. 15. This was the opinion of Lorenzo Bedeschi; cf. BEDESCHI, La Curia Romana durantelaCrisiModernista(n. 8), pp. 46-49; L. BEDESCHI, L’AntimodernismoinItalia: Accusatori,polemisti,fanatici, Cinisello Balsamo, San Paolo, 2000, pp. 20-21. 16. Cf. VIAN, Ilmodernismo (n. 13), p. 59. 17. Ibid., p. 53: “Vigileremo con diligenza somma affinché i membri del clero non siano tratti alle insidie di una certa scienza nuova e fallace, che in Cristo non s’insapora, e che con larvati e subdoli argomenti si studia di dar passo agli errori del razionalismo e semirazionalismo”. 18. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1908, rubr. 82, fasc. 3, fol. 23: Archbishop Francis Bourne of Westminster to Pius X, 10 October 1907: “Beatissime Pater, Nos, Archiepiscopus et Episcopi Angliae, ad tria nomina pro Sede vacante Northantionensi proponenda congressi, idonea hac occasione libentissime utimur qua, ad pedes Sanctitatis Vestrae provoluti, pro Litteris Encyclicis de Modernistarum Doctrinis Orbi Catholico recenter datis gratias ex imo corde agamus quam maximas. – Errores impii et insani, a Summo Pastore Fideique Interprete et Defensore ad gregis universi in divina Catholica doctrina tutelam proscripti, paucissimos tantummodo, inter Catholicos saltem, in Anglia infecerunt. Ut autem, verbis Sanctitatis Vestrae admoniti et illuminati, omnes ubicumque his erroribus jam infecti ad veritatem redeant, aliique omnes ab huiusmodi erroribus arceantur, Deum Omnipotentem, per Mariae Virginis Immaculatae intercessionem, enixe rogamus, opem nostram, tota quanta est, in id collaturi,

76

C. ARNOLD

strategy directly opposed the Pope’s fear of a dangerous modernist sect, by tending to immunize against the implementation of the encyclical Pascendi. Archbishop Francis Bourne of Westminster had already taken a similar line after the publication of the decree Lamentabili19. The English bishops followed this tendency also in their reports on the implementation of Pascendi20: Modernism was mainly a problem of individuals like Alfred Fawkes, George Tyrrell and Maude Petre21, who could be dealt with – and were dealt with – in a disciplinary manner22. Unlike “Liberal Catholicism”, which had already been condemned by the Joint Pastoral of the English bishops in 190023, “Modernism” was not seen as a dangerous “movement” in England. Although the English Episcopate did not initiate a general hunt for “modernists”, the individuals which had been singled out as dangerous, met with repressive acts of the hierarchy. In the case of George Tyrrell we can discern a close coordination between the local bishop and Cardinal Merry del Val, who acted with the consent of Pius X. The archives of the SegreteriadiStato give some new insight into this “treatment” of the case of Tyrrell and will be explored here for the first time in this respect. The attractiveness of the relatively new material from the Holy Office in the ACDF should not make us forget the wealth of theologically relevant material in the Vatican Secret Archives and keep in mind that ut quaecumque a Sanctitate Vestra nuper decreta fuerint in effectum deducantur. – Pro gregibus nostris, quorum fides Catholica et erga Sanctam Sedem obedientia explorata est, ac pro nobismet ipsis, Benedictionem Apostolicam imploramus”. 19. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1908, rubr. 82, fasc. 1, fol. 13r.: Archbishop Bourne to Cardinal Merry del Val, 21 July 1907: “The Bishops have rightly been anxious about the whole question concerned, and this guidance of the Holy See will be most useful and precious to them. Happily, only a very few Catholic writers in England have allowed themselves to stray into dangerous directions, and their influence is distinctly on the wane. But among young men there has been sometimes an inclination to catch unwarily at new ideas. This inclination will now be checked, for there is no doubt of their entire loyalty to the teachings of the Church”. On Bourne’s tolerant attitude towards modernism and his protection for Wilfrid Ward and Friedrich von Hügel cf. E.M. LEONARD, English Catholicism and Modernism, in JODOCK (ed.), Catholicism Contending with Modernity (n. 9), 248-274, pp. 267-269. 20. Cf. C. ARNOLD – G. VIAN (eds.), TheReceptionandApplicationoftheEncyclical Pascendi:TheReportsoftheDiocesanBishopsandtheSuperiorsoftheReligiousOrders until1914 (Studi di Storia, 3), Venice, Ca’Foscari Press, 2017. Archbishop Bourne’s one and only report from 1908 (ACDF, StanzaStorica, Q 4 cc, fol. 60-61) is practically without concrete content. Bourne has formally implemented the measures but asks permission for less frequent meetings of the consiliumavigilantia. 21. RAFFERTY,GeorgeTyrrell(n. 2). 22. Cf. the reports of Bishop Amigo of Southwark, which he sent to the Holy Office in 1908 and 1911 (ACDF, StanzaStorica, Q 4 cc, ff. 196-197; fol. 25, 27). 23. D.G. SCHULTENOVER, A View from Rome, New York, Fordham University Press, pp. 131-158.

PIUS X, MERRY DEL VAL AND THE CASE OF GEORGE TYRRELL

77

only a wide perspective on all relevant Roman Congregations can fully explain the curial anti-modernism. The ASV Segreteria di Stato contains a huge fascicolo on Tyrrell, Henri Bremond and Maude Petre under the year of 1910. Curiously enough, but nevertheless very logically, the fascicolo has not been filed under rubrica 82, where most of the antimodernist material can be found24, but under rubrica 9, which contains material concerning the religious orders25. In fact, both Tyrrell and Bremond had been Jesuits, and Maude Petre had been the English/Irish Provincial of the “Daughters of Mary”. I first discovered the material in 1995 and had it copied then, but David Schultenover, the great Tyrrell-expert26, told me later that he had found the fascicolo even before. But neither he nor I have used the material since then. One reason why the search for material concerning Tyrrell in the Vatican Archives had not been so thorough before is the tale that after the death of Merry del Val’s former secretary, the famous Cardinal Nicola Canali27, all the archival material collected by Canali for the beatification of Merry del Val had been burned in an incendiary in his apartment. Especially Robrecht Boudens28 and Gary Lease29 have highlighted this fact in their treatment of the case of Tyrrell. Now it may well be possible that Canali, who had already pushed the beatification of Pius X in order to clear the way for his “hero” Merry del Val30, had collected a lot of material. However, Merry’s actions against Tyrrell were not a private enterprise, but part of his job as Secretary of State. Therefore, most of the relevant documentation, if not all, should be conserved in the Vatican Secret Archives. Gary Lease has nevertheless substantially advanced our knowledge of the case of Tyrrell by exploring the rich material in the archives of the Archdiocese of Southwark in which Tyrrell 24. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1908, rubr. 82. Cf. for instance G. VIAN, LaPascendi“equivale all’operapazienteelaboriosadiunSinodoEcumenico”:Laprimaricezionedapartedei vescovi di Francia e Italia, in ARNOLD – VIAN (eds.), La condanna del modernismo (n. 13), 83-136; G. LOSITO, LapreparazionedeldecretoLamentabilielasuaimmediata ricezione, in Francia:CristianesimonellaStoria 30 (2009) 781-836. 25. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1910, rubr. 9, fasc. 3. 26. D.G. SCHULTENOVER, George Tyrrell: In Search of Catholicism, Sheperdstown, Patmos, 1981. 27. Cf. G. ANGER, Art.Canali, in Biographisch-BibliographischesKirchenlexikon 29 (2008) 261-262. 28. R. BOUDENS, George Tyrrell: Last Illness, Death and Burial, in ETL 61 (1985) 340-354, p. 341. 29. G. LEASE, MerrydelValandTyrrell:AModernistStruggle, in DownsideReview 102 (1984) 133-156. 30. This was at least the claim of the (in-)famous Roger Peyrefitte; on him: D. BERGER, Art.Peyrefitte, in Biographisch-BibliographischesKirchenlexikon 31 (2010) 1057-1061.

78

C. ARNOLD

lived before his death. Boudens and Lease have highlighted the role of Merry del Val, but we will see more details31. As mentioned before, the “case” of George Tyrrell never came up directly before the Holy Office or the Congregation of the Index32. This had to do with Tyrrell’s double quality as a Jesuit and an Anglo-Irishman. Already in 1901, some people found the way Tyrrell was dealt with exemplary: such as the Franciscan David Fleming, secretary of the Biblical Commission and consultor of the Holy Office. When Loisy was denounced to the Holy Office in 1901 Fleming wanted to avoid a dogmatic discussion at any costs. In his parere he recommended to act against Loisy personally, as it had been done in England with Tyrrell33. What did he mean by this34? The Jesuit George Tyrrell first got into trouble in 1899 by his article APervertedDevotion which criticized the grim eschatology of some ecclesiastical authors. Tyrrell was denounced to the General of the order, Fr. Luis Martin, and amongst the denouncers was Rafael Merry del Val, President of the Pontifical Diplomatic Academy. Merry del Val had been educated in England and remained invested in all things English – famously as an opponent of the validity of the Anglican Orders, when serving as secretary of the Commission on this problem which Leo XIII had instituted35. After an internal censuring in the society, Tyrrell was silenced and had to write pseudonymously or for private circulation only. Furthermore, Merry del Val, with the alleged consensus of Leo XIII, inspired the English Primate Cardinal Vaughn to issue a Joint Pastoral Letter of the English episcopate against liberalism which was also directed against Tyrrell. David Schultenover has shown that this Pastoral Letter had been written in Rome, organized by Merry del Val, and was then published in England36.

31. In this context it is a pity that the dissertation of Alberto Flores on Merry del Val at the Gregorian is still inaccessible; cf. A. FLORES, “Vigilance over Rectors”: A Look into Some Anti-Modernist Interventions involving Cardinal Merry del Val, in WOLF – SCHEPERS (eds.), InwilderzügelloserJagd(n. 2), 473-489. 32. During the preparation of Lamentabili Tyrrell is envisaged only indirectly via a citation of him by Mignot: ARNOLD – LOSITO, Lamentabili(n. 5), pp. 36, 243. 33. Ibid., pp. 23-24. 34. For the following cf. the excellent study of SCHULTENOVER, AViewfromRome(n. 23). 35. G. RAMBALDI, Ordinazioni anglicane e sacramento dell’ordine nella Chiesa: Aspettistoricieteologici.AcentoannidallabollaApostolicae CuraediLeoneXIII, Roma, Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1995. A. CIFRES, Lavalidezdelasordenaciones anglicanas:Losdocumentosdelacomisiónpreparatoriadelabula«ApostolicaeCurae». Vol. II: Losdocumentosde1896 (Fontes Archivi Sancti Officii Romani, 2), Roma, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2012. 36. SCHULTENOVER, AViewfromRome(n. 23), pp. 139-158.

PIUS X, MERRY DEL VAL AND THE CASE OF GEORGE TYRRELL

79

Although Merry del Val had functions in the Curia of Leo XIII, the activities mentioned above bear traces of the private crusade of someone who was especially interested in the affairs of the country in which he had grown up and where he had studied theology. As Secretary of State of Pius X, Merry del Val had ample opportunity to indulge in his English interests more officially. Tyrrell’s case came up before him after the Jesuit had been expelled from his order. Cardinal Mercier of Mechelen was willing to incardinate Tyrrell in his diocese and wrote to Merry del Val on the 11th of June 1906 in order to speed up Tyrrell’s process of secularization: J’obéis à un sentiment de charité en appelant la bienveillante attention de V.E. sur le pauvre George Tyrrell qui récemment a quitté la Compagnie de Jésus. Je suis en possession d’une correspondance intime, secrète, échangée entre l’ex-jésuite et une personne à laquelle il ouvre son âme. Il souffre beaucoup de son isolement moral; il est au fond très pieux et la privation du bonheur de célébrer la Messe le peint vivement37.

The charitable tone of Mercier was missing in the covering letter with which Merry sent it on to Cardinal Ferrata, Prefect of the Congregation for the Religious: Merry had presented the matter to Pope Pius X, and the ensuing decision to sharpen the conditions under which Tyrrell’s suspension should be lifted, paved the way to Tyrrell’s eventual excommunication38. Merry wrote to Ferrata: riguardo alla condizione che egli [l’arcivescovo di Malines] sembra volergli imporre di nulla pubblicare senza il consenso di persona competente designata dall’Arcivescovo, sarebbe opportuno far conoscere a Mgr Mercier che tale condizione potrebbe essere insufficiente, perché il Tyrrell è pericoloso non solo per ciò che può pubblicare a stampa ma eziandio per le corrispondenze epistolari che ama di avere specialmente con giovani studenti39.

Clearly, Pius X and Merry were of one mind concerning Tyrrell. Ferrata executed their will, and Mercier was informed that Tyrrell’s suspension would be lifted “on the condition that the same Tyrrell pledge himself formally neither to publish anything on religious questions nor to hold epistolary correspondence without the previous approbation of a 37. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1910, rubr. 9, fasc. 3, fol. 7-8. For the context cf. J.J. KELLY, MedievalismandModernism:CardinalDésiréMercier(1851-1926)andGeorgeTyrrell (1861-1909), in KENIS – VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernismintheLowCountries (n. 1), 171-187. 38. Cf. R. BOUDENS, George Tyrrell and Cardinal Mercier: A Contribution to the HistoryofModernism, in ÉgliseetThéologie 1 (1970) 313-351. 39. Merry to Ferrata, 14th June 1906; ASV, Segr. Stato, 1910, rubr. 9, fasc. 3, fol. 6 (draft).

80

C. ARNOLD

competent person approved by Your Eminence”40. These harsh conditions embittered Tyrrell further and led to a radicalization of his position. Tyrrell attributed the imposition of these conditions to Cardinal Ferrata, and therefore wrote a passionate letter to Merry del Val, appealing to the Pope directly41 – a vain undertaking as we now know. Very coolly, Merry passed the letter on to Ferrata42, and Tyrrell remained without a reply and his suspension was not lifted. Merry del Val came back into the story of Tyrrell in October 1907. On the 12th of October Archbishop Amigo of Southwark, in whose diocese Tyrrell resided, wrote to Cardinal Gotti of the PropagandaFide in order to inform him of Tyrrell’s articles against Lamentabili and Pascendi. Amigo expounded: un grand nombre de Catholiques sont très scandalisés, et peut-être ils le seront encore plus s’ils sauraient qu’il reçoit la sainte Communion chaque matin dans mon diocèse. Comme le cas ‘Tyrrell’ est bien connu à Rome, et la question est ‘sub judice’, je ne crois pas que je dois agir sans consulter le saint Siège43.

The letter was duly passed on to the Pope and only five days after he had written to Gotti, Amigo was informed by Merry del Val of the following decision: Sua Santità, avendo portato la Sua attenzione su quanto la S. V. esponeva, mi ha dato incarico di significarle essere Suo volere che Ella intimí all’anzidetto Signor Tyrrel [sic] “la privazione della partecipazione dei sacramenti”, e gli partecipi in pari tempo che il suo caso è “riservato alla Santa Sede”44.

Thus, Tyrrell was excommunicated without much ado and remained so until his death. In the case of Loisy, it had taken four years, between 1904 and 1908, before his excommunication had been decreed by the Holy Office. Now, as Gary Lease has pointed out45, a special relationship between Merry del Val and Amigo developed, and the direct exchange between Merry and the archbishop of Southwark exceeded the normal ways of 40. Translation of BOUDENS, GeorgeTyrrell(n. 38), p. 343. The letter of Ferrata (of 18 June 1906) is published in M.D. PETRE, Autobiography and Life of George Tyrrell, London, Edward Arnold, 1912, II, p. 504. 41. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1910, rubr. 9, fasc. 3, fol. 11-12: The letter is published in PETRE, Autobiography (n. 40), pp. 505-506. 42. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1910, rubr. 9, fasc. 3, fol. 13. 43. Ibid., fol. 15. 44. Ibid., fol. 17 (draft). 45. LEASE, MerrydelVal(n. 29), p. 146.

PIUS X, MERRY DEL VAL AND THE CASE OF GEORGE TYRRELL

81

communication between the Cardinal Secretary of State and a bishop. It seems that Merry dictated the letters to a typewriter in English (if he did not type them himself), and that in any case he corrected them in his own hand. Amigo interested Merry for the case of Maude Petre, and Merry’s hand was behind the diocesan excommunication of Tyrrell’s friend. He also kept him informed about Tyrrell’s illness and death, even telegraphically, and finally the documentation explodes in quantity concerning the suspension of Henry Bremond who had officiated at Tyrrell’s burial. In fact, the entire documentation of Bishop Amigo concerning Tyrrell’s death, letters and telegrams by the Prior of Storrington, letters from Maude Petre and Henri Bremond, have found their way into the Vatican Secret Archives46. Merry was in full control, and any new reconstruction of the battle which was waged on and after the deathbed of Tyrrell should take this into account. It is impossible to present the wealth of material here and so I will end with two points, in which I try to conceptualize the findings concerning Tyrrell. A first point: Merry did not act without the consent of Pius X – this matches the analysis made by Giovanni Vian, Alejandro Dieguez and Albert Flores, who have shown how much Pius X was in control and how loyally Merry del Val behaved. Nevertheless, the Pope decided mainly on what was presented to him, and Merry had a very special interest and a very thorough engagement in the case of Tyrrell, especially in its later stages. On the other hand, Merry had cultivated special links with Britain before: with Cardinal Vaughn and with Cardinal Bourne47. A second and more comprehensive finding: I think it would not be sufficient to describe the way Tyrrell was dealt with as purely “disciplinary” in comparison to the “doctrinal” treatment of Loisy’s case. There were very clear theological and political choices behind the measures taken by Pius X and Merry del Val against Tyrrell. It would be more precise to characterize this way of handling as “executive”. The doctrine of the papal primacy enables the Roman Pontiff to act directly and freely at any time, even without the help and advice of his own Congregations in the Roman Curia. Thus, the increased importance of the Secretary of State and of the segretariola of the Pope under Pius X is only logical and an implementation of the Pope’s own wish for swift and effective action without long deliberations. This way of doing things executively, and

46. ASV, Segr. Stato, 1910, rubr. 9, fasc. 3, fol. 30-123. For a short summary of the related material in the Southwark Diocesan Archives cf. LEASE, Merry del Val (n. 29), p. 155 n. 94. 47. Cf. SCHULTENOVER, AViewfromRome(n. 23).

82

C. ARNOLD

sometimes “para-canonically”, has remained popular in the Roman Curia as we can see by some more recent depositions of bishops48. In comparison to this peculiar way of papal “modernization” and centralization, the dealings of the Congregations of the Index and the Inquisition were comparatively old-fashioned because they involved remainders of the old collegial way of church governing, both on the level of the consultors and of the members of the Congregations. The re-dimensioning of the two doctrinal Congregations of the Index and the Inquisition under Pius X seems clear to me. It happened in favor of the Secretary of State and, even more effectively, in favor of the Consistoriale under Cardinal Gaetano De Lai (whose importance has been demonstrated by Giovanni Vian). Ironically, Merry del Val became Secretary of the Holy Office in 1914, which is perhaps one of the most decisive turning points in the curial history of the 20th century. The Holy Office, which had been marginalized under Pius X, was now turned into a repressive powerhouse and remained so for a very long time. Merry del Val achieved this with the help of collaborators like Nicola Canali. Centralization took place here as well: the Congregation of the Index was re-absorbed into the Holy Office in 1917. Thus, anti-modernism first marginalized and then strengthened the power of the Holy Office. Johannes-Gutenberg Universität FB 01 Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät Abteilung Mittlere und Neuere Kirchengeschichte DE-55099 Mainz Germany [email protected]

Claus ARNOLD

48. Cf. N. LÜDECKE, EntfernungvonDiözesanbischöfen:KanonistischeErinnerungan den exemplarischen Fall Bischof Gaillot, in E. GÜTHOFF – S. HAERING (eds.), Ius quia iustum.FSHelmuthPree, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 2015, 451-506.

POINTS OF VIEW JOSEPH TURMEL AND ALFRED LOISY ON SECOND-CENTURY CHRISTIANITY

Through his collaboration with the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, beginning in 1898, Joseph Turmel became associated with Alfred Loisy1. In part because of that very collaboration, in part through the tenor of publications under his own name and those under pseudonyms he adopted, Turmel became associated with Roman Catholic Modernism. Whether or not Turmel should be considered a “Modernist” has been a matter of dispute, then and since. Loisy did not. With regard to Turmel’s pseudonymous publications, Loisy argues that they never represented attempts at modernizing the Church; they were invented solely for the personal protection of their author. Loisy challenges those who claimed, in the late 1920s, to have “unmasked” Turmel as a Modernist and instead alleges that, under the “mask” of orthodoxy, they pursued the defamation of one whose publications for a long time had not reached a Catholic audience. Turmel’s publications, according to Loisy, are rightly to be judged on their scientific merits, not as attempts to reform Catholicism. Indeed, the sentence of excommunication issued by the Holy Office against Turmel spoke of “heresy”, not of “Modernism”. It was Turmel’s detractors that made use of the occasion to fasten the label of Modernist on him, with a view toward burnishing their own orthodox credentials2. While repudiating any identification of Turmel 1. Turmel recounts how his collaboration with the Revue came about in the first volume of his autobiography, Commentj’aidonnécongéauxdogmes, Herblay, Éditions de l’idée libre, 1935, chapter VIII. Repr. as J. CALICE (ed.), Ensoutane.Mémoires: Comment j’aidonnécongéauxdogmes. Commentl’égliseromainem’adonnécongé, Paris, Éditions des Malassis, 2016. English trans. “MartyrtotheTruth”:TheAutobiographyofJoseph Turmel, trans. C.J.T. Talar – E. Emery, Eugene, OR, Pickwick Publications, 2012. 2. A. LOISY, Mémoirespourserviràl’histoirereligieusedenotretemps, 3 vols., Paris, Émile Nourry, 1930-1931, vol. 3, pp. 543-544, 560. If Modernism is taken as essentially directed at intellectual and structural reform of Catholicism, and if its limits are taken as those delineated by the title of P. COLIN’sL’audaceetlesoupçon:Lacrisedumodernisme danslecatholicismefrançais(1893-1914), Paris, Cerf, 1997, then by that definition Turmel would not be so considered. Such was Albert Houtin’s judgment in hisHistoiredu modernismecatholique, Paris, Chez l’auteur, 1913, p. 397; his biographer Félix Sartiaux concurred in Joseph Turmel, prêtre, historien des dogmes, Paris, Les Éditions Rieder, 1931, p. 212. However, the practice of pseudonymous publication subversive of dogma,

84

C.J.T. TALAR

with Modernism, Loisy publicly affirmed his worth as a scholar: “Nonobstant les anathèmes et les injures, nonobstant ses limites et les imperfections de ses derniers travaux, Turmel aura été un des plus grands savants de notre temps”3. Just as Turmel is not particularly prominent in Loisy’s Mémoires, he does not appear with any great frequency in Loisy’s correspondence with Franz Cumont4. In a letter of 23 April 1922 Loisy alludes to a forthcoming article in the Revue, noting that Un de mes collaborateurs va soutenir que les lettres d’Ignace sont un faux dirigé contre Marcion. La thèse me paraît boiteuse, et je l’imprime avec un certain regret. Mais elle a des parties remarquables et n’est pas construite en l’air comme le Zoroastre d’Alfaric5.

Loisy was referring to an article that appeared in two parts under one of Turmel’s pseudonyms, Henri Delafosse6. The appearance in 1929 of Jean Rivière’s Lemodernismedansl’Église occasioned renewed mention of Turmel in the correspondence. In the final part of the book, Rivière included a chapter entitled “Offensive contre le modernisme masqué” which traced the series of attempts to resolve “le mystère d’Herzog-Dupin”7 and the numerous other pseudocoupled with the maintenance of an outwardly correct ecclesiastical persona, held to be a characteristic tactic among the Modernists, was sufficient to install Turmel among their ranks. See C.J.T. TALAR, Multiple Identities: Joseph Turmel, moderniste démasqué, in L. BARMANN – H. HILL (eds.), Personal Faith & Institutional Commitments: Roman Catholic Modernist & Anti-Modernist Autobiography, Scranton, PA, The University of Scranton Press, 2002, 67-89. 3. LOISY, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire religieuse de notre temps (n. 2), vol. 3, p. 544. 4. Franz Cumont (1868-1947). Belgian historian of religions with whom Loisy conducted a longstanding correspondence after he had left the Church and taken a position at the Collège de France. 5. Letter of Alfred Loisy to Franz Cumont, 23 avril 1922, in A. LANNOY – C. BONNET – D. PRAET (eds.), Lacomparaisonestlalumièredel’histoire:Lacorrespondanceentre FranzCumontetAlfredLoisy(1908-1940), forthcoming, p. 330. Loisy is referring here to an article by Prosper ALFARIC, Zoroastreavantl’Avesta, that appeared in RHLR n.s. 7 (1921) 1-32, 145-180. 6. H. DELAFOSSE, Nouvel examen des lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche, in RHLR n.s. 8 (1922) 303-337, 477-533. Much earlier Turmel has published under his own name Étude surleslettresdesaintIgnace, in Annalesdephilosophiechrétienne 74 (1903-1904) 36-62. 7. Under the pseudonym Antoine DUPIN, Turmel published several articles on the Trinity: Les origines des controverses trinitaires, La Trinité et la théologie des hypostases dans les trois premiers siècles, and La Trinité dans l’école modaliste jusqu’à la fin du troisièmesiècle, in RHLR 11 (1906) 219-231, 353-365, 515-532. Published in book form naming Antoine DUPIN as author, as LedogmedelaTrinitédanslestroispremierssiècles, Paris, Émile Nourry, 1907. The following year as Guillaume HERZOG he published extensively on the Blessed Virgin Mary in RHLR 12 (1907) 118-133, 320-340, and 483-607. It appeared in book form as La Sainte Vierge dans l’histoire, Paris, Émile Nourry, 1908,

JOSEPH TURMEL AND ALFRED LOISY

85

nyms that allegedly had Turmel for their true author8. Loisy informs Cumont that among the papers left by Paul Lejay who functioned as secretary to the RHLR, there was documentation establishing Turmel as the culprit, evidence that his chief critic Louis Saltet will now use to render certain the allegations he had made in 19089. The publication of the first two volumes10 of what would become a six volume history of dogma by Turmel elicited the comment from Cumont that, in going through them, he realized that their author “avait voulu aider à lancer une machine de guerre contre l’Église. C’est une de ses idées fixes”11. In his reply Loisy agreed that Turmel’s work was dominated by the “idée fixe” of its author and contained “énormités”. He went on to contrast Turmel’s recent publications with his earlier work: “Mieux eût valu qu’on publiât les vieux cahiers de Turmel, au temps de la Revue d’histoireetdelittératurereligieuses. Ce qu’il donne maintenant est trop mêlé de songes pour être d’un secours véritable aux travailleurs sérieux”12. This is the final reference to Turmel in their correspondence. Loisy’s expressed opinion at this point regarding Turmel’s work stands in contrast to his initial evaluation upon receiving the manuscripts on original sin and angelology that provided their author entry to the RHLR. In the 1890s Turmel’s writings were introduced to the Revue through an intermediary, Abbé Adrian Pautonnier, a priest of Rennes working in Paris who was interested in Catholic renewal. In his autobiography Turmel gives an extract of a letter from Loisy to Pautonnier. Although occasioned by the manuscript on angelology, it encompasses the writings on original sin and includes an assessment of future potential. Je vous ai dit combien l’histoire des anges m’avait intéressé en m’instruisant. Dans l’ensemble je crois que l’histoire des dogmes de M. Turmel pourra rivaliser avec ce que l’Allemagne a produit de plus savant, qu’elle crediting Guillaume HERZOG with authorship. The tenor of these articles/books caused a scandal and efforts were made to identify Turmel as their true author. He denied authorship, checkmating his adversaries, and there the matter rested until the late 1920s when hard evidence emerged that Turmel was indeed responsible for them. He was excommunicated in 1930. 8. J. RIVIÈRE, Lemodernismedansl’Église, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1929, pp. 484-505. 9. Letter of Loisy to Cumont, 1 janvier 1930, in LANNOY – BONNET – PRAET (eds.), La comparaison est la lumière de l’histoire (n. 5), p. 447. L. SALTET, La question Herzog-Dupin, Paris, P. Lethielleux, 1908. 10. J. TURMEL, Histoiredesdogmes. Vol. I: LePéchéoriginel–LaRédemption, Paris, F. Rieder et Cie, 1931; vol. II: La Trinité – L’Incarnation – La Vierge Marie, Paris, F. Rieder et Cie, 1932. The remaining volumes were published over 1933-1936. 11. Letter of Cumont to Loisy, 23 août 1932, in LANNOY – BONNET – PRAET (eds.), Lacomparaisonestlalumièredel’histoire(n. 5),p. 475. 12. Letter of Loisy to Cumont, 18 septembre 1932, ibid.,p. 476.

86

C.J.T. TALAR

aura de plus l’avantage d’être conçue largement en dehors de tout système apriori et d’être beaucoup plus claire dans l’exposition. En général M. T. donne peut-être un peu trop de relief à ses opinions par le côté où elles sont de nature à heurter les idées reçues. Un peu plus de précaution dans le langage ne nuirait pas à leur vérité. Et même une réflexion logée ici et là pour expliquer comment la continuité de la tradition subsiste sous les divergences les plus surprenantes, serait d’un meilleur effet pour l’équilibre de l’histoire – et l’édification du lecteur – que l’intention sensible de marquer les oppositions doctrinales. Je crois aussi qu’il faudrait proscrire sévèrement tout ce qui sentirait la plaisanterie à l’égard des croyances et des personnes. Au fond M. T. se moque des théologiens d’aujourd’hui et il n’a pas tout à fait tort, mais c’est à l’occasion des témoins de la tradition chrétienne et l’on aurait bien soin de ne pas comprendre la destination réelle de ses pointes, à seule fin de le transformer en contempteur de la foi …13.

Loisy’s comments to Pautonnier on Turmel’s work more largely are indicative of tactics the latter employed in service of his quest for revenge upon the church that had withheld the truth from him. A decade later the Revue would reflect less caution in its publication of Dupin’s articles on the Trinity and Herzog’s on the Virgin Mary. The majority of the references to Turmel in Loisy’s Mémoires occur in volume 3 and are mainly concerned with the circumstances surrounding Turmel’s “unmasking” and eventual excommunication. An obvious concern on Loisy’s part is to distance Turmel from Modernism and to advocate a judgment of his work on its scientific merit. The citations from the correspondence with Franz Cumont that postdate the publication of the Mémoires give access to Loisy’s private thoughts regarding Turmel’s recent work, somewhat less flattering than what earlier appeared in print. Turmel and Loisy were in correspondence from 1901 until 1931. Even after the Revued’histoireetdelittératurereligieuses ceased publication in 1922, Turmel continued to express his appreciation for Loisy’s publications14. There is, however, a gap from 1924 until the final two letters of 1930 and 1931. Turmel’s side of their exchanges ends on the plaintive note, “Je suis bien sûr que si vous êtes obligé de parler de moi, vous ne me jetterez pas la pierre”15.

13. Alfred Loisy to Adrian Pautonnier, 4 mars 1898, in CALICE (ed.), Ensoutane (n. 1), pp. 86-87. 14. Only Turmel’s side of the correspondence is extant. 15. Joseph Turmel to Alfred Loisy, 30 janvier 1931. BNF Fr. Nouv. Acq. 15662. Published as N. LE NORMAND (ed.), Lettres&notesinéditesdel’AbbéJosephTurmelà etsurl’AbbéAlfredLoisyentre1901et1930, Rennes, La Libre Pensée Rennaise, 2009, p. 94.

JOSEPH TURMEL AND ALFRED LOISY

87

In light of Loisy’s more favorable evaluation of Turmel’s earlier work in the RHLR, at the expense of his later writings, and recalling in particular Loisy’s reference to the 1922 articles on Ignatius of Antioch, it is noteworthy that this aspect of his work was of importance to Turmel. In 1922 he wrote L’adhésion entière que vous venez de donner aux parties essentielles de mon travail sur les épîtres ignatiennes est pour moi un puissant réconfort. ... La rupture d’une maîtresse poutre a toujours des conséquences fatales pour la maison qu’elle supporte. La littérature ignatienne faisait un peu l’office d’une maîtresse poutre pour certaines pièces dites apostoliques. Son effondrement aura invisiblement des conséquences que vous avez signalées et sur lesquelles l’avenir seul nous donnera des précisions16.

In his letters he mentions the significance of these articles more than once. Moreover, he subsequently returned to the Ignatian letters, revising earlier conclusions, and putting those forth in 1927 as Lettresd’Ignace d’Antioche, retaining the pseudonym Henri Delafosse17. In the penultimate letter to Loisy of 1930 he signals this publication, noting that “Un nouvel examen m’a amené malgré moi à modifier le travail publié naguère dans la Revue. Mes nouvelles conclusions me paraissent inéluctables. Ce qui me surprend, c’est de ne pas les avoir aperçues en 1921 alors que j’en étais si près”18. Given the felt importance of this multiple examination of the apostolic father Ignatius, what did Turmel conclude regarding his letters in the 1922 RHLR articles? How did those contribute to his ongoing agenda of undermining Catholicism? Further, what did a revisiting of this literature yield by way of fresh insight that merited new publication of his views? The articles first. Pivotal to his conclusions regarding the Ignatian letters is Turmel’s interpretation of the two main objects of the letter’s opposition: Docetism and Judaizing. He follows previous scholars such as Theodor Zahn and J.B. Lightfoot19 in identifying the two as different aspects of a single heresy. He departs from previous attempts to equate Judaizers with Gentile Christians who took the law of Moses as their rule of faith. Rather, their Judaizing consisted in their refusal to see in the Old Testament prophecies of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Judaizers “Judaize” 16. Turmel to Loisy, 29 août 1922, ibid., p. 82. 17. H. DELAFOSSE [J. TURMEL], Lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche, Paris, Les Éditions Rieder, 1927. 18. Turmel to Loisy, 16 septembre 1930, Lettres&notesinédites (n. 15), p. 92. 19. T. ZAHN, IgnatiusvonAntiochien (1873) and IgnatiietPolycarpiepsitulae (1876); J.B. LIGHTFOOT, TheApostolicFathers:ARevisedTextwithIntroductions,Notes,Dissertations,andTranslations.Part II:St.IgnatiusandSt.Polycarp, 3 vols. (1885).

88

C.J.T. TALAR

not, as is said, because they remain attached to Judaic observances, but because they refuse to believe that Jesus has been announced in the Old Testament20. After retrieving – and rejecting – several possible candidate heresies that would fit this dual description, Turmel argues that Marcionism uniquely squares with the textual evidence he retrieves from the letters. “Marcion enseigne que le Christ est un pur fantôme; mais, de plus, il partage l’erreur juive”21. While this conclusion resolves the problem of the historical identity of the object of the Ignatian polemics, it raises issues of chronology. Marcion and the movement he spawned belong to the mid-second century, not to its beginning, the traditional date of Ignatius’s martyrdom and the seven letters that scholars have come to accept as authentically his. Turmel finds the evidence he has marshalled sufficiently compelling to revise the attribution of the letters to c. 112 and instead argue for a later date of their composition, towards 150 or perhaps even later22. This raises the question of their true authorship. In the course of his close textual examination of the letters, Turmel highlights a number of inconsistencies and anomalies that have puzzled scholars. He does not find the explanations offered by defenders of the letters’ authenticity persuasive. If, however, the Ignatian corpus is regarded as a fictional platform for an antimarcionite polemic, intended for the universal church, these apparent anomalies can be accounted for. In résumé, Et nous avons maintenant la clef de l’itinéraire étrange imposé à Ignace, la clef des relations qu’il noua au cours de son voyage, la clef de la liberté qui lui fut laissée pour nouer ces relations, la clef de cette persécution qui frappe Ignace à Antioche et disparaît du jour où l’évêque chargé des chaînes a été emmené par ses geôliers, la clef enfin de l’expédition du diacre Agathopus. Tous ces faits qui, considérés isolément, sont si bizarres, s’emboîtent les uns dans les autres, se conditionnent et tendent tous au même objectif qui est de fournir une explication à l’origine des lettres ignatiennes. Tous ces faits appartiennent au domaine de la fiction23.

Turmel concludes that the Ignatian letters are a fictional vehicle written for a serious purpose. Ignatius is a fictional character whose name is borrowed from a listing of martyrs in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians 20. DELAFOSSE, Nouvelexamen (n. 6), pp. 307-317, 326-327, 333. 21. Ibid., pp. 493-494. Turmel finds corroboration in Tertullian’s writings for this reading of Judaizing and Marcionism, pp. 499-500. 22. “Le mouvement marcionite battait son plein aux environs de 150, époque où Justin écrivait. ... On ne peut guère les placer avant 150 (la lettre aux Romains ne contredit pas ce résultat, puisqu’elle semble utiliser Hermas dont le livre ne peut guère être antérieur à 150). Reste à savoir s’il ne faut pas descendre un peu plus bas”. Ibid., p. 503. Turmel ends in concluding that the letters were written toward 185, ibid., p. 532. 23. Ibid., p. 492.

JOSEPH TURMEL AND ALFRED LOISY

89

and on whom episcopal status is bestowed to lend authority to his antimarcionist stance. Events depicted in the letters are in part taken from an account by Lucian of Peregrinus, a charlatan who reportedly passed through Christianity and ended a cynic philosopher. This lends an air of verisimilitude at the same time it accounts for contradictions and anomalies that the actual writer introduced into the overall narrative in the letters24. In his August 1922 letter to Loisy, Turmel noted what he had left unsaid, but implied, in the RHLR articles, namely, that his conclusions regarding the Ignatian corpus had significant repercussions for Christian apologetics. What he left to his correspondent to infer, he spelled out in his revised exposition in Lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche. Since the letters contain references, or resonances, with a number of New Testament writings, among those the fourth Gospel, the letter to the Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles, and 1 Peter, dating the Ignatian corpus at the beginning of the second century makes for an earlier dating of those writings. If, on the other hand, those letters are located chronologically toward the century’s end (a conclusion retained from the earlier articles), a later dating for writings cited in them becomes a possibility25. One of the doctrinal implications of a later dating bears upon the episcopacy. The vehemence with which it is advocated in the Ignatian corpus argues for a later development of this institution as a natural response to circumstance, rather than as of divine origin26. In the 1922 articles Turmel had devoted most of his attention to establishing the antimarcionite character of the letters as their primary raison d’être, with the emphasis on the authority of the bishop as proof against heresy or as corrective occurring as a natural corollary. The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians received relatively brief mention (pp. 508515), but treatment of it is indispensable for Turmel’s thesis as it makes explicit reference to the seven letters of Ignatius that comprise the so-called middle recension and near its end inquires into the current circumstances of Ignatius and his companions. The letter is thus written in proximity to the events described in the Ignatian letters and its dating is foundational for locating those in time. In Lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche, Turmel gives extended treatment to Polycarp’s letter (pp. 24-50). He fastens upon the denunciation in the letter of an “eldest son of Satan” for not confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, for not accepting the witness of the cross, and for travestying the Lord’s pronouncements 24. Ibid., pp. 506, 516-517. 25. DELAFOSSE [TURMEL], Lettresd’Ignaced’Antioche (n. 17),pp.20-24. 26. Ibid., pp. 31, 80.

90

C.J.T. TALAR

to suit his own desires, to say that there is neither judgment nor resurrection. The substantive errors collected here are held to uniquely refer to Marcion, confirmed by Irenaeus’ retrieval of an encounter between Polycarp and Marcion where the latter was denounced as the eldest son of Satan27. In this approach to the Ignatian letters it is Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians that supplies the leverage for a dating of those mid-century or later. Polycarp’s letter is also important in other respects. One of the difficulties that confront interpreters of the letter is an apparent contradiction between chapters 9 and 13. In the former, Ignatius and his two companions have, along with other martyrs, offered their witness to the admiration of the Philippians. In other words, their martyrdom is an accomplished fact. However, in chapter 13, information concerning Ignatius and his companions is requested, as if their martyrdom has not yet occurred or word of it has not yet reached Polycarp. Turmel judges that either chapter 9 or chapter 13 is an interpolation by another hand and concludes that it is the latter which has been added. The forger’s objectives in doing so are twofold. First, the insertion provides proof that the letters called Ignatian have been written by the holy martyr Ignatius. Related to that is the transformation of the Ignatius named by Polycarp in chapter 9, from a Christian martyred in Asia Minor, into a bishop of Antioch martyred at Rome. Ignatius becomes a martyr who gains the prestige of being exalted by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and places the Ignatian correspondence under Polycarp’s patronage28. Thus far, Turmel has but amplified the work earlier presented in the RHLR articles. He retains his earlier position regarding the antimarcionite character of the Ignatian letters, but now with a significant difference. In a rather bold move, he argues on the basis of certain textual inconsistencies that it is possible to recover an original redaction that he attributes to Marcionite circles, and more specifically to a Theophorus, Marcionite bishop of Syria29. He claims to be able to discern an original stratum, consisting of pastoral letters written over time to his counterparts by this Marcionite bishop. In their original form, these letters had in view Catholics, who offer the poison of Jewish fables (Magnesians 8), in

27. Ibid., pp. 27-30. 28. Ibid., pp. 46-50. 29. “Ignatius identifies himself in all his letters by two names (joined by ὁ καί). Such double names are widespread especially in inscriptions and papyri”. W. SCHOEDEL, IgnatiusofAntioch, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1985, p. 35. Schoedel goes on to speculate that “Theophorus is a name adopted by Ignatius at his baptism despite the fact that the adoption of Christian names was not common until the middle of the third century”, ibid., p. 36.

JOSEPH TURMEL AND ALFRED LOISY

91

which Turmel finds a reference to the earthly expectation of the kingdom of Christ, professed in the Book of Revelation, by Justin Martyr, and which around 140 belonged to Catholic dogmatics. Hence Marcion held Catholics to be “Judaizers” and it is Catholics who are the object of Theophorus’ censure30. The polemic in the Ignatian letters directed against elements of Docetism are the work of a later redactor, a Catholic who overlaid an antimarcionite layer upon a preexistent text. As an example of Turmel’s working methods, we may take his exposition of a text from the beginning of the letter to the Smyrneans. In Turmel’s French translation, J’ai constaté que vous êtes établis dans une foi inébranlable pourainsidire clouésàlacroixduSeigneurJésus-Christenchairetenesprit, et affermis dans la charité danslesangdeChrist…quiestdelaracedeDavid …31.

Turmel questions how the blood of Christ could have a greater connection with charity than with faith? And how does being nailed to the cross provide a proof a faith more than of charity? Moreover, what is the effect of the application here of the cross and its nails to the faithful? He argues that the incoherence present in the text is the consequence of the collaboration of the two redactors. One, who has spoken with some frequency of faith and charity and here refers to the faithful being grounded in these two virtues. The second has introduced the portions Turmel has italicized with the intent to assert the reality of Christ’s incarnation and his crucifixion against the spiritual Christ of the Marcionites32. And thus, Deux rédacteurs ont donc collaboré à établir le texte des lettres ignatiennes sous la forme qu’il a aujourd’hui. Ces deux rédacteurs ont travaillé à des époques différentes. Et c’est le second qui s’est proposé d’affirmer contre Marcion la doctrine catholique de l’incarnation du Christ. Il a réalisé son programme en utilisant une rédaction antérieure qu’il a retouchée. Mais il a exécuté ses retouches avec si peu des précautions qu’il a abouti parfois au galimatias. C’est d’ailleurs ce résultat qui nous a servi d’indice révélateur33.

For Turmel this provides a satisfactory account of the incoherence of the identity of Judaizers and docetists as the text now stands. The textual incongruities are the product of a joining of two redactions, an earlier one

30. DELAFOSSE [TURMEL], Lettresd’Ignaced’Antioche (n. 17),pp. 71-74. 31. Ibid., p. 68. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid., p. 69. In his translations of the Ignatian letters Turmel draws upon criteria that he has identified for distinguishing the two redactions (on pp. 77-78), printing the foundational text in regular typeface and the later Catholic redactions in italics.

92

C.J.T. TALAR

directed in severe terms against Judaizing Catholics, the later one applying those severities to the docetist Marcionites. The Catholic redactor has introduced Ignatius of Antioch, a fictive entity created out of a martyr of Philippi named Ignatius (from chapter 9 of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians) and Theophorus who contributes the title of bishop. The latter also contributes the basic narrative line of the letters, as it is actually he who has been condemned, and is on his way to Rome to be martyred34. Thus Turmel’s revisionism alters the status of the letters. No longer the fabrications of a forger, they are the writings of the Marcionite bishop Theophorus, with alterations ranging from the lightly interpolated Romans to the more heavily redacted letters transforming anti-Catholic polemic into antimarcionite. The argument is of course more complex than this bare suggestion of its conclusions conveys. It is sufficient, however, to give substance to Cumont’s characterization of “machine de guerre” applied to Turmel’s later work. The dating of the first redaction to a period between 160 and 180, and the final, Catholic redaction to somewhere between 190 and 211 undermines apologetic claims for early incidence of Catholic beliefs and practices. The Marcionite provenance of the work undercuts claims to find orthodox instances of those beliefs and practices in writings accepted as the work of the third bishop of Antioch, successor to the apostle Peter. In view of the reservations he expressed regarding Turmel’s work on the Ignatian correspondence, the position Loisy himself took in Remarques sur la littérature épistolaire du Nouveau Testament (1935) is worth remarking. From the notes to Loisy’s text it is apparent that he is indebted to Turmel’s close reading of the Ignatian texts with a view toward parceling out their content35. From the text itself it is apparent that Loisy has followed Turmel in seeing two redactions, one from approximately 170180 as the work of a Marcionite martyr, Theophorus, the second a Catholic elaboration dating from approximately 20036. Loisy adds that the Marcionism of Theophorus appears to be of a mitigated sort, reminiscent of Marcion’s follower Apelles37. 34. Ibid., p. 81. 35. See, for example, A. LOISY, RemarquessurlalittératureépistolaireduNouveau Testament, Paris, Émile Nourry, 1935, p. 155n. 36. Ibid., p. 168. 37. In their own day Turmel and Loisy did not attract any followers to their revisionist reading of the letters of Ignatius. “Loisy was the only established biblical scholar to endorse Turmel’s theory. The few who gave it any consideration were not convinced that the parts presumably written by Theophorus were distinctively Marcionite. Ignatian scholars without exception acknowledge that the letters contain more than a few difficult

JOSEPH TURMEL AND ALFRED LOISY

93

In the course of his final letter to Loisy, Turmel cited sentiments he had expressed to Paul-Louis Couchoud38 a few days before: “Je suis frappé d’interdit. Plus que jamais je veux faire la guerre à la bête”39. “La bête” was the term Turmel used for the Catholic Church he opposed and worked to subvert. Presumably it was this work of undermining that Loisy referred to as Turmel’s “idée fixe”. Loisy offered his own assessment of his relation to the Church in the final volume of his Mémoires: Ce n’est pas avec de la haine qu’on perfectionnera l’œuvre des siècles chrétiens. Ce que j’ai fait dans l’Église, pour la rendre habitable, était aussi pour qu’elle se rendît plus apte au service d’humanité qu’elle prétend exercer. […] C’est l’absence de haine qui m’a permis d’entretenir en mon cœur si pauvre la petite flamme de l’amour et du dévouement que j’ai pu offrir à la cause de l’humanité; c’est cette absence de haine qui m’a permis de n’être jamais accablé par l’adversité; c’est cette absence de haine qui m’a gardé toujours la faculté de sourire; c’est cette absence de haine qui m’a épargné, je crois le naufrage de l’esprit dans un système absolu ou dans une idée fixe, et qui m’a aidé à réaliser dans mes écrits un certain équilibre de mesure et d’impartialité40.

University of Saint Thomas 3800 Montrose Houston, TX 77006 USA [email protected]

Charles J.T. TALAR

passages that have not yet received satisfying explanations. However, Turmel’s theory, though explaining some of the difficulties, still left questions unanswered, and it created new problems of its own. The theory was faulted especially for the considerable amount of interpolation it postulated”. R. PARVUS, ANewLookattheLettersofIgnatiusofAntioch and Other Apellean Writings, New York, iUniverse, Inc., 2008, pp. vii-viii. Parvus argues that Turmel was right to see an original Marcionite basis to the letters, later modified with a view toward making them serviceable to the proto-Catholic church. He follows Loisy’s suggestion, however, that regarding Theophorus as a disciple of the mitigated Marcionism of Apelles makes better sense of their contents. There have been scholars who, from the late 1960s have challenged the authenticity and traditional dating of the Ignatian correspondence. Their works are noted and discussed by A. BRENT, Ignatiusof Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy, London, Continuum, 2007, chapt. 5. A survey of work on the letters up to 1988 may be found in C. MUNIER,Oùen estlaquestiond’Ignaced’Antioche?Biland’unsièclederecherches1870-1988, in AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt II.27.1 (1992) 359-484. 38. Paul-Louis Couchoud (1879-1959). Remembered as a proponent in France of the “Christ-Myth” theory, Couchoud edited the series “Le Christianisme” to which Turmel contributed several volumes under two of his many pseudonyms. 39. Letter of Turmel to Loisy, 30 janvier 1931, Lettres&notesinédites (n. 15), p. 93. 40. LOISY, Mémoirespourserviràl’histoirereligieusedenotretemps (n. 2), vol. 3, pp. 558-559.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE (MAREDSOUS) À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

L’idée de tenter de cerner la politique rédactionnelle de la Revuebénédictine de l’abbaye de Maredsous au cours de la crise moderniste (qui correspond au pontificat de Pie X) n’est pas fortuite. Au cours de nos recherches sur Paulin Ladeuze1, orientaliste et exégète de l’Université de Louvain, et futur recteur2, notre attention avait été attirée par le rôle joué à Rome par un bénédictin de Maredsous, dom Laurent Janssens, à l’époque secrétaire de la Commission biblique3, et par les savants travaux de dom Donatien De Bruyne, membre à l’époque également de la Commission de Révision de la Vulgate4. Le premier, en effet, était intervenu dans la crise provoquée par la publication, dans le chef de Ladeuze, d’un article sur le Magnificat5jugé compromettant à Rome6, domaine sensible

1. Voir L. COURTOIS,PaulinLadeuze(1870-1940):Jeunesseetformation(1870-1898). Vieetpenséed’unintellectuelcatholiqueautempsdumodernisme(1898-1914), Louvainla-Neuve, Université catholique de Louvain, IV, 1998, pp. 824-853. On en trouvera une version PDF mise à jour en 2007 sur DIAL (): ID., L’apportdesthéologiensbelgesàl’exégèseduNouveauTestament durant la crise moderniste (1892-1914): Paulin Ladeuze (1870-1940), Mémoire présenté au concours de l’Académie royale de Belgique, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2007. 2. Sur Paulin Ladeuze (1870-1940), prêtre du diocèse de Tournai (1892), professeur de patrologie et d’exégèse du Nouveau Testament (1898-1909), puis recteur (1909-1940) de l’Université catholique de Louvain, voir L. COURTOIS, Ladeuze (Paulin-Pierre-JeanMarie-Joseph), dans DHGE 29 (2007) 1287-1294. 3. Sur Henri Janssens (1855-1925), en religion dom Laurent, prêtre du diocèse de Gand (1877), docteur en théologie de la Grégorienne (1879), moine à l’abbaye de Maredsous (où il fit sa profession en 1881 et où il se consacra surtout à l’enseignement [1881-1893]), recteur et professeur de théologie dogmatique au Collège Saint-Anselme de Rome (18931908) et, enfin, titulaire d’importantes fonctions dans l’administration vaticane (à partir de 1905), voir R. AUBERT, Janssens(Laurent), dans DHGE 26 (1997) 969-973, qui fournit la bibliographie (y ajouter: G. GHYSENS, Janssens[Henri-Antoine-Marie],enreligion domLaurent, dans BN 38 [1973-1974] 353-358). 4. Sur Albert De Bruyne (1871-1935), en religion dom Donatien, ordonné prêtre séculier en 1895, docteur en théologie de l’Université de Louvain, professeur d’Écriture Sainte au Grand séminaire de Bruges, entré à Maredsous en 1901, profès en 1905 et décédé à Bruges le 5 août 1935, voir P. SCHMITZ, Bruyne(Albertde), dans BN33 (1965-1966) 134137. Voir également P.-M. BOGAERT, BibliographieraisonnéedestravauxdedomDonatienDeBruyne(1871-1935), dans RBén81 (1971) 123-150. 5. P. LADEUZE, De l’origine du Magnificat et de son attribution dans le troisième ÉvangileàMarieouàÉlisabeth, dans RHE 4 (1903) 623-644. 6. Voir ici COURTOIS, L’apportdesthéologiensbelges(n. 1), pp. 511-519.

96

L. COURTOIS

s’il en est puisque le second, lui, se verra interdire un peu plus tard une publication sur le même sujet dans la Revuebénédictine7. Pour mener à bien ce qui ne constitue jamais qu’une première enquête, nous nous sommes intéressé à trois sources essentiellement: la correspondance du principal directeur durant la période, dom Raymond Thibaut8, correspondance où nous nous sommes focalisé sur les grands noms de l’école critique de l’époque (on y trouve d’ailleurs guère de correspondance des conservateurs…); la revue elle-même, dont les articles et comptes rendus sont pour une part révélateurs de la ligne de conduite théologique; et à titre complémentaire, la correspondance publiée de dom Columba Marmion, moine originaire de Maredsous et bien informé des questions ecclésiastiques et théologiques de son temps9. Pour le reste, l’objectif peut être défini simplement. Face à l’émergence de l’histoire critique qui, au tournant des XIXe et XXe siècles, conquière rapidement, du côté catholique, l’histoire de l’Église, l’histoire des dogmes et l’exégèse, comment tend à se situer la Revuebénédictine? Au-delà du modernisme condamné, du côté «conservateur», qui s’accroche aux positions traditionnelles, comme Fulcran Vigouroux, en refusant toute concession à la critique10; ou du côté «progressiste» qui s’engage résolument sur le terrain de la théologie positive, comme Lagrange, mais en réaffirmant la régulation de la «règle de foi»11? 7. Voir ici P.-M. BOGAERT, Épisodedelacontroversesurle«Magnificat»:Àpropos d’unarticleinéditdeDonatienDeBruyne(1906), dans RBén 94 (1984) 38-49. 8. Sur Hubert Thibaut (1877-1962), en religion dom Raymond, profès de Maredsous le 20 mars 1898, décédé à l’abbaye le 29 novembre 1962, voir RBén 73 (1963) 7-8. Voir également: D. MISONNE, DomRaymondThibaut,éditeurdesœuvresdeDomMarmion, dans Enparcourantl’histoiredeMaredsous, t. I, Denée, Éd. de Maredsous, 2005, 247-262 (a d’abord paru dans LettredeMaredsous 29/3 [2000] 163-182). 9. Sur Joseph Marmion (1858-1923), en religion dom Columba, d’origine irlandaise, entré à Maredsous en 1886, abbé en 1909 après un passage par l’abbaye du Mont-César de Louvain, voir surtout M. TIERNEY, DomColumbaMarmion:ABiography, Blackrock-Dublin, Columba, 1995 (traduction: ID., DomColumbaMarmion:Unebiographie, Paris, P. Lethielleux, 2000). Bibliographie complète sur le site http://www.marmion.be/marm1300.html (consulté le 9 février 2018). 10. Sur Fulcran-Grégoire Vigouroux (1837-1915), professeur de philosophie au séminaire d’Autun (1861), titulaire de la chaire d’exégèse au séminaire d’Issy-les-Moulineaux (1864), à Saint-Sulpice (1868) et à l’Institut catholique de Paris (1890), secrétaire de la Commission biblique (1903-1913), et à ce titre signataire, avec le bénédictin belge Laurent Janssens, des décrets de la Commission, voir Vigouroux,FulcranGrégoire, dans Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (cité ci-après: BBKL), t. XII, Herzberg, Bautz, 1997, col. 1391-1394 (version informatique consultée le 2 mars 2018). 11. Albert Lagrange (1855-1938), docteur en droit (1878), il entre ensuite chez les dominicains où il prononce ses vœux en 1880, y est ordonné prêtre en 1883, se consacre ensuite à Toulouse à l’enseignement ecclésiastique et à la prédication, puis, après un séjour d’études à Vienne en 1888, fonde en 1890 l’École biblique de Jérusalem. Voir surtout B. MONTAGNES, Marie-JosephLagrange:Unebiographiecritique(Cerf histoire. Biographie), Paris, Cerf, 2004.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

97

Après avoir rappelé quelques points de repère en matière de crise moderniste (point I) et présenté rapidement la revue (point II), nous nous efforcerons d’évaluer la ligne éditoriale de la revue (point III). On notera cependant ici combien nos sources peuvent se révéler «ingrates», dans la mesure où les opinions pertinentes pour notre propos qui s’y expriment sont souvent «accidentelles»: leur auteur poursuivait des buts qui ne rencontre pas forcément nos préoccupations, d’où une possible impression de décousu et de fragmentaire dans les matériaux rassemblés ici … Que le lecteur veuille bien nous en excuser par avance! I. UN

BREF RAPPEL:

LA

CRISE MODERNISTE

Stricto sensu, la crise moderniste s’enclenche avec la publication (en novembre 1902) par l’exégète Alfred Loisy12 (1857-1940) d’un «petit livre rouge», L’Évangile et l’Église13, et culmine avec l’encyclique Pascendi (8 septembre 1907) stigmatisant le modernisme comme le «carrefour de toutes les hérésies». Privé de son enseignement à l’Institut catholique, Loisy avait mis sa retraite forcée à profit pour repenser les concepts d’inspiration et de révélation à la lumière des acquis de la méthode historique. La sortie en français de l’ouvrage DasWesendesChristentums14, du protestant libéral Adolf Harnack15 (1851-1930), allait lui permettre, en novembre 1902, d’exposer le fruit de ses réflexions dans le petit volume dont il vient d’être question. Apologie historique du christianisme, l’ouvrage développait des conceptions qui, pour un esprit habitué aux déductions scolastiques, étaient quasi irrecevables («les conceptions que l’Église présente comme des dogmes révélés, ne sont pas des vérités tombées du ciel et gardées par la tradition dans la forme précise où elles ont paru d’abord»…). Ce fut en tout état de cause le point de vue du cardinal 12. Sur Alfred Loisy (1857-1940), prêtre du diocèse de Châlons-sur-Marne (1879), élève de Louis Duchesne à l’Institut catholique de Paris, où il commença son enseignement mais où il dut démissionner (1893), aumônier des dominicaines de Neuilly-sur-Seine, avant de connaître les ennuis que l’on sait, voir W. WEISS, Loisy, Alfred Firmin, dans BBKL 5 (1993) 190-196 (version informatique consultée le 2 mars 2018). 13. A. LOISY, L’Évangileetl’Église, Paris, Picard, 1902. 14. A. HARNACK, Das Wesen des Christentums, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1900, traduit en français chez l’éditeur protestant Fischbacher sous le titre L’essence du christianisme (Paris, 1903). 15. Sur Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930), historien protestant de l’Église ancienne et des dogmes, voir entre autres Adolf von Harnack: Christentum, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft.WissenschaftlichesSymposiumausAnlassdes150.Geburtstags (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 204), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.

98

L. COURTOIS

Richard16, archevêque de Paris, qui condamna bientôt le petit livre comme étant «de nature à troubler gravement la foi des fidèles sur les dogmes fondamentaux de l’enseignement catholique» (17 janvier 1903). La condamnation de Loisy fut suivie, en 1906, par la mise à l’Index des œuvres de philosophie religieuses de Lucien Laberthonnière17 et du mathématicien Édouard Le Roy18, mais ces mesures n’ayant pas abouti à calmer des polémiques, un dispositif beaucoup plus sévère fut mis en place. Ce fut d’abord le décret du Saint-Office Lamentabili sane exitu, en date du 17 juillet 190719, qui réprouvait soixante-cinq propositions extraites pour la plupart des œuvres de Loisy. Ce fut ensuite l’encyclique Pascendi dominici Gregis20, signée par Pie X le 8 septembre suivant, laquelle se présentait comme une synthèse philosophique de l’ensemble des orientations du modernisme, condamnant l’agnosticisme, qui conteste la valeur des démonstrations rationnelles dans le domaine religieux, et l’immanentisme, qui situe l’origine de l’ensemble des manifestations religieuses dans les besoins naturels de l’homme, excluant par là toute idée d’une réalité divine extérieure à l’homme. Il importe de souligner, à travers les démêlés de Loisy avec les autorités ecclésiastiques, combien le problème de fond qui sous-tend la crise – avec cependant, central chez ce dernier, celui de l’apologétique – concerne la nature de l’inspiration biblique et surtout sa principale conséquence, l’inerrance21. Comment, en effet, concilier une interprétation 16. Sur le cardinal Richard (1819-1908), prêtre du diocèse de Nantes (1844), vicaire général de son diocèse (1849-1869), évêque de Belley (1871), évêque coadjuteur (1875) puis archevêque (1886) de Paris, cardinal (1889), voir A. CHAPEAU, Richard (François-Marie-Benjamin), dans Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd’hui, demain (cité ci-après: Catholicisme), 12, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1988, col. 1196-1198. 17. Sur Lucien Laberthonnière (1860-1932), prêtre (1886) du diocèse de Bourges entré à l’Oratoire, professeur de philosophie au collège de l’Oratoire à Juilly (1886-1896), professeur (1896) puis directeur (1897) de l’École Massillon, directeur à Juilly jusqu’à la dispersion de l’Oratoire (1900-1903), directeur des Annales de philosophie chrétienne jusqu’à leur mise à l’Index (1905-1913) et interdit de publication à partir de 1913, voir P. BEILLEVERT, Laberthonnière(Lucien), dans Catholicisme 6 (1967) 1526-1531. 18. Sur Édouard Le Roy (1870-1954), agrégé de l’École normale supérieure en sciences mathématiques (1895), professeur suppléant aux lycées Michelet, Condorcet et Charlemagne (1895-1900), docteur ès sciences, professeur de mathématiques spéciales au collège SaintStanislas (1900), de mathématiques supérieures au Lycée de Versailles (1903) et de mathématiques au lycée Saint-Louis (1909-1921), successeur de Bergson au Collège de France (1921-1941), voir H. LECLÈRE, LeRoy(Édouard), dans Catholicisme 7 (1969) 443-449. 19. ActesdeS.S.PieX.Encycliques,motuproprio,brefs,allocutions,etc., t. III, Paris, Maison de la bonne presse, s.d., pp. 224-237. 20. Ibid., pp. 85-177. 21. Pour un aperçu systématique sur ce problème de l’inerrance, voir G. COURTADE, Inspirationetinerrance, dans DictionnairedelaBible.Supplément (cité ci-après: DBS) 4, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1949, col. 520-559.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

99

encore très littérale de la Bible avec les découvertes des sciences naturelles d’abord, avec le progrès des connaissances historiques ensuite: si la géologie prouve une histoire du monde bien plus ancienne que ne l’enseigne la Genèse, par exemple, et si l’histoire positive démontre les impossibilités de la chronologie biblique, peut-on encore parler d’inerrance et regarder la Bible comme un livre inspiré? La question n’était pas simple à résoudre et la réponse n’est pas venue en une fois. Au cours de la première moitié du XIXe siècle, les mises en question de la Bible vinrent principalement du côté des sciences naturelles, de la géologie surtout, dont les résultats contredisaient l’histoire des origines fournie par la Genèse. La réponse donnée par l’exégèse catholique pour sortir des difficultés fut d’abord le «concordisme» qui, à grand renfort d’érudition, cherchait à faire coïncider le récit biblique avec les théories modernes, en faisant preuve d’une imagination jamais prise en défaut quand il s’agissait de rendre compte des dernières nouveautés scientifiques: aux jours de la création, par exemple, on fit correspondre les périodes géologiques, puis les divisions de la préhistoire, etc.22. La première tentative réelle faite sur le terrain de l’inspiration et de l’inerrance fut le fait d’un savant orientaliste, François Lenormant23, qui reconnaissait l’inspiration de toute la Bible mais, dissociant les concepts d’inspiration et d’inerrance, limitait cette dernière aux enseignements surnaturels. Distinguant ce qui est révélé de ce qui est inspiré, il estimait que la révélation, tout comme l’infaillibilité, ne valait qu’en matière de foi et de mœurs, les autres énoncés bibliques étant certes inspirés, mais non forcément exempts d’erreurs. Reprise par Mgr d’Hulst, cette distinction, dont il créditera l’«école large», suscitera de vives réactions et sera à l’origine de la mise au point de Léon XIII. On notera qu’à peu près à la même époque, Newman24 avait proposé une formule originale, mais qui ne s’accorde guère avec les formulations traditionnelles, à savoir que les choses dites en passant, obiterdicta, ne seraient pas inspirées et par conséquent ne seraient pas garanties contre l’erreur.

22. Voir H. CAZELLES, Concordisme, dans DBS 2 (1934) 1470-1471. 23. Sur François Lenormant (1837-1883), archéologue et historien français comptant parmi les plus réputés de son siècle, auteur de nombreux ouvrages sur l’Orient ancien, voir J. TRINQUET, Lenormant(François), dans DBS 5 (1957) 354-359. 24. Sur John Henry Newman (1801-1890), théologien anglican, leader du Mouvement d’Oxford avant de se convertir au catholicisme (1845), fondateur d’une communauté de l’Oratoire à Birmingham (1847-1851) puis d’une Université catholique à Dublin (18511858), retiré à l’Oratoire où il poursuit la rédaction d’une œuvre féconde et créé cardinal par Léon XIII (1878), voir J. ULRICH, Newman,JohnHenry, dans BBKL 17 (2000) 1007-1037 (version informatique consultée le 2 mars 2018).

100

L. COURTOIS

Dans son encyclique ProvidentissimusDeus du 18 novembre 189325, Léon XIII réagit aux théories de l’«école large» imaginée par Mgr d’Hulst, dans un double sens. Tout en condamnant fermement toute forme de restriction apportée à l’inspiration et en attirant l’attention sur les abus de la «haute critique» – la critique comme telle était donc licite –, il affirmait que la Bible n’enseigne pas les sciences naturelles et que, de ce point de vue, elle s’exprime selon les «apparences» du temps. Cette déclaration libératrice mettait fin au concordisme qui avait prévalu jusque-là dans l’explication des premières pages de la Genèse, mais elle ne réglait pas, loin s’en faut, tous les problèmes. Si la Bible n’enseignait pas la science, enseignait-elle l’histoire? Et si oui, que répondre à la critique qui jetait le doute sur l’authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque ou montrait les contradictions entre le récit biblique et les données historiques établies par ailleurs? Quelles ressources, enfin, offrait l’encyclique en ce domaine? Pour faire face à ces difficultés, une autre solution que l’inspiration restreinte ou limitée dans ses effets, en termes d’inerrance, fut avancée, qui étendait en fait le bénéfice des apparences reconnu explicitement par l’encyclique pour les «sciences» au domaine de l’histoire: de même que dans le domaine des sciences naturelles l’auteur sacré a parlé «selon les apparences», dans le domaine de l’histoire, l’écrivain inspiré s’est exprimé «selon les apparences historiques»26. À côté du père Lagrange notamment, qui fut le premier à s’appuyer sur une interprétation extensive de la pensée pontificale27, nous pouvons signaler l’appui d’un autre grand format de l’exégèse progressiste du début du siècle, le Père jésuite François Hummelauer, dont la théorie des genres littéraires allait rencontrer, comme nous allons le découvrir, plus de succès que le système des apparences historiques. Sans être explicitement visé sous le pontificat de Pie X, en effet, le principe des apparences historiques allait être victime des controverses agitées durant la crise moderniste avant d’être formellement condamné par l’encyclique Spiritus Paraclitus de Benoît XV (1920), qui marque à bien des égards un recul par rapport à ProvidentissimusDeus28. 25. Pour le texte de l’encyclique, voir LettresapostoliquesdeS.S.LéonXIII.Encycliques, brefs,etc., t. IV, Paris, Bayard, s.d., pp. 2-45. De façon générale, voir G. COURTADE, Lettres encycliques(concernantlaBibleetlesétudesbibliques), dans DBS 5 (1957) 375-387. 26. Sur la théorie des apparences historiques, voir également A. LEMONNYER, Apparenceshistoriques(théoriedes), dans DBS 1 (1926) 588-596. 27. Voir M.-J. LAGRANGE, Laméthodehistorique,surtoutàproposdel’AncienTestament, Paris, Lecoffre, 1903, pp. 106-109, où il développe son argumentation. 28. Sur l’encyclique elle-même, voir l’article cité de COURTADE, Lettres encycliques (n. 25).

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

101

Une autre solution avancée pour sortir des difficultés historiques de la Bible fut la théorie des citations implicites29: de même que l’auteur sacré rapporte parfois expressément les paroles d’autrui sans les approuver et par conséquent – fait traditionnellement admis – sans leur conférer un caractère d’inerrance, il reproduit parfois tacitement des sources, sans en garantir davantage l’inspiration. Si ce système ne fut pas absolument prohibé, la décision de la Commission biblique du 13 février 1905 allait cependant en rendre l’application très aléatoire: à la question de savoir s’il était permis à l’exégèse catholique d’y recourir, en effet, la réponse fut négative, excepté dans les cas où l’on pouvait prouver formellement, et la citation tacite, et l’absence d’adhésion de l’écrivain sacré au contenu de cette dernière. En milieu catholique – les protestants étaient bien en avance sur ce point comme sur beaucoup d’autres –, la solution aux antilogies bibliques30 viendra de l’idée des genres littéraires, qui ont chacun leurs lois propres et en fonction desquels il convient d’interpréter31. L’idée, déjà exprimée incidemment chez quelques auteurs comme le Père Lagrange, fut exposée pour la première fois de façon systématique par Franz von Hummelauer32 en 1904, dans ses Considérationsexégétiques sur la question de l’inspiration33. Plutôt froidement accueillie dans le contexte de la crise moderniste, sa théorie n’eut guère d’effets bénéfiques dans l’immédiat sur le travail des exégètes catholiques; ce n’est qu’au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale qu’elle allait recevoir une sanction positive du magistère34. Rescapée – on peut se demander pourquoi – de la vague de condamnations formelles qui a caractérisé le pontificat de Pie X dans le domaine biblique, la théorie des genres littéraires fut cependant implicitement visée par l’encyclique Spiritus Paraclitus de 29. Voir A. LEMONNYER, Citationsimplicites(théoriedes), dans DBS 2 (1934) 51-55. 30. Cf. A. MANGENOT, Antilogie, dans DBS 1 (1926) 665-669. 31. Voir A. ROBERT, Littéraires(genres), dans DBS 5 (1957) 405-421. Voir également L. VENARD, Historique(genre), dans DBS 4 (1949) 7-31. 32. François von Hummelauer (1842-1914), entré dans la Compagnie de Jésus en 1860, après le noviciat à Gorheim (1860-1862), la rhétorique à Münster (1862-1864), la philosophie à Maria Laach (1864-1867), la théologie à Maria Laach et Ditton Hall (18601873) et deux années d’études spéciales, il se consacra à l’enseignement de l’exégèse à Ditton Hall (1877-1895) et à Valkenburg (1895-1908). Après quelques années de ministère apostolique à Berlin (1908-1911), il se retira au noviciat de ’s Heerenberg (Pays-Bas), où il mourut à la veille de la guerre. Voir A. BÉA, Hummelauer, François de, dans DBS 4 (1949) 144-146. 33. F. VON HUMMELAUER, ExegetischeszurInspirationsfragemitbesondererRücksicht aufdasAlteTestament (Biblische Studien, 9/4), Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 1904. 34. Sur l’attitude du magistère dans la question biblique, de ProvidentissimusDeus à Dei Verbum, voir l’excellent article de R. FABRIS, BibbiaeMagistero:DallaProvidentissimus Deus(1893)allaDeiVerbum(1965), dans G. SEGALLA, Centoannidistudibiblici(18931993):L’interpretazionedellaBibbianellachiesa, Padova, Studia Patavina, 1994, 11-36.

102

L. COURTOIS

Benoît XV35. Plusieurs fois censurée au cours de l’Entre-deux-guerres chez quelques auteurs qui y avaient imprudemment recouru, elle finit par s’imposer dans l’encyclique DivinoafflanteSpiritu de Pie XII, qui amorçait une véritable détente dans le domaine des études bibliques36. II. LA REVUE BÉNÉDICTINE Il y aurait beaucoup à dire sur les origines de l’abbaye de Maredsous dans un contexte ultramontain qui peut paraître paradoxal si l’on songe au caractère «progressiste» de la Revuebénédictineque nous allons établir, mais cela nous éloignerait trop de notre objet, la revue elle-même37. Les débuts de cette dernière s’inscrivent dans un temps que le P. Daniel Misonne a appelé «Untempsdecréationetd’adaptation»38, qui va de 1884, date de création du Messagerdesfidèles, à 1914, moment où le périodique a pris sa forme à peu près définitive, en passant par 1891, année où elle est rebaptisée Revue bénédictine. Durant cette dernière période, au cours de laquelle le périodique s’engage toujours plus dans le domaine de l’érudition ecclésiastique, principalement dans les secteurs de l’histoire monastique, de la Bible, de la patrologie latine et de la liturgie ancienne, il faut attendre la direction de Dom Raymond Thibaut (1905-1914) pour que les choses prennent véritablement leur physionomie actuelle39! Comme le note le 35. Cf. ActesdeBenoîtXV:Encycliques,motuproprio,brefs,allocutions,actesdes dicastères,etc., t. III, Paris, Maison de la bonne presse, 1924, p. 188: «S’il vivait encore, saint Jérôme dirigerait à coup sûr des traits acérés contre ces imprudents qui […] prétendent découvrir dans les Livres Saints tels procédés littéraires inconciliables avec l’absolue et parfaite véracité de la parole divine». 36. Voir Actes de S.S.Pie XII: Documents pontificaux et actes des dicastères romains. Textesoriginauxettraductionfrançaise, t. V, Paris, Maison de la bonne presse, s.d., pp. 204-259. 37. Cf. G. GHYSENS, Fondation et essor de Maredsous 1872-1923, dans RBén 83 (1973) 229-257, et D. MISONNE, Survold’unehistoire, dans ID., Enparcourantl’histoire deMaredsous(n. 8), t. I, 9-51. 38. Voir D. MISONNE, LesrevuesdeMaredsous, dans LettredeMaredsous 20/4 (1991) 174179 (cet article a également paru dans ID., Enparcourantl’histoiredeMaredsous[n. 8], t. I, 287-301). Ce dernier article s’inspire de P. VERBRAKEN – D. MISONNE, Centannéesd’érudition ecclésiastique:La Revue bénédictine1884-1984, dans RBén 94 (1984) 11-37, plus systématique. Dans une moindre mesure, voir également P.-M. BOGAERT, Lesvingt-cinqansd’unecentenaire: LaRevuebénédictine (1884-2009), dans LettredeMaredsous 38/2 (2009) 73-77. 39. Si l’on s’en tient au pontificat de Pie X, qui correspond à la crise moderniste (19031914), les directions de H. Casier (1902-1903) et P. Bastien (1903-1905), peuvent être regardées comme des temps de transition (P. VERBRAKEN, Revuebénédictine, dans Catholicisme (12 [1988] 1155-1156). Sur la Revuebénédictine à ses débuts, voir également [C. LAMBOT], Un monument d’érudition ecclésiastique: La Revue bénédictine, dans Revue liturgique et monastique 19 (1933-1934) 429-440, et C. TESTORE, Revuebénédictine, dans Enciclopedia cattolica, 10, Città del Vaticano, Ente per l’enciclopedia e per il libro cattolico, 1953, col. 835.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

103

Chanoine Roger Aubert, «L’évolution de la Revuebénédictine, depuis le modeste Messager des fidèles de 1884 jusqu’à la revue scientifique de renommée internationale qu’elle est devenue aux environs de 1900, n’est pas un phénomène isolé»40. Et de dresser un tableau circonstancié des mutations du paysage scientifique catholique au tournant des XIXe et XXe siècles, tableau comportant notamment le Bulletincritique de Louis Duchesne (1880), en France, les AnalectaBollandiana (1882), des bollandistes de Bruxelles, et la Revued’histoireecclésiastique, de l’Université de Louvain (1900)… Cela dit, si, durant la crise moderniste (1903-1914), la revue réussit à traverser la répression intégriste sans trop de dommage, ce ne fut pas sans quelques renoncements parfois difficiles. Dom Berlière, qui avait joué un rôle moteur dans la transformation scientifique de la revue, avait quitté Maredsous en 1902 pour prendre la tête de l’Institut historique belge de Rome naissant. Son remplacement à la tête de la revue par dom Hubert Casier et dom Pierre Bastin, des collaborateurs occasionnels, ne constituait qu’une solution transitoire, laquelle ne prit fin qu’avec la nomination de dom Raymond Thibaut, dont le rôle stabilisateur fut essentiel, comme nous l’avons déjà suggéré. Étranger à la Revue au départ (et après sa direction, du reste…), sa nomination à sa tête est liée à son intérêt pour l’histoire de la spiritualité: s’il devait peu publier dans ce domaine, il fit profiter de ses travaux son ami Henri Bremond – un des protagonistes importants de la crise moderniste en France41 – lequel en tira profit pour son Histoire littéraire du sentimentreligieuxenFrance42. Pour la petite histoire, rappelons ici que Bremond avait publié en 1912 une biographie de Jeanne de Chantal43, qui fut mise à l’Index le 16 mai 191344, après avoir fait l’objet d’une 40. R. AUBERT, L’essordesrevuesd’éruditionecclésiastiqueautournantdesXIXeet XXesiècles, dans RBén 94 (1984) 410-443, ici p. 410. 41. Sur Henri Bremond (1865-1933), prêtre de la Compagnie de Jésus (1892) qu’il quitte en 1904 (incardiné au diocèse d’Aix-en-Provence) pour se consacrer à ses travaux critiques et littéraires, voir F.-W. BAUTZ, Bremond,Henri, dans BBKL 1 (1990) 741 (version informatique consultée le 2 mars 2018). Sur Bremond et le modernisme, voir également É. POULAT, Bremond et le modernisme, dans M. NÉDONCELLE – J. DAGENS (éds), EntretienssurHenriBremond (Décades du Centre culturel international Cerisy-la-Salle, nouv. sér., 4), Paris – La Haye, Mouton, 1967, 69-75. 42. H. BREMOND, HistoirelittérairedusentimentreligieuxenFrance, Paris, Bloud et Gay, 1916-1933. Voir également l’édition intégrale et augmentée sous la dir. de F. TRÉMOLIÈRES, 5 vol., Grenoble, Millon, 2006. 43. H. BREMOND, Vie de sainte Jeanne de Chantal (1572-1641) (Les saints), Paris, Lecoffre-Gabalda, 1912. 44. Sur cette affaire, voir A. BLANCHET, Histoire d’une mise à l’Index: La «sainte Chantal»del’abbéBremond (Études bremondiennes, 1), Paris, Éditions Montaigne, 1967.

104

L. COURTOIS

lecture publique au réfectoire monastique à partir de début avril! C’est que dom Thibaut, qui avait reçu un volume d’hommage de son ami, s’était empressé d’en proposer la lecture à ses confrères45… Comme en témoigne sa correspondance, dom Thibaut s’efforça de recruter des collaborateurs de renom, privilégiant les recherches originales, ce qui contribua à asseoir la réputation de la revue46. Parmi les collaborateurs issus de Maredsous, l’historiographie récente retient surtout pour cette période les noms de dom Donatien De Bruyne et dom Germain Morin47. Le premier, nommé membre de la Commission de Révision de la Vulgate en 1907, se révélera un éminent spécialiste de saint Jérôme et de saint Augustin, et sera directeur de la Revuebénédictinede 1921 à 1925. Le second, spécialiste de saint Césaire, fournira de nombreux écrits érudits à la Revue, principalement dans le domaine de la patrologie, de la liturgie et de l’hagiographie48. Au cours de la crise moderniste, dom Thibaut dut faire preuve d’une grande habilité pour garder une ligne éditoriale progressiste sans tomber sous le coup d’accusations de modernisme. Il fut sans doute aidé en cela par la présence à Rome de deux alliés de poids: dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne, abbé de Maredsous (1890-1909), premier primat de l’ordre bénédictin (1893), et qui à ce titre, résidait à mi-temps au Collège Saint-Anselme de Rome49, et dom Laurent Janssens, nommé en 1905 secrétaire de la Commission biblique, poste particulièrement sensible en ces temps troublés, puis en 1908 de la Congrégation des religieux, mais qu’une maladresse diplomatique commise en 1910 devait empêcher 45. D. MISONNE, Lire à Table: Cent années de lecture au réfectoire, dans ID., En parcourantl’histoiredeMaredsous(n. 8), t. I, 275-286, le point Lireunlivremisàl’Index? Cet article a d’abord paru dans LettredeMaredsous 31/2 (2002) 63-75. 46. ARCHIVES DE L’ABBAYE DE MAREDSOUS (citées ci-après: A.A.M.), Fonds«Revue bénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs; Raymond Thibaut; Hubert Casier; Cyrille Lambot». Nous remercions les Pères Daniel Misonne et Pierre Bogaert pour l’aide apportée dans la consultation des archives. 47. W. DE PRIL – J. LEEMANS, Patristics in Belgium around 1911: Universities and Beyond, dans ZAC 15 (2011) 140-162, sur Maredsous pp. 152-156. Voir également VERBRAKEN – MISONNE, Centannéesd’éruditionecclésiastique (n. 38), le point III.Essor (1905-1914), pp. 20-25. 48. Sur Germain Morin (1861-1946), entré à Maredsous en 1880, profès en 1882 et prêtre en 1886, voir G. GHYSENS – P. VERBRAKEN, LacarrièrescientifiquedeDomGermainMorin(1861-1946) (Instrumenta Patristica, 15), Turnhout, Brepols, 1986. 49. Sur Félix de Hemptinne (1849-1913), en religion dom Hildebrand, entré à l’abbaye de Beuron le 3 février 1869, profès le 15 août 1870, voir: H. DE MOREAU, DomHildebrand deHemptinne, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1930; G. GHYSENS, DomHildebranddeHemptinne,architectedeSaint-Anselme,premierAbbéPrimatdel’Ordrebénédictin, dans Lettre deMaredsous 8/1 (1979) 4-8; 8/2 (1979) 5-15; 8/3 (1979) 10-21; et D. MISONNE, HildebranddeHemptinneetlaConfédérationbénédictine, dans ID., Enparcourantl’histoirede Maredsous(n. 8), t. I, 149-157 (a d’abord paru dans LettredeMaredsous 23/2 [1993] 64-74).

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

105

cependant d’accéder à des responsabilités plus importantes. Ces deux personnages, dont les réseaux romains étaient denses et leur permettaient d’être bien au fait de tout ce qui se passait à la curie, sont intervenus à plus d’une reprise pour préserver la Revuebénédictine des foudres vaticanes50! Ces deux «protecteurs» étaient du reste très soucieux de l’image donnée à Rome par la Revue, cette dernière pouvant sembler être l’organe de l’ordre bénédictin dont Hildebrand de Hemptinne était l’abbé-primat. C’est ainsi que dès 1903, dom Laurent Janssens publia un article où il condamnait sévèrement l’exégèse de Loisy, dont la christologie, entre autre choses, dépouillait selon lui gravement Jésus de la conscience de son œuvre51, et qu’en 1906, l’abbé-primat, Hildebrand de Hemptinne, fit publié dans la revue le décret de la Commission biblique relatif à l’authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque52… Une première «censure» du reste, eut lieu en 1906, lorsque dom Donatien dut renoncer à un article sur le Magnificat où il défendait une leçon attribuant le chant marial à Élisabeth53 et une seconde lorsque fin 1908, un article déjà imprimé de dom Germain Morin consacré au projetderéforme dubréviaireromainmonastique qui se préparait au niveau de l’ordre, fut interdit de publication au stade des épreuves. Et ce ne furent pas les seuls incidents: à deux reprises encore, en 1913 et 1914, dom Thibaut dut tempérer les ardeurs de ses meilleurs collaborateurs! En mai 1913, au plus fort de ce que le Père Blanchet a appelé la «canicule de l’intégrisme»54, le nouvel abbé en séjour au Mont-Cassin, dom Columba Marmion, dans un courrier adressé à dom Raymond Thibaut, notait laconiquement en post scriptum: «Je viens d’apprendre à l’instant que notre Revue bénédictine est menacée d’une condamnation à l’Index!»55. Et il s’en expliquait un peu plus tard en termes plus explicites: «Le Cardinal Préfet de la Congrégation des Réguliers a fait dire qu’on surveille de près la Revuebénédictine qui ‘mérite d’être condamnée à cause de ses tendances modernistes’. Ceci est 50. Voir ici VERBRAKEN – MISONNE, Cent années d’érudition ecclésiastique (n. 38), pp. 23-25, le point IV.LaRevuedanslacrisemoderniste. 51. Ibid., p. 23. D.L. JANSSENS, L’Évangileetl’Église, dans RBén 20 (1903) 203-210 «Le Christ historique de l’Évangile historique de M. Loisy est bien loin du Christ qu’adore l’Église catholique. C’est un personnage mystique, illuminé par degrés sur sa propre dignité, sans qu’on puisse démontrer qu’il se soit cru le vrai fils de Dieu au sens catholique du mot […]». 52. De la Commission biblique. De mosaica authentia pentateuchi, dans RBén 23 (1906) 607-608. Une note précise «Communication insérée sur ordre du Révérendissime Abbé Primat». Il s’agit du décret du 27 juin 1906 de la Commission biblique. 53. Pour rappel: BOGAERT, Épisodedelacontroversesurle«Magnificat» (n. 7). 54. BLANCHET, Histoired’unemiseàl’Index(n. 44). 55. Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Raymond Thibaut, Mont Cassin, 15 mai 1913. Voir: C. MARMION, Correspondance1881-1923, éd. par M. TIERNEY etal., Denée, Abbaye de Maredsous, 2008, p. 604.

106

L. COURTOIS

absolument authentique, je le tiens de source immédiate. Ce serait une calamité pour nous et pour l’Ordre»56. Dom Germain Morin, qui avait reçu copie de la missive, en fut outré, mais finit par se rallier à la prudence demandée57. Et en 1914, ce fut au tour de l’autre pilier de la revue, dom Donatien De Bruyne, de repasser sous les fourches caudines de la censure! Il avait rédigé un article où il montrait que le texte des Épitres pauliniennes reprise par la Vulgate était dû à l’hérétique Pélage, ce qui en tant que membre de la Commission de Révision de cette dernière, n’était pas très diplomatique. C’était en toute hypothèse l’avis des instances supérieures, ce que dom Marmion s’évertua à faire comprendre à son correspondant qui lui demandait s’il était fâché: Mon Cher Fils, Je ne suis pas fâché du tout. J’ai de graves responsabilités et je suis obligé de veiller. En même temps que votre lettre, j’en reçois une du R. P. Abbé Primat58 et de Dom Gasquet59. Le premier me prie unter keinen Umständen druckenzulassen [‘de ne laisser imprimer en aucune circonstance’] et encore IchbitteihrunterallenUmstandenzuverhindern [‘je vous demande d’empêcher quelles que soient les circonstances’]. C’est le P. Abbé Gasquet qui lui a dénoncé l’article. Il écrit au P. Abbé Primat Itispossiblytrue,butitwould appeartometheheightofimprudencetopublishthisinaBenedictineReview atthismoment,byamemberoftherevisionCommittee [‘c’est peut-être vrai, mais il me semble que ce serait très imprudent de le publier dans la Revue bénédictine en ce moment par un membre du Comité de révision’]. Il prie alors le Primat de m’empêcher de le faire publier. Vous comprenez qu’en face de ces sommations je ne puis autoriser l’impression de l’article en ce moment60. 56. Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Raymond Thibaut, Maredsous, 13 juillet 1913, ibid., pp. 620-621. 57. Voir à ce sujet VERBRAKEN – MISONNE, Cent années d’érudition ecclésiastique (n. 38), pp. 24-25. 58. Depuis 1913, dom Fidelis von Stotzingen (1871-1941). Sur ce dernier, profès de Beuron (1892), second abbé de Maria Laach (1901) et primat de l’ordre bénédictin (1913), voir S. HAERING, FidelisvonStotzingen,AbtvonMariaLaach(1901-1913)undAbtprimas der Benediktinischen Konföderation, dans A.A. HÄUSSLING – A. SANDER (éds), Laacher Lesebuch, Sankt Ottilien, EOS, 2006, 240-246. 59. Sur Francis Aidan Gasquet (1846-1929), entré au prieuré de Belmont en 1865, profès de Downside (1871), prieur de cette dernière (1878-1885), président de la Commission pour la Révision de la Vulgate (1907), futur cardinal (1914), préfet des Archives secrètes du Vatican (1917), préfet de la Bibliothèque vaticane (1919) et archivaire de la Sainte-Église (1920), voir R. AUBERT, Gasquet (Francis Neil, en religion Aidan), dans DHGE 19 (1981) 1383-1386. 60. Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Donatien De Bruyne, Maredsous, 29 mars 1914, dans MARMION, Correspondance1881-1923(n. 55), p. 682. Voir aussi VERBRAKEN – MISONNE, Centannéesd’éruditionecclésiastique (n. 38), p. 25. Sur cette dernière affaire, voir également un carton d’archives du Père Pierre Bogaert constitué de notes prises en vue de la biographie de dom Donatien De Bruyne, et qui rassemble beaucoup de pièces intéressantes.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

107

Malgré ces difficultés, la Revue réussit à maintenir le cap sans encombre et après l’interruption de la Première Guerre mondiale, devait connaître un essor international remarquable. III. UNE REVUE «PROGRESSISTE» DANS

LA TOURMENTE MODERNISTE

Tentons maintenant de glaner les réactions caractéristiques des positions qui transpirent quant à la ligne de la revue, et cela, comme annoncé, à partir de la correspondance de son directeur, de la revue elle-même et de l’abondant courrier de dom Marmion. 1. Ducôtédelacorrespondancedudirecteur Du côté de la correspondance de dom Thibaut, les témoignages sont assez concordants, comme l’indique les sondages réalisés. Parcourons, en suivant l’ordre alphabétique du classement archivistique, les missives envoyées par les grands noms de l’école critique. Les lettres échangées par dom Chapman, collaborateur régulier de la revue, avec les directeurs, principalement dom Thibaut61, consistent essentiellement en de la correspondance érudite où il évoque régulièrement ses accords (ou désaccords), avec les grands noms de l’érudition française comme Louis Duchesne62, ou Pierre Batiffol63, ou allemande, avec des noms comme Harnack, accords (ou désaccords) dont il se 61. A.A.M., Fonds «Revue bénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «39 Lettres de Dom Chapman à Don Raymond Thibaut 1905-1914. 4 lettres à Dom Hubert Casier 1903». 62. Sur Louis Duchesne (1843-1922), le chef de file de l’histoire critique de l’Église en France, prêtre du diocèse de Saint-Brieuc (1867), élève de l’École des Carmes (Institut catholique de Paris) et de l’École pratique des hautes études, docteur ès lettres, il enseigne à l’École de théologie de l’Institut catholique, puis à l’École pratique des hautes études (1883), avant de prendre la direction de l’École française de Rome (1893), voir B. WACHÉ, Monseigneur Louis Duchesne (1843-1922), historien de l’Église, directeur de l’École françaisedeRome (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 167), Rome, École française de Rome, 1992, et MonseigneurDuchesneetsontemps.Actesducolloqueorganisépar l’ÉcolefrançaisedeRome(PalaisFarnèse,23-25mai1973) (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 23), Rome, École française de Rome, 1975. 63. Sur Pierre Batiffol (1861-1929), prêtre de Saint-Sulpice (1882), formé à l’histoire à Paris (1882-1885), où il fut notamment le disciple de Louis Duchesne, chapelain, après un séjour d’études en Albanie (1885-1887), de Saint-Louis-des-Français à Rome (1887-1889), aumônier de l’École Sainte-Barbe à Paris (1889-1898), docteur ès lettres (1891), recteur de l’Institut catholique de Toulouse (1898) et à nouveau aumônier de l’École Sainte-Barbe (après sa destitution de l’Institut catholique de Toulouse en 1908 en raison de son dernier livre sur l’eucharistie), voir J. RIVIÈRE, MonseigneurBatiffol(1861-1929), Paris, Gabalda, 1929, et G. BARDY, Batiffol(Pierre), dans Catholicisme 1 (1948) 1306-1308.

108

L. COURTOIS

dégage manifestement une grande complicité intellectuelle. S’il y confesse écrire dans des revues protestantes – ce qui ne semble pas le déranger le moins du monde – on n’y trouve cependant guère d’échos explicites aux secousses modernistes de la curie romaine! De ce point de vue, les nombreux échanges épistolaires entre dom Donatien De Bruyne et dom Thibaut sont plus instructifs64. Ainsi, dans une lettre de décembre 1907, ce dernier note-t-il, allusion évidente au climat de suspicion généralisée qui empoisonne la crise moderniste, que «dans tous les domaines, l’originalité devient dangereuse»65. C’est ce climat manifestement qui lui fait craindre, suite à un retard de publication «un incident fâcheux pour la Rev(.)[ue]», suspectant sans doute une intervention d’autorité de Rome 66. Il n’hésite d’ailleurs pas à manifester sa désapprobation face aux excès de la répression. En janvier 1908, il s’en émeut explicitement: On m’a dit à la Bibl(.)[iothèque] Vaticane que l’évêque de Namur a défendu la Revuebiblique aux professeurs de religion dans les Athénées et qu’il y a dans les hautes sphères un mouvement de défiance ou d’hostilité à l’égard de Louvain. Qu’en est-il? Je trouve tout cela déplorable, de même que la révocation de Batiffol67.

Il est dans le même état d’esprit quelques années plus tard, lorsque la traduction italienne du tome 3 de l’Histoireanciennedel’Église de Louis Duchesne est censurée68: «On m’annonce ici que l’Hist(.)[oire] de Duchesne est à l’index mais par un vice de procédure, cela ne compte pas. Un livre approuvé par le Maître su S(.)[acré] Palais ne peut dit-on être censuré par l’index, il devrait être déféré au S. Office […]»; et de conclure: «Qu’ilsse

64. A.A.M., Fonds «Revue bénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «66 Lettres du P. Donatien De Bruyne à D.R. Thibaut 1907-1913». 65. Ibid., Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Collège Saint-Anselme, 19 décembre 1907. 66. Ibid., Carte postale de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Mont Cassin, 18 avril 1908. 67. Ibid., Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Collège Saint-Anselme, 22 janvier 1908. Pour rappel, Batiffol avait été destitué de son poste de recteur de l’Institut catholique de Paris début 1908, suite à son dernier ouvrage sur l’eucharistie… 68. Alors que le volume avait paru en français avec l’imprimatur du Maître du Sacré Palais, la traduction italienne allait être censurée: le 1er septembre 1911, une circulaire de la Consistoriale adressée aux évêques d’Italie interdit la lecture de l’Histoireanciennede l’Église dans les séminaires; quelques jours plus tard, la Congrégation des Réguliers adresse un texte équivalent à tous les supérieurs des ordres religieux; enfin, tandis que les évêques de France ont emboîté le pas à la Curie en interdisant l’ouvrage dans leurs séminaires, ce dernier est mis à l’Index le 24 janvier 1912. Voir WACHÉ, MonseigneurLouis Duchesne (n. 62), pp. 538-613, et M. MACCARRONE, Duchesne e la curia romana, dans MonseigneurDuchesneetsontemps (n. 62), 401-494.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

109

débrouillent! [c’est nous qui soulignons]»69. Il faut savoir que l’édition française de ce troisième volume sortie à Rome en 1910 avait reçu l’imprimatur du Maître du Sacré Palais, le P. Lepidi70, et connaissait un succès certain au point d’être en passe de traduction en anglais, en espagnol et en italien71… Mais ce climat de défiance pour les tenants du clan progressiste n’empêche pas dom Thibaut d’en faire la promotion pour la Revue: aux demandes du directeur de lui fournir des noms, il lui renseigne Batiffol, Ladeuze, Mercati72, mais qu’il juge trop occupé, etc.73. Ladeuze, surtout, dont il dit le plus grand bien («Ce serait certainement un de nos meilleurs collaborateurs»74 ou, encore plus explicite «Je vous propose de demander un article à M. Ladeuze de Louvain. Il écrit toujours si bien que ce serait une bonne opération»75) et Batiffol, que manifestement il apprécie («Votre projet de confier le bulletin à Batiffol me plaît assez»76). Toujours du côté de ses «alliés», lors d’un début de différent (qui sera vite apaisé) avec un remplaçant temporaire de dom Thibaut, surmené, De Bruyne fait comprendre à ce nouveau venu qu’il juge trop tatillon que, le cas échéant, il a d’autres ressources que la Revuebénédictinelaissant entendre qu’il pourrait très bien cesser sa collaboration avec cette dernière: «Depuis plusieurs années, M. Cauchie77 me demande de collaborer à la Rev(.)[ue] d’hist(.) oireeccl(.)ésiastique. Le R.P. Lagrange m’a demandé d’écrire des articles 69. A.A.M., Fonds«Revuebénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «66 Lettres du P. Donatien De Bruyne à D.R. Thibaut 1907-1913», Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne à [Raymond Thibaut], Paris, 16 novembre 1911. 70. Sur Alberto Lepidi (1838-1925), entré chez les dominicains de Sainte-Sabine en 1855, professeur de philosophie au studium dominicain de Louvain (1862), maître des étudiants et professeur de dogmatique à Flavigny (1868), régent des études à Louvain (1872), régent du Collège de la Minerve à Rome (1885), assistant du maître général (1891) et maître du Sacré Palais (1897), voir H.D. SAFFREY, Lepidi(Alberto), dans Catholicisme 7 (1975) 405. 71. Sur cet épisode voir WACHÉ, MonseigneurLouisDuchesne(n. 62), pp. 538-613, et MACCARRONE, Duchesneelacuriaromana (n. 68). 72. Sur Angelo Mercati (1870-1955), prêtre du diocèse de Reggio d’Émilie-Guastalla (1893), historien à l’époque employé aux archives vaticanes, voir S. PAGANO, Mercati (Angelo), dans DHGE 32 (2016) 459-470. 73. A.A.M., Fonds «Revue bénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «66 Lettres du P. Donatien De Bruyne à D.R. Thibaut 1907-1913», Lettre Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Mont Cassin, 28 avril 1908. 74. Ibid., Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Rome, 15 décembre 1908. 75. Ibid., Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, s.l.n.d. (30 oct.). 76. Ibid., Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne (?) à Raymond Thibaut (?), Madrid, vers avril 1909 (?). 77. Sur Alfred Cauchie (1860-1922), prêtre du diocèse de Tournai (1885), licencié (1888) et docteur (1890) en sciences morales et historiques de l’Université de Louvain, professeur d’histoire à la Faculté de théologie à partir de 1895 et fondateur, avec Paulin Ladeuze, de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique (1900), voir J. LAVALLEYE, Cauchie (Alfred-Henri-Joseph), dans BN 38 (1973-1974) 67-78 et A. DE MEYER, Cauchie(Alfred), dans DHGE 12 (1953) 3-4.

110

L. COURTOIS

pour la R(.)[evue]bibl(.)[ique], menace-t-il»78… Et au-delà de ce cercle catholique éminemment progressiste, on le sent décidément très admiratif du protestant Harnack à qui il offre bientôt ses services: «Je me suis décidé d’écrire à Harnack que j’avais un fragment du IVe livre d’Esdras du VIIe siècle – et un extrait que j’ai copié à Chartres, que je mettais ces notices à sa disposition pour l’édition de l’Acad(.)[émie] de Berlin»79. Dans la correspondance de dom Thibaut, on trouve également quelques missives échangées avec Mgr Pierre Batiffol80, Mgr Baudrillart81, Léonce de Grandmaison82, Ladeuze, qui acceptent de collaborer à la Revuebénédictine83, mais qui ne nous apprennent rien de particulier sur d’éventuels soubresauts modernistes! Sont, de ce point de vue, plus intéressants, un 78. A.A.M., Fonds «Revue bénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «66 Lettres du P. Donatien De Bruyne à D.R. Thibaut 1907-1913», Carte postale de Donatien De Bruyne à P. Maur, Rome, 10 avril 1910. Dans deux autres lettres, il confirme d’ailleurs les liens intellectuels qui le lient avec Cauchie («Cauchie est ici; il insiste beaucoup pour que j’écrive chez lui un article sur la Révision de la Vulgate» [ibid., Carte postale de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Rome, 6 août 1913]) ou avec Lagrange («L’article de Lagrange m’a beaucoup plu» [ibid., Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, s.l.n.d.]). 79. Ibid., Carte postale de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Rome, 14 février 1910. Admiration d’ailleurs confirmée par ailleurs de manière explicite, mais dans une lettre non datée: «Le livre d’Harnack est un chef d’œuvre» (ibid., Lettre de Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, s.l.n.d.). 80. 5 lettres (1910-1914) dont une lettre de ce dernier exprimant sa reconnaissance à la revue pour son compte rendu de la seconde édition de son livre sur l’eucharistie, version revue de la première édition qui lui avait valu son poste de recteur de Toulouse: «Merci aussi de la notice si bienveillante que la R(.)[evue] B(.)[énédictine] a consacrée à mon Eucharistie. J’ai été très touché» (ibid., Une enveloppe «Lettres écrites à D Raymond Thibaut A-B. Revue Bénéd. – Revue lit. et monast. Collection Pax», Lettre Pierre Batiffol à Raymond Thibaut, Paris, rue Cujas 2, 28 janvier 1914). 81. Ibid., Lettre Mgr Baudrillart à Dom Raymond Thibaut, Paris, 15 novembre 1907. Sur Alfred Baudrillart (1859-1942), élève de l’École normale en même temps que Jaurès et Bergson (1878), agrégé d’histoire auteur d’une thèse sur Philippe V, prêtre de l’Oratoire (1893), directeur du Bulletincritique (1897-1908), recteur de l’Institut catholique de Paris (1907), académicien (1918), évêque d’Himeria (1921), archevêque de Métilène (1928) et cardinal-prêtre au titre de Saint-Bernard-aux-Thermes (1935), voir A. GUNY, Baudrillart (Alfred), dans Catholicisme 1 (1948) 1316-1317. 82. Une lettre de 1905: A.A.M., Fonds«Revuebénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «Lettres écrites à Dom Raymond Thibaut C-G. Revue Bénéd. – Revue lit. et monast. Collection Pax», Lettre de Léonce de Grandmaison à Dom Raymond Thibaut, Paris, 4 octobre 1905. Sur Léonce Loizeau de Grandmaison (1868-1927), prêtre de la Compagnie de Jésus (1898), professeur de théologie à Cantorbéry et à Ore Place (1898-1908), directeur des Études, la revue des jésuites parisiens (1908), et fondateur des Recherches de science religieuse (1910) ainsi que des Nouvelles religieuses (1918), voir [R. AUBERT,] Grandmaison(Léoncede), dans DHGE 21 (1986) 1128-1129. 83. Une lettre de 1909: A.A.M., Fonds «Revue bénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «Lettres écrites à D Raymond Thibaut H-L. Revue Bénéd. – Revue lit. et monast. Collection Pax», Lettre de Ladeuze à Thibaut, Louvain, 9 janvier 1909.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

111

envoi de Lagrange, quelques lettres échangées avec Louis Saltet et une correspondance de dom Germain Morin. Dans une lettre de 1914, Lagrange, suspect et toujours en quête de soutien moral, écrit à dom Germain Morin qu’il remercie pour l’envoi d’un ouvrage: Mais je suis encore plus touché de votre sympathie et de votre désintéressement à l’égard de la revue biblique. J’ai besoin de ces bonnes paroles et de ces bons procédés pour me persuader que nous ne faisons pas plus de mal que de bien, car il y a bien des raisons de se décourager. Je ne voudrais pas avoir l’air de vous retourner le compliment, mais je ne puis vous taire tout le bien que nous fait votre Revuebénédictine, si appréciée ici84.

C’est peu dire si les deux hommes se sentent en harmonie et si leurs projets scientifiques convergent! Du côté de Saltet, nous conservons trois lettres de 1907-1908, d’un intérêt variable. Dans la première, Saltet assure simplement la Revue de son concours et, se disant très honoré par la demande de collaboration, note, comme pour s’excuser: «je ne suis qu’un historien qui fait des incursions dans l’histoire des dogmes»85. La seconde est un remerciement adressé à la Revue pour avoir rendu compte de son ouvrage sur les réordinations d’anglicans convertis86 et où il se dit content «de voir que nous lisons les textes de la même façon»87. Et la troisième enfin, du plus haut intérêt, porte sur Turmel et l’affaire «Herzog-Dupin». Il faut savoir ici que, ayant perdu définitivement la foi dès 1886, Turmel devait demeurer prêtre jusqu’en 1930, tout en menant de l’intérieur un combat sournois de sape contre l’Église. De ce point de vue, comme le note Poulat, Turmel n’a été associé que par accident à la crise moderniste, dans la mesure où, dès qu’il eut perdu la foi, sa perspective ne fut pas de réformer l’Église, mais de la combattre et de la détruire88. Athée militant et prêtre catholique, il a mené en quelque sorte une double vie intellectuelle, rédigeant d’un côté des écrits parfaitement orthodoxes sous son propre nom, tandis qu’il en publiait en même temps une réfutation rationaliste 84. Ibid., Lettre Lagrange à Thibaut, Jérusalem, 25 janvier 1914. 85. Ibid., Carton «Germain Morin et autres. 2.3.1.1. Lettres au Directeur de la revue: Philibert Schmitz», Lettre de Louis Saltet à Dom Raymond Thibaut ou D. Bède, Toulouse, 25 novembre 1908. 86. B. LEBBE [compte rendu de:] L. SALTET, Lesréordinations:Étudesurlesacrement de l’ordre (Études d’histoire des dogmes et d’ancienne littérature ecclésiastique), Paris, Lecoffre, 1907, dans RBén 24 (1907) 560-565. 87. A.A.M., Fonds«Revuebénédictine», Carton «Germain Morin et autres. 2.3.1.1. Lettres au Directeur de la revue: Philibert Schmitz», Lettre de Louis Saltet à Dom Raymond Thibaut ou D. Bède, Toulouse, 26 octobre 1907. 88. É. POULAT, Histoire,dogmeetcritiquedanslacrisemoderniste (Religion et sociétés), Tournai – Paris, Casterman, 1962, pp. 638-639.

112

L. COURTOIS

sous l’un ou l’autre pseudonyme. C’est dans ce cadre qu’éclata, en 1908, l’affaire «Herzog-Dupin», deux pseudonymes utilisés par lui dans la Revued’histoireetdelittératurereligieuses89 et qui, grâce à Louis Saltet, à l’époque professeur d’histoire ecclésiastique à l’Institut catholique de Toulouse90, furent «démasqués»91. Dans le contexte de la crise moderniste, Turmel, qui est cependant un cas relativement atypique, ne pouvait évidemment qu’apporter une confirmation à l’idée de «complot» accréditée par Pascendi et confirmée par l’interprétation longtemps autorisée de Jean Rivière, premier chroniqueur de la crise92. Dans cette dernière correspondance, qui doit avoir été adressée par Saltet à dom Bède Lebbe (car on y trouve des annotations manuscrites de ce dernier qui serviront à la rédaction d’un compte rendu d’un ouvrage de Turmel pour la Revue bénédictine93), il est question de la «stratégie» suivie dans l’affaire… Il en ressort que pour Saltet comme pour Lebbe, la critique historique ne suffisait à établir la culpabilité de Turmel – ce que seul un aveu formel pouvait faire – ce qui commandait une certaine discrétion94… En ce qui concerne dom Germain Morin, enfin, il est question de la destitution de Batiffol comme recteur de l’Institut catholique de Toulouse. Dans une missive à dom Thibaut à propos de comptes rendus en cours, il note incidemment: «Pour le reste, je sais de bonne source qu’on a reconnu à Rome l’innocence de l’ex-Recteur, et que le pape a témoigné son regret de la façon dont celui-ci a été traité»95. Ici aussi, indépendamment du fait que ces regrets pontificaux ne sont pas attestés, on sent la communauté de vues entre deux tenants de l’histoire critique que défend l’aile progressiste 89. Cf. les articles signés A. DUPIN, LedogmedelaTrinité (1906), et G. HERZOG, La SainteViergedansl’histoire (1907). 90. Sur Louis Saltet (1870-1952), professeur d’histoire ecclésiastique à l’Institut catholique de Toulouse de 1898 à sa retraite en 1946, cf. Saltet(MgrLouis), dans Catholicisme 13 (1993) 752. 91. L. SALTET, La question Herzog Dupin: Contribution à l’histoire de la théologie françaisependantcesdernièresannées, Toulouse, Privat, 1908. 92. Voir J. RIVIÈRE, Lemodernismedansl’Église:Étuded’histoirereligieusecontemporaine, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1929. 93. Voir en fait B. LEBBE [compte rendu de:] J. TURMEL, Histoire du dogme de la Papauté des origines à la fin du IVe siècle (Bibliothèque d’histoire religieuse), Paris, Picard, 1908, dans RBén 25 (1908) 538-539, où ce dernier évoque discrètement l’affaire. 94. Ce qui explique aussi une certaine impatience de dom Donatien De Bruyne: «Et le C[ompte] R[endu] de Saltet: Turmel et Cie (D. Beda) où reste-il»? (voir A.A.M., Fonds «Revue bénédictine», Carton «2, 3; 1, 2, Lettres aux Directeurs […]», Une enveloppe «66 Lettres du P. Donatien De Bruyne à D.R. Thibaut 1907-1913», Lettre Donatien De Bruyne à Raymond Thibaut, Mont Cassin, 28 avril 1908). 95. Ibid., Carton «Germain Morin et autres. 2.3.1.1. Lettres au Directeur de la revue: Philibert Schmitz», Un ensemble d’enveloppes liées à Dom Germain Morin, Lettres et cartes de Dom Germain Morin à Dom Raymond Thibaut. 1908, Carte postale, Munich, 30 novembre 1908.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

113

catholique. Dans l’ensemble, même si les renseignements glanés à travers la correspondance de dom Thibaut avec un certain nombre d’interlocuteurs peuvent paraître dessiner une esquisse impressionniste – c’est le problème de ce type de sources, comme nous l’avons dit – la tendance progressiste du propos se manifeste néanmoins clairement. 2. QuenousenseignelaRevue? Du côté du contenu rédactionnel de la Revue, la tendance est la même. Nous avons repéré pas moins d’une centaine d’articles et de comptes rendus d’ouvrages potentiellement révélateurs de la ligne éditoriale parce recensant des auteurs clairement identifiés comme modernistes, progressistes où conservateurs. Tous convergent également pour situer indiscutablement la revue dans le camp progressiste comme nous l’avons dit en commençant cet article96, mais il n’est pas possible, dans les limites imparties à cet article, de les analyser en détails ici. Quelques exemples bien choisis devraient suffire. Du côté moderniste, on peut citer un compte rendu de l’ouvrage de Marius Lepin, professeur d’exégèse au grand séminaire de Lyon97 consacré à Jésus,MessieetFilsdeDieu,d’aprèslesÉvangilessynoptiques98. Dans ce très long compte rendu, le recenseur, dom Bède Lebbe, loue l’entreprise de Lepin qui, sans être une réponse point par point aux thèses de Loisy, constitue, dans son argumentation menée en toute autonomie, une défense réussie à ses yeux des thèses traditionnelles catholiques: «L’étude de M. Lepin est, je crois, la meilleure de toutes les publications qu’a provoquées le ‘petit livre’ de M. Loisy. Elle est surtout une œuvre de science pacifique. Sans doute, elle est écrite pour combattre certaines allégations de l’Évangile et l’Église, mais elle n’est pas une réfutation. M. L. au lieu de contredire, établit ses conclusions à lui, conclusions qui, sans être bien neuves, sont cependant une mise au point de la tradition»99. Et de dénoncer tout à la fois l’«imprécision» de la pensée de Loisy («les théories de 96. Pour identifier les articles et comptes rendus intéressants, nous avons principalement utilisé les tables annuelles, mais on peut voir également Revuebénédictine:Table des matières. Années I-XXI. 1884-1904, Maredsous, Abbaye de Maredsous, 1905, et D. AMAND, Revue bénédictine: Tables générales des tomes XXII à LIV. 1905-1942), Maredsous, Abbaye de Maredsous, 1945. 97. Sur Marius Lepin (1870-1952), prêtre du diocèse de Lyon (1893) admis à la Compagnie des prêtres de Saint-Sulpice à Paris et étudiant à l’Institut catholique de Paris (1896), docteur en théologie de la Faculté de théologie de Lyon (1897), professeur d’Écriture sainte au séminaire d’Issy (1898), puis au grand séminaire de Lyon (1903), voir J. TRINQUET, Lepin(Marius), dans Catholicisme 7 (1975) 405-407. 98. B. LEBBE [compte rendu de:] Jésus,MessieetFilsdeDieu,d’aprèslesÉvangiles Synoptiques, par M. LÉPIN, Paris, Letouzey, 1904, dans RBén 21 (1904) 457. 99. Ibid.

114

L. COURTOIS

M. Loisy sont de celles qu’il est malaisé de discuter. Souvent, les contours sont d’une imprécision qui ne permet pas l’analyse»100) et le caractère a priori de ses interprétations qu’il compare aux «lectures» que des scolastiques dogmatiques peuvent donner des sources positives (M. Loisy est à sa façon un de ces terribles scolastiques, théoriciens interprètes de textes. Il bâtit des théories sur une impression qu’appuient deux ou trois citations. La conjecture est érigée en thèse... et il n’y a plus rien à faire»101). La longueur de la recension – il faut la signaler – tient ici au fait que son auteur prend la peine de détailler point par point en quoi Lepin réfute valablement les idées de Loisy… Sans être une apologie ferme de l’approche critique, cette défense de Lepin constitue néanmoins une ouverture prudente en ce sens et, en toute hypothèse, une réfutation claire de Loisy. On pourrait donner d’autre exemple de condamnations d’auteurs réputés modernistes, parfois tout en nuances d’ailleurs. Ainsi, dans le compte rendu d’un ouvrage de Tyrrell102, par exemple, le propos est à la fois ferme et empathique : Certes, c’est une âme d’apôtre qui vibre dans ces pages. T. ressent vivement les angoisses redoutables de certains croyants aux prises avec le flot montant des objections opposées à leur foi, mais l’âpreté, l’amertume triste de ses critiques, l’absolutisme de ses négations et la hardiesse de ses thèses déparent les incontestables qualités de cet écrit, – élévation des sentiments, pénétration de certaines analyses, – et font suspecter à tout lecteur non prévenu que l’auteur pourrait bien se tromper103.

À moins que, à l’inverse, le jugement ne s’encombre pas de nuance, comme dans la présentation d’un livre de Houtin104: M. Houtin a la spécialité des sujets scabreux, et, comme il a la plume facile, de la verve et de l’érudition, comme il ne se laisse pas facilement arrêter par la crainte de paraître manquer de révérence vis-à-vis de quelques personnalités, de certaines institutions ecclésiastiques, de l’Église elle-même, 100. Ibid. 101. Ibid., pp. 457-458. 102. Sur George Tyrrell (1861-1909), anglican converti au catholicisme (1871) et devenu prêtre de la Compagnie de Jésus (1891), d’abord scolastique convaincu, avant d’évoluer, après son initiation à la philosophie kantienne et à la critique biblique par von Hügel, vers un système de plus en plus anti-intellectualiste qui le conduira à rencontrer des difficultés croissantes avec les autorités, voir K.-G. WESSELING, Tyrrell,George, dans BBKL 12 (1997) 781-788 (version informatique consultée le 2 mars 2018). 103. B. LEBBE [compte rendu de:] G. TYRRELL, AMuch-AbusedLetter, Londres, Longmans, 1906, dans RBén 24 (1907) 425. Voir également ID., [compte rendu de:] G. TYRRELL, Through ScyllaandCharybdis,ortheOldTheologyandtheNew, Londres, Longmans, 1907, ibid., 399. 104. Sur Albert Houtin (1867-1926), prêtre du diocèse d’Angers (1891) qui, comme historien du catholicisme, appartient, avec Loisy, Hébert et Turmel, au groupe des modernistes français condamnés, voir É. POULAT, Houtin(Albert), dans DHGE 24 (1993) 1284-1287.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

115

ses livres offrent une lecture en apparence dégagée de tout parti pris, toujours piquante, mais au fond assez tendancieuse105.

Contre les auteurs modernistes la revue défend généralement le principe de la «règle de foi». C’est elle que fait valoir le recenseur d’un ouvrage d’Eugène Jaquier consacré au Nouveau Testament106: «Les Théologiens y reconnaîtront la bonne critique, celle qui cherche à éclairer le côté humain des Écritures et à préparer l’intelligence surnaturelle de la Révélation», c’est-à-dire «Rien de ce besoin de démolir qui se réclame généralement d’un scrupuleux amour de la vérité et qui au fond, n’est que le prurit d’une raison impatiente supportant mal le joug de la foi»107. Détail significatif, le recenseur y défend explicitement «la belle théorie thomiste de la causalité instrumentale, qui combine heureusement l’action de l’auteur principal et de l’auteur secondaire sans leur ôter leur personnalité propre», théorie sur laquelle s’appuie Jaquier et qu’il doit probablement à Lagrange, qui l’avait réintroduite dans la Revue biblique au cours des années 1890108. Dans le contexte du temps, c’était un des principes sur lequel s’appuyait la critique catholique pour légitimer sa démarche. Du côté de l’École catholique progressiste, la Revue défend généralement un progressisme prudent et nuancé. Ainsi est-il dans l’analyse du CommentairedeJosué publiée par Hummelauer, auteur qui poussait loin son progressisme au point d’être parfois jugé excessif. Le recenseur le constate, mais tout en admettant la licéité du propos. Il souligne d’abord combien «les commentaires du bon Père se distinguent surtout par une vaste érudition et une puissante originalité»109. Il note ensuite que «l’auteur aborde sans hésiter les questions si difficiles que soulève l’étude des premiers livres de la Bible, et [que] très souvent les solutions qu’il donne, tout en restant dans les strictes limites de l’orthodoxie, se rapprochent des opinions émises par le Rationalisme moderne»110. C’est que d’après lui, 105. D.[om] U.[rsmer] B.[erlière] [compte rendu de:] Albert HOUTIN, Underniergallican, Henri Bernier, chanoine d’Angers (1795-1859), 2e éd., Paris, Nourry, 1904, dans RBén 22 (1905) 305. 106. J. [compte rendu de:] HistoiredeslivresduNouveauTestament, par M. l’abbé E. JAQUIER, Tome Ier, de la Bibliothèque de l’enseignement de l’histoire ecclésiastique, Paris, Lecoffre, 1903, dans RBén 20 (1903) 104-105. 107. Ibid. 108. Ibid. Sur Eugène Jacquier (1847-1932), prêtre du diocèse de Grenoble (1871), docteur en théologie de la Faculté de Lyon (1891) et professeur à cette même Faculté de Lyon, où il enseigna l’exégèse du Nouveau Testament de 1894 à 1927, voir J. TRINQUET, Jacquier(Eugène-Jacques), dans Catholicisme 6 (1967) 288. 109. D.E. VALET [compte rendu de:] Commentarius in lib. Josue, de HUMMELAUER, S.J., Paris, Lethielleux, 1903, dans RBén 20 (1903) 114-115. 110. Ibid., p. 114.

116

L. COURTOIS

l’auteur «cherche à contenter tout le monde, et, dans ce but, il pousse la critique aussi loin que le permet la nécessité de sauvegarder le dogme catholique». Et il ajoute que c’est ce «qui rend ses thèses tout à fait subversives aux yeux des exégètes conservateurs», conservateurs dont il se distancie. À propos du «miracle» de Josué, enfin, si le commentateur note que «l’interprétation qu’il en donne est neuve et originale» – en fait le jésuite recourt ici au principe défendu dans l’encyclique Providentissimus et qui veut qu’en matière scientifique, l’auteur sacré a parlé «selon les apparences du temps» – elle ne colle d’après lui pas au texte… Mais en toute hypothèse, notons-le, le recenseur juge bien que l’exégèse «avancée» du jésuite respecte «la nécessité de sauvegarder le dogme catholique»… Du côté des conservateurs, dans un compte rendu cinglant de l’ouvrage du Père Fonck consacré en 1906 à la question biblique, compte rendu écrit avant la nomination de ce dernier à la chaire d’Écriture Sainte de la Grégorienne (1908) et son accession à la présidence de l’Institut biblique pontifical de Rome (1909)111, dom Donatien de Bruyne définit avec clarté la géographie des forces en présence et ancre avec évidence la Revuebénédictine dans le clan «progressiste»112. Il lui suffit de s’appuyer sur l’analyse du jésuite allemand, qui, comme de juste, isole, à l’extrême gauche, Loisy et Houtin, dans le camp moderniste (puis rationaliste), et oppose ensuite, à gauche, les «progressistes», précisément, Lagrange en tête, et à droite, aux conservateurs, au sommet desquels il range, à juste titre, le Père jésuite Alphonse Delattre, principal contradicteur de savant directeur de l’École biblique de Jérusalem113. Après avoir exprimé malicieusement son avis sur ces derniers («On dirait que les conservateurs sont inférieurs aux 111. Sur Léopold Fonck (1865-1930), prêtre du diocèse de Munster (1889), entré dans la Compagnie de Jésus (1892), spécialisé dans l’étude des sciences bibliques (1892-1898), professeur à la Faculté de théologie d’Innsbruck (1901) où il devint rapidement responsable de la chaire d’Écriture sainte et de celle de langues orientales, chargé de l’organisation de cours bibliques supérieurs à l’Université grégorienne de Rome (1908-1909), et recteur du nouvel Institut biblique pontifical fondé par Pie X (1909-1929), voir F.-W. BAUTZ, Fonck,Leopold, dans BBKL 2 (1990) 68-69 (version informatique consultée le 2 mars 2018). 112. D. DE BRUYNE [compte rendu de:] L. FONCK, S.J., DerKampfumdieWahrheit derH.Schriftseit25Jahren, Innsbruck, Rauch, 1905, dans RBén 23 (1906) 114-115. 113. D. Emmanuel VALET, [compte rendu de:] Commentarius in lib. Josue (n. 109), p. 114.Sur Alphonse Delattre (1841-1928), assyriologue distingué mais piètre bibliste, entré dans la Compagnie de Jésus en 1860, professeur au scolasticat de Louvain (1888-1901), où il enseigne l’hébreu et l’Écriture sainte, puis professeur d’Écriture sainte à l’Université grégorienne de Rome en 1905-1906, avant de se retirer définitivement à Tronchiennes, voir L. COURTOIS, Les jésuites belges et la crise moderniste (1903-1914): Le cas du Père Alphonse Delattre, dans Quatre siècles de présence jésuite à Bruxelles, sous la dir. d’A. DENEEF – X. ROUSSEAU, Bruxelles, Prosopon; Leuven, KADOC,2012, 576-589.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

117

critiques, même pour le nombre; mais il doit y avoir des oublis»114…), De Bruyne concède, non seulement que les excès exégétiques d’Hummelauer étaient effectivement de nature à le rendre suspect de tous les côtés115, mais encore «que le P. Lagrange a parfois fait une douce violence à certains textes des Pères pour les ranger à son avis»116. Mais de lancer un appel à la concorde («Il est grand temps d’insister sur ce qui nous unit, non sur ce qui nous sépare»117): le Père Fonck n’admettait-il pas le principe défendu par Providentissimus qu’en matière scientifique, les auteurs sacrés avaient parlé selon les apparences du temps, et ne reconnaissait-il pas «que le principe des différents genres littéraires est vieux et admissible»118. De plus, quand bien même la distinction des genres pouvait faire problème concrètement, les catholiques pouvaient s’en remettre en cette matière au magistère de l’Église, chose impossible du côté protestant! Et de conclure à la fois sur le fond («puisse donc cette querelle, faite trop souvent d’injustes soupçons et de délations odieuses, prendre fin; la charité y gagnera beaucoup et la science y perdra peu»119) et sur le P. Fonck, «qui se plaint de ce que les progressistes ne citent dans leurs écrits que des ouvrages protestants ou rationalistes»120 («nous nous permettons de lui donner un conseil: c’est de continuer plutôt ses recherches sur la flore biblique commencées il y a six ou sept ans non sans succès; il fera progresser la science et ... on le citera»121!). Évoquons, pour terminer cette partie consacrée à la Revue, que dans le compte rendu d’un ouvrage célèbre d’un protagoniste intégriste de la crise moderniste en France, Julien Fontaine122 – ce que l’auteur du compte rendu concède implicitement («Le livre de M. l’abbé Fontaine 114. D. Emmanuel VALET, [compte rendu de:] Commentariusinlib.Josue(n. 109), p. 114. 115. «Il [le P. Fonck] s’en prend surtout à son confrère, le P. von Hummelauer, que ses extravagances exégétiques auraient, me semble-t-il, dû rendre suspect à la nouvelle école aussi bien qu’à l’ancienne» (ibid.). 116. Ibid. Allusion à l’argumentation de Lagrange récupérant saint Jérôme en faveur d’une théorie des apparences historiques calquée sur celle des apparences scientifiques reconnue par l’encyclique Providentissimus. 117. Ibid., p. 115. 118. Ibid. 119. Ibid. 120. Ibid. 121. Ibid. 122. Sur le Père jésuite Julien Fontaine (1839-1917), prêtre du diocèse de Saint-Brieuc, entré tardivement à la Compagnie de Jésus (1873), professeur d’apologétique aux Facultés catholiques d’Angers (1893), puis attaché à la résidence de Versailles (1896) jusqu’à la fin de ses jours, voir É. POULAT, Fontaine(Julien), dans DHGE 17 (1971) 819-821. Grand pourfendeur des «nouveautés», Fontaine fut un opposant décidé à l’exégèse critique, jugée «naturaliste», qu’il s’agisse de celle de Loisy («radicale») ou de celle de Lagrange («mitigée»).

118

L. COURTOIS

est de ceux qui ont le don d’exciter les passions les plus diverses»123) – ce dernier plaide clairement pour la critique («Pourquoi s’obstiner à considérer la théologie positive comme une œuvre essentiellement protestante?»124, et condamner l’école «progressiste» («Encore une fois in media virtus ni les avancés [c’est-à-dire les tenants de Loisy, du côté moderniste] ni les ultra-conservateurs ne sont dans le vrai: il y a des concessions à faire de part et d’autre, au lieu de se retrancher dans un étroit égoïsme, qui ne peut amener que la ruine et la mort»125). En fait, les prises de position de la Revuebénédictine que nous venons d’évoquer permettent de caractériser, la grande majorité des recensions, même si l’argumentation se fait plus nuancée et discrète avec le temps, ou selon l’auteur. 3. DucôtédeDomMarmion Qu’en est-il, pour terminer, de la correspondance éditée de Dom Marmion126? Si cette correspondance n’éclaire pas directement la politique éditoriale de la Revuebénédictine, elle apporte néanmoins un éclairage intéressant sur le microcosme de Maredsous dont le futur saint est un bon observateur. Pour résumer sommairement le propos, on peut dire que, au-delà d’un certain conservatisme, Marmion fait plutôt preuve de discernement. Quant à son côté conservateur, on peut brièvement évoquer, outre un courrier où il garantit le «conservatisme» d’un jeune moine en matière biblique127, sa position sur l’authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque où il s’aligne sur la posture romaine. Il ne craint pas d’écrire, en effet, à un de ses correspondants, que «la réponse de la Commission biblique coïncide avec ce que j’ai tenu depuis longtemps sur l’origine du Pentateuque», et cela, même si «Tous n’en sont pas contents»128, cette décision faisant effectivement le désespoir des militants progressistes comme Ladeuze…

123. P. BASTIEN [compte rendu de:] Abbé J. FONTAINE, Lesinfiltrationskantienneset protestantes et le clergé français: Études complémentaires, Paris, Retaux, 1902, dans RBén 21 (1904) 111-112, ici p. 111. 124. Ibid. 125. Ibid. 126. Voir MARMION, Correspondance 1881-1923 (n. 55) (en fait, uniquement les lettres écrites par lui, sans les lettres reçues). 127. Ibid., p. 259: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne, Mont-César, Louvain, 10 janvier 1907. 128. Ibid., pp. 245-246: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Raymond Thibaut, Mont-César, Louvain, 24 juillet 1906.

LA REVUEBÉNÉDICTINE À TRAVERS LA CRISE MODERNISTE (1903-1914)

119

Cela dit, il a bien analysé la pensée de Loisy, qu’il ne confond pas avec celle des professeurs de Louvain, Ladeuze notamment, dont il estime, précisément, qu’on l’assimile à tort à Loisy. À propos de Loisy, Marmion note, en invoquant lui aussi la «règle de foi»: …Quel bonheur d’appartenir à une Église où noncircumferimuromnivento doctrinae. Les pauvres protestants jouissent de la douce liberté de naviguer sans boussole! Je dis ceci à propos de la condamnation de Loisy. Certes tout ce qu’il écrit n’est pas faux, mais bien des choses le sont. Il est permis d’examiner la Sainte Écriture comme document historique. Il est permis d’aboutir à un Christ incomplet qu’il faut compléter par la théologie, mais il n’est pas permis d’aboutir à un Christ ayant des notes opposées au Christ que la foi nous présente129…

Ce n’est sans doute pas très actuel du point de vue ecclésiologique, mais c’est nuancé sur Loisy. À peu près à la même époque, il analyse d’ailleurs finement la position de Loisy en termes kantiens, notant: Kant distingue entre phenomenon (les choses telles qu’elles nous apparaissent) et le noumenon (les choses telles qu’elles sont en elles-mêmes); et il affirme qu’il n’y a aucune nécessité pour l’une de correspondre à l’autre. Loisy fait la même distinction entre le Christ phenomenon, c’està-dire le Christ tel que la foi nous Le présente – et il admet que tout chrétien doit accepter ce Christ idéal – et le Christ noumenon, c’est-à-dire le Christ comme personnage historique absolument différent du premier130.

Cela dit, ce qu’il écrit de Ladeuze, qu’il connaît bien pour le fréquenter alors qu’il séjourne à Louvain, montre qu’il distingue très clairement les «modernistes» des «progressistes», ces derniers ayant sa sympathie. Dans une lettre au directeur de la Revuebénédictine, dom Thibaut précisément, il signale en juillet 1906 avoir lu le compte rendu fait par Ladeuze à propos d’un ouvrage de Houtin et qu’il lui recommande: «Vous verrez que c’est bien à tort qu’on englobe Ladeuze dans la même condamnation

129. Ibid., p. 178: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Raymond Thibaut, Louvain, 29 décembre 1903. Voir également ibid., pp. 178-179: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne, Mont-César, Louvain, 31 décembre 1903. 130. Ibid., pp. 178-179: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne, Mont-César, Louvain, 31 décembre 1903. On trouve également des jugements, plus tranchés, sur Tyrrell (ibid., pp. 270-271: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Raymond Thibaut, Louvain, 12 juin 1907; Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à Mère Mary Berchmans Durrant, Maredsous, 5 décembre 1912; etc.) et dans une moindre mesure sur von Hügel (ibid., p. 259: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne, Mont-César, Louvain, 10 janvier 1907; pp. 258-259: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à Mère Mary Berchmans Durrant, Mont-César, Louvain, 10 janvier 1907; etc.).

120

L. COURTOIS

que Loisy, Houtin, etc.»131! Il confirme son jugement en janvier 1907: «Je connais dansl’intimité un grand nombre des étudiants du Saint-Esprit, et leurs professeurs, et je suis sûr qu’aucun pays ne possède un nombre d’ecclésiastiques si sincèrement pieux en même temps que doctes que ceux de Louvain»132. Et d’expliquer alors longuement pourquoi il était sûr de leur doctrine… CONCLUSION L’analyse n’était pas garantie d’avance. Si les recensions sont normalement révélatrices des tendances rédactionnelles d’un périodique, elles peuvent facilement se cantonner dans un point de vue purement descriptif! Quant aux correspondances, il faut souvent de la chance pour trouver des réactions à chaud aux événements significatifs du temps, au milieu d’un flot d’informations de type administratif. Certes, comme nos analyses l’illustrent, les comptes rendus peuvent être révélateurs du positionnement de la Revue, mais, outre que beaucoup ne le sont pas, il faudrait un petit volume pour analyser de façon fine et détaillée l’ensemble des matériaux disponibles, ce que le présent article n’autorise pas … Nous croyons néanmoins avoir contribué à mettre en évidence le caractère «progressiste» de la Revue bénédictine. Une analyse plus substantielle de la matière rédactionnelle de cette dernière devrait permettre de mieux asseoir ces premières conclusions! IACS Place Blaise Pascal 1/L3.03.21 BE-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgique [email protected]

Luc COURTOIS

131. Ibid., pp. 245-246: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Raymond Thibaut, Mont-César, Louvain, 24 juillet 1906. Voir P. LADEUZE, [compte rendu de:] A. HOUTIN, LaquestionbibliqueauXXesiècle, dans RHE 7 (1906) 690-693. 132. Ibid., p. 259: Lettre de dom Columba Marmion à dom Hildebrand de Hemptinne, Mont-César, Louvain, 10 janvier 1907.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE WILLIAM LAURENCE SULLIVAN’S THEPRIEST (1911) AND MARY WARD’S THECASEOFRICHARDMEYNELL(1911)

I. A PILGRIM’S PROGRESS FROM THE ROMAN SYSTEM TO THE RELIGION OF THE SPIRIT1 Modernism has every right in the world to literary treatment in the forms of fiction or the drama. For if it is the function of these departments of literature to set forth the histories of human hearts and the crises of human conscience, it is doubtful if they could find in the aggregate of contemporaneous experiences a richer field than Modernism2.

William Laurence Sullivan’s novel ThePriest(1911), from which these lines are taken, is an impressive instance of modernism presented in the form of fiction. The Priest tells the story of a young American priest, Ambrose Hanlon, who, fresh from theological college, has been sent off to a small town in rural Puritan New England on a mission to establish a Catholic parish particularly for the newly arrived immigrant laborers from Poland and Italy3. Soon Father Hanlon becomes acquainted with his 1. See J. RATTÉ, ThreeModernists:AlfredLoisy–GeorgeTyrrell–WilliamL.Sullivan, New York, Sheed and Ward, 1967, p. 295; W.L. PORTIER, DividedFriends:Portraitsofthe RomanCatholicModernistCrisisintheUnitedStates, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2013, p. 270; reference to William Laurence Sullivan’s letter to Charles William Wendte, Kansas City, MO, September 4, 1910, Sullivan Papers, BMS 467/10, Folder 18. 2. Anon. [W.L. SULLIVAN], ThePriest:ATaleofModernisminNewEngland, Boston, MA, Sherman, French & Company, 1911, ‘Prefatory Note’. The title page: “by the Author of ‘Letters to His Holiness, Pope Pius X’”. 3. William Laurence Sullivan (1872-1935) belonged to a family of Irish immigrants; his parents arrived in America just one year before he was born. For Sullivan, see RATTÉ, Three Modernists (n. 1), pp. 257-336; W.E. DUCLOS, Crisis of an American Catholic Modernist: Toward the Moral Absolutism of William L.Sullivan, in Church History 41 (1972) 369-384; M.B. MCGARRY, Modernism in the United States: William Laurence Sullivan,1872-1935, in RecordsoftheAmericanCatholicHistoricalSocietyofPhiladelphia 90 (1979) 33-52; R. SCOTT APPLEBY, “Church and Age Unite!”: The Modernist ImpulseinAmericanCatholicism, Notre Dame, IN – London, University of Notre Dame Press, 1992, pp. 169-189; W.L. PORTIER, WilliamL.Sullivan’s‘ThePriest’:AnAmerican ModernistNovel, in ModernistNovels:Blondel’sL’Action.PapersPresentedintheWorkingGrouponRomanCatholicModernismatthe1993AnnualMeetingoftheAmerican AcademyofReligion, Mobile, AL, Spring Hill College, 1993, 28-52; R. SCOTT APPLEBY, The Fictions of William L.Sullivan: A Response to William L.Portier, in Modernist Novels,53-55; PORTIER, DividedFriends (n. 1), pp. 259-289. For a sympathetic portrait

122

E. VAN DER WALL

Protestant colleague, Josiah Danforth, only three years his senior. The Reverend Danforth is a Unitarian from whose company the young priest fears the worst possible influence: as nearly all Catholics and a large number of orthodox evangelicals, he holds that Unitarians cannot be Christians4. Danforth, however, turns out to be the kindest man anyone could wish to have for an advisor and friend. Father Hanlon’s first visit to the Unitarian vicarage will be the beginning of a warm friendship between the Catholic priest and the Unitarian minister, in which the latter will guide the former on the road to the scholarly study of modern theology. Looking around in the Unitarian’s study and seeing the bookshelves filled to the brim with learned treatises on biblical criticism, most of them in German, Ambrose Hanlon becomes aware of his immense ignorance in the field of modern theological scholarship; he cannot even read German, so that Harnack’s critical scholarship is unknown territory to him. To his amazement there are also numerous books on Catholic theology and Catholic devotion. “In Heaven’s name, what sort of man was this Unitarian minister?”5. And there is more than modern scholarship to be had in the Unitarian vicarage. Hanlon is struck by the devotional atmosphere, the ivory crucifix in the minister’s study, the evening prayers with Danforth and his old Quaker mother kneeling to pray and meditate together. Although he knows that the Church does not allow him to pray together with ‘heretics’, Father Hanlon, to his own amazement, accepts the invitation to join in the evening prayer. In the lives of these Unitarians modernism and intense piety appear to be in perfect harmony6. Clearly, the novelist has set the stage for an inevitable conversion of Father Hanlon to modernism. And that will not even be the final step in his priestly career. The end of the story is that, after a continuous series of mental and spiritual struggles, Ambrose will abandon the priesthood, having been taken to task by his superiors for his heretical modernist leanings and his equally heretical friendship with the Unitarian minister. As implied in the very last sentences of the novel, he will start a new life with Dorothy Wakefield, a young Unitarian who belongs to “the little devotional circle” at the Danforth home7. of Sullivan by a contemporary, see C.W. WENDTE, TheWiderFellowship.Vol. II:Memories,Friendships,andEndeavorsforReligiousUnity1844-1927,Boston, MA, The Beacon Press, 1927, pp. 337-340. 4. ThePriest (n. 2), p. 50. 5. Ibid., p. 54. 6. Ibid., pp. 60-64. 7. Dorothy Wakefield was partially modelled after Estelle Throckmorton, Sullivan’s future wife. For a synopsis of The Priest (n. 2), see RATTÉ, Three Modernists (n. 1), pp. 297-316; PORTIER, DividedFriends (n. 1), pp. 269-281.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

123

Sullivan’sThePriest contains various elements which are characteristic for religious modernist fiction of a Roman Catholic stamp: the (often unpleasant) role of traditionalist clergy; the contrast between on the one hand the theoretical, dogmatic teachings taught at the seminary, rooted in ‘medievalism’, and on the other hand the harsh realities of everyday modern life, making young priests wholly unprepared for what awaits them when called upon to care for parishioners; ignorance as well as fear of Protestantism; the refusal to regard Unitarians and modernists as Christians; and, last but not least, the influential role of libraries and books. Novels in particular were regarded as most effective instruments in the popularization of any kind of knowledge. No wonder that there were severe warnings against the reading of ‘dangerous’ fiction; the ‘modernismus litterarius’ became a popular target of anti-modernists8. Like other works of religious modernist fiction The Priest reveals numerous autobiographical traits. If we read the novel in the light of what we know about Sullivan’s own spiritual journey we are struck by the correspondences between the story of the novel and that of his own life, about which we are also informed through his autobiography Under Orders9. All this naturally confronts us, in Sullivan’s case as well as in those of other novelists, with the complex issue of how fiction is related to the genre of autobiography. Sullivan’s spiritual pilgrimage led him first from Roman Catholicism (he was a member of the Paulists) via Americanism to modernism, only for him to abandon the Catholic Church in the aftermath of Pascendi, and end his religious journey with his conversion to Unitarianism. Thus, consciously or unconsciously, he fulfilled the papal prophecy that modernism was just a stage on the road to Protestantism which could not but end in downright atheism. Now that final stage was certainly not to be Sullivan’s destiny: he expressed his profound dismay with atheism. As to Unitarianism, this would turn out to be something of a disappointment for him, leaving him a disillusioned man but unwilling to abandon the 8. A bestseller at the time was the warning by abbé L. BETHLÉEM in his Romansàlire, romansàproscrire, Paris, Édition de la Revue des Lectures, 1904. See also C. VANDERPELEN-DIAGRE, ÉcrireenBelgiquesousleregarddeDieu:Lalittératurecatholiquebelge dans l’entre-deux-guerres, Bruxelles, Éditions Complexe, 2004, esp. pp. 13-67; U.M. CADEGAN, All Good Books Are Catholic Books: Print Culture, Censorship, and ModernityinTwentieth-CenturyAmerica, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2013. On the ‘modernismus litterarius’ in Germany, see O. WEISS, DerModernismusinDeutschland: EinBeitragzurTheologiegeschichte, Regensburg, Pustet, 1995, pp. 457-473 and passim. 9. W.L. SULLIVAN, UnderOrders: TheAutobiographyofWilliamLaurenceSullivan, Boston, MA, Beacon Press, 1944; repr. 1966. See also PORTIER, WilliamL.Sullivan’s‘The Priest’ (n. 3), pp. 29-36.

124

E. VAN DER WALL

Unitarian community. Remarkably, The Priest, which appeared shortly after he had become a Unitarian, already reveals Sullivan’s critical evaluation of various aspects of Unitarianism. His ideal, as we learn through Dorothy Wakefield, appears to be a synthesis of Roman Catholicism and Unitarianism. Unitarianism lacked certain important elements which he felt Roman Catholicism could offer. Sullivan seems to have regarded himself as a kind of American Tyrrell10. Shortly before The Priest was published he put out, anonymously, LetterstoHisHolinessPopePiusX, whose first part contains a strong plea for freedom of inquiry for scholars of religion in the Catholic Church, clearly written in a ‘mood of indignation’; a plea accompanied, in the shorter second part, by a concise, learned, and sober exposition of the recent results of higher Bible criticism11. With this scholarly survey he hoped to awaken the American Catholics to liberal religion, exactly what George Tyrrell had asked for12. II. THE STUDY OF RELIGIOUS MODERNISM IN FICTION In ThePriest William Laurence Sullivan’s idea that modernism offers a rich topic for fiction is made to work. Sullivan was by no means the only one who did so: throughout the later nineteenth and early twentieth century a spate of novels which dealt with religious modernism and modernists in Protestantism, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism saw the light. Though most of those novels have by now fallen into complete oblivion, it is telling that at the time quite a number of them made it to the bestseller lists of the day. The genre of religious modernist fiction has led Alec R. Vidler to express the view that fiction offers us an interesting and unique avenue of approach to the study of Roman Catholic modernism. “At one time”, Vidler tells us, “I thought of devoting a whole chapter to the fiction of the modernist movement, and someone else might well do that”, adding meaningfully: “A comparative study of the variety of novels which the 10. RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), pp. 264-265; see also p. 262, where Ratté points to the striking similarities between Sullivan’s modernist views and Tyrrell’s Christianity attheCrossroads. For Sullivan’s portrait of Tyrrell, see UnderOrders (n. 9), pp. 102-105. See also his review of M.D. PETRE, The Autobiography and Life of George Tyrrell, in HTR 7 (1914) 123-124. 11. W.L. SULLIVAN, LetterstoHisHolinessPopePiusX,byaModernist, Chicago, IL, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1910, with an Introduction by P.C. [= Paul Carus]; RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 295. 12. PORTIER, DividedFriends (n. 1),p. 260.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

125

modernist movement prompted, inspired or was attended by, would, I suspect, yield much illumination”13. It was this latter observation of Vidler which, some years ago, awakened my interest in religious modernist fiction, all the more so since the comparative perspective Vidler asked for was central to the joint Leuven-Leiden project on religious modernism which on the Leuven side was led and coordinated by Leo Kenis. Over the years this joint project has been an important incentive to my own study of religious modernism, and in this respect I am most grateful for Kenis’ stimulating scholarship14. It makes for some delightful hours of study to read and analyze Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Anglican fiction published in Europe and North America between roughly 1880 and 1940. These novels are approached from the perspectives of religious, intellectual, and cultural history, which implies that works are included which literary historians may find lacking in any artistic and literary merit. Often, but certainly not predominantly, modernist novels belong to the category characterized by Lord Acton as good for the historian, bad for the critic15. Apart from Vidler’s observations there is another reason why fiction deserves our scholarly attention, a reason which has everything to do with the new status the novel had gained in the course of the nineteenth century. The cultural dominance of the novel was not without its effects in the religious domain: it was widely felt that the novel had taken over the role of the sermon. The platform of fiction was quickly becoming the new pulpit. Theologians and others started to comment on the relationship between novels and sermons. Charles William Wendte, for example, a Unitarian minister, told his congregation in a sermon that “there is many a sermon preached in a good novel”16. Another Unitarian minister,

13. A.R. VIDLER,AVarietyofCatholicModernists, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 153-155. For Great Britain, see M.M. MAISON, SearchYourSoul,Eustace:ASurveyoftheReligiousNovelintheVictorianAge, London – New York, Sheed and Ward, 1961 [also published under the title AVictorianVision]; R.L. WOLFF, Gains andLosses:NovelsofFaithandDoubtinVictorianEngland, New York, Garland Publishing Co., 1977. 14. Besides Leo Kenis, his colleagues Lieve Gevers and Peter De Mey also participated in this joint project, as did Ineke Smit on the Leiden side. The project resulted in two conferences and a volume: L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernism intheLowCountries (BETL, 255), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 2013. 15. Lord ACTON, EssaysonChurchandState, ed. D. WOORDRUFF, London, Hollis and Carter, 1952, pp. 421-422, quoted by RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 334 note 42. 16. In this 1888 sermon Charles Wendte mentioned, among others, George Eliot, Charles Kingsley, and Mary Ward (RobertElsmere), see C. NELSON RACKMALES, Novels ofCompromise:MaryArnoldWard’sResponsetotheConflictofFaithandDoubt, Diss., The City University of New York, 1995, pp. 97-98. See also below.

126

E. VAN DER WALL

Ramsden Balmforth, was inclined to think that the novelist and the dramatist exercised a much wider influence than the preacher: “The novel has also an advantage over the didacticism of the pulpit … in that it is more universal in its appeal”17. Novels, said Balmforth, should be read with the following questions in mind: “Does it make us better, stronger, for having read it? Does it make us think more? Does it enlarge and deepen our sympathies? Does it make us more deeply indignant and impatient with injustice? Does it cause us to modify or suspend judgment where we have been too ready to condemn?”18. If the novel did these things it served its purpose as well as – or perhaps better than – the most eloquent sermon because it had a more lasting influence, Balmforth concluded. Anyhow, by 1900 religious novels which often took the form of a ‘didactic’ or ‘purpose’ novel (Fr. roman à thèse) had gained an impressive status as religious and doctrinal authorities19. This cultural and literary development makes it all the more worthwhile for students of religious modernism to engage in the study of religious modernist fiction. Religious novels were taken as a particular genre of didactic fiction. “To write a theological novel is to hurl the most defiant challenge in the face of those who glory in ‘Art for Art’s sake’”, said the prominent Anglican modernist Herbert L. Stewart, “Why this special field of man’s experience should be judged incapable of artistic treatment, the critics do not very precisely explain”20. The only choice we have, Stewart remarked, is between those novels which serve purposes that are important and those which serve purposes that are trivial21. Mary Ward, whom we shall meet more extensively below, felt that in order to reach the public, theological subjects had to be dealt with in fiction, since the novel was capable of holding and shaping real experience of any kind as it affected the lives of men and women. “It is the most elastic, the most adaptable of 17. R. BALMFORTH, The Religious and Ethical Value of the Novel, London, George Allen & Co. 1912, Preface, pp. VII-VIII. 18. Ibid., Preface, pp. X-XI, X. 19. S. RUBIN SULEIMAN, Leromanàthèseoul’autoritéfictive, Paris, PUF, 1983 [English translation: AuthoritarianFictions:TheIdeologicalNovelasaLiteraryGenre, New York, Columbia University Press, 1983]. For Mary Ward’s view on the ‘novel with a purpose’, see her Preface to TheHistoryofDavidGrieve: “If you, being a novelist, make a dull story, not all the religious argument in the world will or should save you. For your business is to make a novel, not a pamphlet, a reflection of human life, and not merely a record of intellectual conception”; quoted by A. FAWKES, The Ideas of Mrs. Humphry Ward, in ID., StudiesinModernism, London, Smith, Elder & Co, 1913, 447-468, p. 449. See also RACKMALES, NovelsofCompromise (n. 16), pp. 110-111. 20. H.L. STEWART, Mrs. Humphry Ward and the Theological Novel, in The Hibbert Journal 18 (1919-1920) 675-686, p. 675. 21. Ibid.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

127

forms”, she said, “No one has a right to set limits to its range. There is only one final test. Does it interest? – does it appeal?”22. William Sullivan was of the opinion that, because a piece of fiction had taken modernism for its subject, “it should not be forthwith condemned as a mere manifesto which usurps a province of art for crude ends of partisanship or revolt”23. In our joint introductory article to Religious Modernism in the Low Countries Leo Kenis and I listed a number of possible issues and topics for the comparative study of religious modernism24. Any mention of the role and significance of fiction is conspicuously absent in that essay. I would like here to make a modest attempt to make up for that omission by devoting attention, albeit sketchily, to Sullivan’s ThePriest and Mary Ward’s TheCaseofRichardMeynell,a novel on an Anglican modernist minister which, like ThePriest, appeared in 191125. Both novels, set in the early twentieth century and published in the post-Pascendi and post-antimodernist oath period, are among the handful of titles listed by Vidler26. As regards style and tone, both novels are characterized by a great measure of religious ‘earnestness’, every now and then tinged with 22. Mrs. H. WARD, A Writer’s Recollections, London, W. Collins Sons & Co, 1918, pp. 229-230. Interestingly she added to the tests of a novel: “Does it make in the long run for beauty?” (p. 230). 23. ThePriest (n. 2), Prefatory Note [p. i]. 24. E. VAN DER WALL – L. KENIS, CatholicandProtestantModernisms:ACallfora ComparativeApproach, in KENIS – VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernismintheLow Countries (n. 14),1-22; E. VAN DER WALL, Protestantsenrooms-katholiekmodernisme: Een tragische geschiedenis. Aanzetten tot comparatief onderzoek naar aanleiding van FredrikPijper,‘Hetmodernismeenanderestromingenindekatholiekekerk(1921)’, in T. MIKKERS – I. SMIT (eds.), Tussen Augustinus en atheïsme: Kerkhistorische Studiën 2006, Leiden, Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 2006, 63-88. 25. I hope to return to the topic more extensively in a monograph on religious modernist fiction which I am currently preparing. 26. VIDLER,AVarietyofCatholicModernists (n. 13), pp. 154-155. Among the titles listed by Vidler are such famous novels as Antonio FOGAZZARO, Il Santo, 1905, Roger Martin DU GARD, JeanBarois, 1913, and Paul BOURGET’s Ledémondemidi, 1914. For a very interesting comparative study of IlSanto, JeanBarois, and Ledémondemidi, see É. GOICHOT, Lemodernismeaumiroirduroman:Laprimautéde Il Santo, in P. MARANGON (ed.), AntonioFogazzaroeilmodernismo, Vicenza, Academia Olimpica, 2003, 121-131. See also by the same author: Anamorphoses:Lemodernismeauxmiroirsduroman, in RHPR 68 (1988) 435-459. On Martin du Gard’s Jean Barois and modernism see also E. VAN DER WALL, Believing,Belonging,andAdapting:TheCaseofReligiousModernism, in B. BECKING (ed.), Orthodoxy,Liberalism,andAdaptation:EssaysonWaysofWorldmakinginTimesofChangefromBiblical,HistoricalandSystematicPerspectives (Studies in Theology and Religion, 15), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 91-114. On Gerald O’Donovan’s famous autobiographical novel Father Ralph of 1913, also mentioned by Vidler, see for instance E. VAN DER WALL, TheHeroicAge?TheSelf-Perceptionofthe ReligiousModernist, in KENIS – VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernismintheLow Countries (n. 14),241-264, pp. 247-248.

128

E. VAN DER WALL

humor and irony, offering the reader some fine scenes bearing witness to the novelists’ psychological insight27. Leaving aside the important dimension common to both novels of the relationship between religion and state, as well as the social concerns with which the authors deal, I would like to focus here on the way in which these two stories confirm contemporary observations about the emergence of a new phenomenon in western Christendom called ‘interdenominationalism’. In his opening address at the international conference of religious liberals and modernists, held in Boston in September 1907, the prominent Unitarian Samuel A. Eliot referred to the immense changes that were taking place in the life and thought of all religious organizations. “The adherents of the different communions are no longer homogeneous”, Eliot said, “They not only tolerate, but acknowledge a great and growing diversity of opinion within their own ranks”. Ancient denominational rivalries are being replaced by new, interdenominational, alignments: “The progressive men of all communions feel themselves in closer sympathy with men of the same spirit in other communions than with those of an opposite temper in their own”, from which Eliot concluded that the traditional and historic dividing lines grew dim, but the new alignments grew more and more distinct28. Samuel Eliot was by no means alone in his diagnosis of the contemporary religious situation. The well-known Anglican vicar Alfred Leslie Lilley stated likewise that “the pressing divisions are no more vertical, denominational, – they are horizontal, interdenominational”, words quoted with approval by Friedrich von Hügel29. Moreover, Richard Meynell, the protagonist of Mary Ward’s 1911 novel, observes in a similar vein that “Christendom is divided today – or is rapidly dividing itself – into two wholly new camps”. The division between Catholic and Protestant is no longer the supreme division, Meynell says, “for the force that is rising affects both the Protestants and Catholics equally. […] Two

27. For a fascinating study of ‘earnestness’ in Victorian Britain, see W.E. HOUGHTON, The Victorian Frame of Mind 1830-1870, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 1957. One may wonder on what grounds William Sullivan should be considered ‘shockingly vulgar’ (PORTIER, DividedFriends [n. 1], p. 261, quoting Kenneth Rexroth). 28. S.A. ELIOT, AddressofthePresident, in C.W. WENDTE (ed.), FreedomandFellowship in Religion. Proceedings and Papers of the Fourth International Congress of ReligiousLiberals,HeldatBoston,U.S.A.,September22-27,1907, Boston, MA, International Council, 1907, 48-52, p. 49. See also E. VAN DER WALL, The Enemy Within: Religion, Science, and Modernism (Uhlenbeck Lecture, 25), Wassenaar, NIAS, 2007, pp. 9-15. 29. Friedrich von Hügel to Canon Newsom, 7 September 1909, in B. HOLLAND(ed.), SelectedLetters1896-1924, London – Toronto, J.M. Dent & Sons, 1927, p. 167.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

129

camps! – two systems of thought! – both of them, Christian thought”30. It was precisely the latter qualification, implying that religious modernists were no less entitled to call themselves Christians than religious conservatives were, which was at stake at Meynell’s heresy trial – as indeed it was the basic issue at every heresy trial of the later nineteenth and early twentieth century in western Christendom. If anything, these heresy trials show that, alongside ancient denominational rivalries, new boundaries had come into being31. III. LIBERAL CATHOLICISM: “IF I ONLY COULD BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD LAST, & HAD A FUTURE!” In all probability William Sullivan and Mary Arnold Ward never met, although they might have had an opportunity to do so when the latter made a lecture tour through North America in 190832. Both of them moved in the international world of religious liberals and modernists which in Boston in 1900 had organized itself under the cumbersome name of InternationalCouncilofUnitariansandOtherLiberalThinkers and Workers33. Both were personally acquainted with Charles William 30. Mrs. H. WARD, TheCaseofRichardMeynell, London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1911, p. 104. For this essay I have used the new edition of 1912. Meynell also likes to speak of ‘two forms of Christianity’; his last sermon in the novel (on the eve of the heresy trial), entitled TheTwoChristianities, “became one of the chief landmarks, or rather, rallying cries of the Modernist cause” (TheCaseofRichardMeynell, p. 516). Mary Ward gives a few fragments of this sermon, as she did of another of Meynell’s sermons. She was even thinking of publishing a separate volume with ‘sermons and journals’ by Meynell, but this plan came to nothing. 31. VAN DER WALL, TheEnemyWithin (n. 28), p. 10. Sullivan applauded attempts “to do away with national and sectarian feeling” in the mission field, see RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 282. 32. For Mary Augusta Ward, née Arnold (1851-1920), see for instance J.P. TREVELYAN, TheLifeofMrs.HumphryWard, London – Bombay – Sidney, Constable and Company, 1923; V. COLBY, The Singular Anomaly: Women Novelists of the Nineteenth Century, New York, New York University Press; London, University of London Press, 1970, pp. 111-174; E.H. JONES, MrsHumphryWard, London, Heinemann, 1973; W.S. PETERSON, VictorianHeretic:MrsHumphryWard’s‘RobertElsmere’,Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1976; F. RIVES, Mrs Humphry Ward. Romancière, Tomes I-II, Thèse présentée devant l’Université de Paris IV – le 21 Juin 1978 – Université de Lille III, Service de réproduction des thèses, 1981; J. SUTHERLAND, MrsHumphryWard:Eminent Victorian.Pre-eminentEdwardian, Oxford, Clarendon, 1990; J. WILT, BehindHerTimes: Transition England in the Novels of Mary Arnold Ward, Charlottesville, VA – London, University of Virginia Press, 2005. 33. After several name changes the InternationalCouncil now calls itself International AssociationforReligiousFreedom(IARF); organizing world conferences is still one of its activities.

130

E. VAN DER WALL

Wendte, mentioned above, the general secretary and driving force of this interdenominational association in its early years34. Over the years a handful of Catholics started to attend the international conferences but only very few of them made it, or rather wished to make it, to the speaker’s platform. Remarkably, in September 1907, just two weeks after the promulgation of Pascendi, Albert Houtin addressed the Boston conference on, unsurprisingly, “The Crisis in the Catholic Church”35. A few years later Houtin was to express himself in highly favorable terms about Sullivan’s ThePriest.“This book”, he wrote to the author, “from the point of view of literature, and LetterstoHisHoliness, from the point of view of erudition, are important, not only to your compatriots, but for all those … who are preoccupied with religious questions”. ThePriest inspired him “with a lively confidence in our future”. Houtin was also impressed by the literary qualities of ThePriest: “If you produce a few other novels as good – I do not say better – you will without doubt rank with the number of the great writers of your country”36. The admiration was mutual: Sullivan was deeply sympathetic to Houtin’s strict moral sense, his refusal to tamper with the historical truth, and his implacable sincerity37. Interestingly, Sullivan was invited to the conference of the International Council to be held in Paris in July 1913, where

34. For Sullivan’s contacts with Charles W. Wendte, see WENDTE, The Wider Fellowship,vol. II (n. 3),pp. 337-340; RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 333 note 38. For Mary Ward’s contacts with Wendte, see WENDTE, The Wider Fellowship, vol. II, pp. 114-116. 35. A. HOUTIN, The Crisis in the Catholic Church, in WENDTE (ed.), Freedom and Fellowship in Religion (n. 28), 232-239. See also C.J.T. TALAR, A Modernist among Liberals: Albert Houtin at the Fourth International Congress of Religious Liberals, in U.S.Catholic Historian 20/3 (2002) 23-31. On the pre-World War I conferences of the International Council, see VAN DER WALL, TheHeroicAge? (n. 26), pp. 253-260; EAD., India’sboodschapaanhetWesten.Wereldgodsdienstenenvrijzinniginternationalismein de vroege twintigste eeuw, in C. DE LANGE – R. MULDER (eds.), Vijf continenten, vijf eeuwen: Vijf jaar geschiedbeoefening in het Kerkhistorisch Gezelschap S.S.S., Leiden, Kerkhistorisch Gezelschap, 2011, 78-91; EAD., Een wereldparlement van vrijzinnigen: Religieentransnationalisme(1900-1914), in N. VAN DRIEL – A. HOUKES (eds.), Hetvrijzinnigeweb:Verkenningennaarvrijzinnig-protestantsenetwerken(1850-1914) (Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme na 1800, 22), Zoetermeer, Meinema, 2014, 157-179. I am preparing a study on pre-WW I conferences of the International Council. 36. Albert Houtin to William L. Sullivan, 7 April 1911, quoted in PORTIER, William L.Sullivan’s‘ThePriest’ (n. 3), p. 47; see also RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 334 note 42; MCGARRY, ModernismintheUnitedStates (n. 3), p. 40; in the same letter Houtin told Sullivan: “The movement in Europe seems to me completely crushed”; see PORTIER, William L.Sullivan’s ‘The Priest’ (n. 3), p. 47; ID., Divided Friends (n. 1), p. 279. For Sullivan’s portrait of Houtin, see UnderOrders (n. 9), pp. 96-98. 37. RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 287.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

131

he was to speak on “religious freedom in the church” in a session with Romolo Murri and Joseph Schnitzer, but in the end he did not go38. Mary Ward was time and again on the speakers’ list of the International Council but she was never able to make it. Doubtless she felt a great affinity with the Unitarians. Unlike Sullivan, however, she would never join them, instead preferring to remain within the Anglican Church in which she, granddaughter of Thomas Arnold of Rugby and niece of Matthew Arnold, had been raised39. However, from an early age Roman Catholicism had formed a steady component of her life: her father, Thomas Arnold Jr., converted from Anglicanism to Romanism, then reconverted to the Anglican Church, only to return again, and then definitely, to the Catholic fold. Though she was always very interested in Catholicism, to follow in her father’s religious footsteps was no option for her: “Catholicism has an enormous attraction for me, – yet I could no more be a Catholic than a Mahometan”40. From at least the 1890s Mary Ward became quite interested in the Catholic modernist movement, and might be ranked among Vidler’s ‘fellow travellers’41. She had been an early admirer of Ernest Renan, with whom she was personally acquainted, and now closely followed the 38. Ibid., p. 264. Sullivan’s name is on the program published in the proceedings of the Paris conference. On the Paris conference the Dutch ex-priest Jos van Veen delivered a talk on Catholic modernism in the Netherlands; three years before, in 1910, Van Veen had published a controversial modernist novel entitled Celibatairen(‘Celibates’), see VAN DER WALL, TheHeroicAge?(n. 26), pp. 261-263. Alfred Loisy had been invited to act as vice-president of this congress but had refused, wishing to stay away from what he thought was an overall Protestant meeting; see A. LOISY, Mémoirespourserviràl’histoirereligieuse de notre temps, Paris, Émile Nourry, 1931, T. III: 1908-1927, pp. 271-272. In February 1904 it was rumored in England that Loisy was to come to England “to hold biblical conferences under the auspices of Dr Sullivan, former Catholic priest, now a Unitarian minister”, as Von Hügel informed Loisy (LOISY, Mémoires, T. II: 1900-1908, p. 353). Loisy had then just declined to deliver the Jowett Lectures, which may have been the cause of the rumor (see also below). Still there seems to be something wrong with the chronology in Loisy’s Mémoires, as Sullivan was not yet a Unitarian in 1904. 39. Mary Ward was also a lecturer on the national Unitarian platform. See for instance M. WARD, Unitarians and the Future, Essex Hall Lecture 1894, London, Philip Green, 1894. See also TheCaseofRichardMeynell (n. 30), pp. 362-363. 40. TREVELYAN, TheLifeofMrs.HumphryWard (n. 32), p. 151. She had her father’s religious feelings in mind when she wrote HelbeckofBannisdale (1898), a very interesting novel about the relationship between the devout Roman Catholic Alan Helbeck and the young agnostic Laura Fountain. Catholics appreciated this novel in different ways. For George Tyrrell’s assessment, see his TwoEstimatesofCatholicLife, in TheFaithofthe Millions: A Selection of Past Essays. Second Series, 1901, 61-79. See furthermore: M.R. CARLSON, The Bearing of the Oxford Movement on the Religious Novels of Mrs. HumphreyWard, Thesis Loyola University Chicago, 1943. 41. On British ‘fellow travellers’, see VIDLER, A Variety of Catholic Modernists (n. 13), pp. 170-190; PETERSON, VictorianHeretic (n. 32),p. 197.

132

E. VAN DER WALL

events of Loisy’s career and other ‘modernist cases’. It was particularly the case of Herman Schell that suggested to her the literary portrait of the kind elderly German modernist Father Benecke in her novel Eleanor (1900)42. As to Loisy, in 1904 she invited him to give the Jowett Lectures at the Passmore Edwards Settlement in London – one of the social institutions founded by the ever active Mary Ward herself –, but he declined the invitation43. She had met Monseigneur Louis Duchesne in Rome, whom she characterized as “the French Lord Acton; like him, a Liberal and a man of vast learning, tarred with the Modernist brush in the eyes of the Vatican, but at heart also, like Lord Acton, by the testimony of all who know, a simple and convinced believer”44. At home, another modernist acquaintance of hers was Baron Friedrich von Hügel45. Like Sullivan, she was also a great admirer of George Tyrrell, who to her, as she wrote in her memoirs of 1917, was “the greatest figure in the twenty years before the war”46. We find his ChristianityattheCross-roads in Meynell’s study, the posthumous book “in which a great soul, like a breaking wave, had foamed itself away”47.

42. AWriter’sRecollections (n. 22), p. 342. Peterson in this connection also mentions the cases of Isaac Hecker and Franz Reusch(VictorianHeretic [n. 32],p. 186). See also TREVELYAN, TheLifeofMrs.HumphryWard (n. 32), p. 257: “Ever since the Loisy case she [MW] had been deeply possessed by the literature of Modernism, seeing in it the force which would, she believed, in the end regenerate the churches. […] She was deep in the writings of Father Tyrrell, of Bergson and of William James during these years…”. Meynell also refers to Henri Bergson, William James, Rudolf Eucken and George Tyrrell, whose works are being discussed at this time [TheCaseofRichardMeynell[n. 30], p. 14]. For Sullivan on Schell, see UnderOrders(n. 9), p. 80: “Hermann Schell, also, the great loved German theologian, I thought had been condemned quite needlessly”. 43. VIDLER, A Variety of Catholic Modernists (n. 13), p. 154 note 9 [reference to A.L. Lilley’s letter to Alfred Loisy, 17 December 1903, BN, n.a.f. 15658]. See also note 38. 44. A Writer’s Recollections (n. 22), p. 339. Mary Ward was personally acquainted with Lord Acton, with whom she had many conversations about religious topics when she was writing Robert Elsmere; she also consulted him about Helbeck of Bannisdale. For William Sullivan, reading Lord Acton’s essays and letters was one of the most decisive moments in his life, seeUnderOrders(n. 9),pp. 65-66; RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 281. As to Louis Duchesne, his name also figures in The Case of Richard Meynell (n. 30), p. 111. 45. L.R. KURTZ, ThePoliticsofHeresy:TheModernistCrisisinRomanCatholicism, Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 1986, p. 121. However, Barmann mentions just one meeting between von Hügel and Mary Ward, see L.F. BARMANN, Baron Friedrich von Hügel and the Modernist Crisis in England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972, p. 220. 46. AWriter’sRecollections(n. 22), p. 366. Her love for Tyrrell she shared with her uncle Matthew; see also N. SAGOVSKY, BetweenTwoWorlds:GeorgeTyrrell’sRelationshiptotheThoughtofMatthewArnold, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983. 47. TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30), p. 302.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

133

On 29 September 1907 Mary Ward wrote to her friend Louise Creighton: But what interests & touches me most – in religion – at the present moment is Liberal Catholicism. It has a bolder freedom than anything in the Anglican Church, & a more philosophic and poetic outlook. It seems to me at any rate to combine the mystical and scientific powers, in a wonderful degree. If I only could believe that it would last, & had a future48!

When early in 1908 Paul Sabatier, the French Protestant minister and biographer of St Francis of Assisi, came to give the Jowett Lectures on Catholic modernism Mary delivered the introductory speech49. Sabatier’s lectures are said to have served as an important source of inspiration for TheCaseofRichardMeynell. IV. THE PASSION OF A FREED FAITH50 TheCaseofRichardMeynell breathes a calm and confident, perhaps even militant faith in the validity and legitimacy of the ‘new Reformation’, a Reformation which in this novel takes as its focal point the modernization of Anglican worship51. To her amazement Mary Ward discovered that ministers like Meynell could be found in Anglican pulpits. On 11 October 1910 she told her publisher: “… on Sunday I heard Meynell preach! An astonishing sermon, and a crowded congregation”. Rev. Hudson Shaw – a sort of ‘real’ Meynell – had declared: “I shall not in future read the Athanasian Creed, or the cursing psalms or the Ten Commandments, or the Exhortation at the beginning of the Marriage Service – and I shall take the consequences”. As if this were not enough, Shaw had proclaimed that both the Baptismal Service and the Burial Service should be altered. He just did not understand how the congregation could swallow all this: “how you, the laity, can tolerate us – the clergy – stand48. Quoted by PETERSON, VictorianHeretic (n. 32), p. 188; see also TREVELYAN, The LifeofMrs.HumphryWard (n. 32), p. 257. 49. PETERSON, VictorianHeretic (n. 32),p. 197 and p. 235 note 23. SUTHERLAND states, incorrectly, that Sabatier’s lectures deal with modernism in the French Protestant Church (MrsHumphryWard [n. 32], p. 287). P. SABATIER, Modernism:TheJowettLectures,1908, trans. C.A. Miles, with a Preface, Notes and Appendices, London, T. Fisher Unwin; New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908. 50. See TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30), p. 69. 51. TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30). Mary Ward published two essays on ‘The New Reformation’: TheNewReformation.ADialogue, in NineteenthCentury 25 (1889) 454-480; TheNewReformation:AConscienceClausefortheLaity, in NineteenthCentury 46 (1899) 654-672. See also PETERSON, VictorianHeretic (n. 32),pp. 194-195.

134

E. VAN DER WALL

ing up Sunday after Sunday and saying these things to you, I cannot understand”, Shaw had said, “but I for one will do it no more, happen what may”52. Doubtless Shaw’s sermon was an inspiration for Mary Ward’s new novel. As regards reform of the liturgy, a more modern form of worship is also what Sullivan’s Father Hanlon would much prefer – for example for the dedication service of the new Catholic church building. Much of the ritual he finds outdated, if not slightly pompous. The simple evening devotions in the Unitarian vicarage may have played a role in his longing for a simpler liturgy53. But Hanlon’s heresy is much more similar to Elsmere’s than to Meynell’s, starting as it does with serious doubts about the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch – a tenet about which the novelist himself will surely have had conversations with the young Dutch biblical scholar Henri Poels, another famous heretic of the day54. As to TheCaseofRichardMeynell, liturgical reform along modernist lines is here the major bone of contention in the fight between modernists and conservatives. From the very beginning the clash is framed in terms of war: “The parleying time is done. It has lasted two generations. And now comes war – honourable, necessary war!”, says Richard Meynell, who is not afraid of a good fight55. He does not shy away from the heresy trial of which he is the main target56. There is a slightly triumphant tone in the novel, with its references to the rapid spreading of the modernist movement in the Church of England, leaving the impression that Anglican 52. TREVELYAN, TheLifeofMrs.HumphryWard (n. 32), p. 258. On ‘devotional liberalism’, see C.R. SHAW STEWART, Devotional Liberalism, in Anglican Liberalism: By TwelveChurchmen, London, Williams & Norgate; New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908, 64-76. 53. ThePriest (n. 2), pp. 132, 119. For Elsmere, see below. 54. See PORTIER, DividedFriends (n. 1), p. 264. 55. TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30), pp. 12, 13. 56. The leader of the local anti-Meynell faction, Squire Henry Barron, in many respects resembles the leader of the local anti-Danforth faction, Squire Amos Wakefield. As to heresy trials, there are references in the novel to the famous cases in the Anglican Church: Essays and Reviews, John Colenso, and Charles Voysey; in the early 20th century the names of James M. Thompson and Hensley Henson were associated with heresy. Mary Ward devoted attention to the Thompson case in her essay TheNeedofFreedominthe Church, in The Modern Churchman, July 1912 [unfortunately unavailable for consultation]. Hensley Henson wrote a favorable review of TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30), see N. VANCE, TheChurchinDanger:MrsHumphryWard’s‘TheCaseofRichardMeynell’, in InternationalJournalfortheStudyoftheChristianChurch 12/3-4 (2012) 248262, p. 249. In Germany the fictional case of Meynell was linked to the notorious case of Carl Jatho, a minister at Cologne whose ‘heresy’ trial, which started in 1910, led to his dismissal (1911). Jatho was defended by Otto Baumgarten, Professor of Theology at Kiel University and member of the International Council, who also wrote the Preface to the German translation of TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30).

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

135

modernism is becoming a success story. But this optimism came as a surprise even for the inner modernist circle. “I don’t anticipate any such heroic movement as you describe”, Hastings Rashdall, the prominent modernist, wrote to Mary Ward, “though of course one can not say what effect might be produced by a prophet like your hero”. But it was clear to Rashdall that with her novel Mary Ward would reach thousands whom no volume of sermons or theological essays could reach, “and the mere suggestion that such a movement is going on among the clergy will help us …”57. Obviously Rashdall was well aware of the novel’s role as an instrument of activism. For Catholic readers it must have been quite odd to hear Anglican modernists talk about modernism in terms of a public, ecclesiastical success. Remarkably, on the basis of what French Catholic correspondents told him, Meynell thinks that Catholic modernism, at least in France, is booming too58. When Mary Ward published the novel (under her nomdeplume ‘Mrs Humphry Ward’) she was, unlike Sullivan, a very famous novelist, the author of one of the greatest bestsellers of nineteenth-century fiction, RobertElsmere (1888)59. Elsmere became the symbol of the theologian who struggles with modern scholarship, going through a severe spiritual crisis and eventually leaving the church in order to build up a ‘modern’ congregation with a notable social and humanitarian engagement, outside the mainstream churches (the ‘New Brotherhood’ in London). The heroic pilgrimage, however, takes its toll: Elsmere, a man of delicate physique, dies prematurely, leaving his wife Catherine and their young daughter 57. PETERSON, Victorian Heretic (n. 32), p. 203. On Hastings Rashdall as a major English ‘fellow traveler’ of Catholic modernism, see VIDLER,AVarietyofCatholicModernists (n. 13), pp. 173, 181-182. 58. TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30), pp. 70-71; 298-299. 59. There is a wealth of literature on RobertElsmere; here I merely mention MAISON, SearchYourSoul,Eustace (n. 13), pp. 255-269; PETERSON, VictorianHeretic (n. 32);see also the literature mentioned in note 32. In contrast, The Case of Robert Meynell is a hitherto rather neglected novel, as Norman Vance correctly states. For this novel see, for instance, FAWKES, TheIdeasofMrs.HumphryWard (n. 19), pp. 451, 460-462, 466-468; S. GWYNN, Mrs.HumphryWard, London, Nisbet & Co., 1917, pp. 98-102; STEWART, Mrs HumphryWardandtheTheologicalNovel (n. 20); F.S. MARVIN, ‘RobertElsmere’:Fifty YearsAfter, in ContemporaryReview 156 (1939) 196-202; PETERSON, VictorianHeretic (n. 32),pp. 190-206; J. WILT, TheRomanceofFaith:MaryWard’sRobertElsmereand RichardMeynell, in LiteratureandTheology 10/1 (1996) 33-43; VANCE, TheChurchin Danger (n. 56); N. VANCE, BibleandNovel:NarrativeAuthorityandtheDeathofGod, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 135-160. The novel was first serialized in CornhillMagazine (Britain) and in McClure’sMagazine (USA). A Dutch translation by Frederika Quanjer appeared in 1911, which, significantly, has as its subtitle: Vervolgop RobertElsmere (‘Sequel to Robert Elsmere’). See also C. BROICHER, ‘DerFallMeynell’ inderanglikanischenKirche, in PreussischeJahrbücher 151 (1913) 23-32. For a list of reviews of the novel, see RIVES, MrsHumphryWard (n. 32), p. 1175.

136

E. VAN DER WALL

Mary behind. We meet these two again in TheCaseofRichardMeynell, which ends with Catherine’s death as well as the imminent marriage of Meynell and Mary, thereby forging a fictional link between the late nineteenth-century liberal current and the early twentieth-century modernist movement in Britain60. Robert Elsmere appealed enormously to a wide public, not just in Europe but also in North America. Both Charles Wendte and Sullivan were among the American admirers of Elsmere61. Sullivan was deeply touched by this novel, mentioning it in one breath with Fogazzaro’s Il Santo: “Did you ever read Fogazzaro’s ‘The Saint’ or ‘Robert Elsmere’?” he asked his penfriend (and future wife) Estelle Throckmorton. “The simple apostolate of Ilsanto, and the philanthropic enthusiasm and self-sacrifice of Elsmere the disillusioned, move me to the very depths. My heart cries out for some such mission”62. Sullivan, the American priest hoping to combine in his own personality the Italian Benedetto and the British Robert Elsmere, both saints of liberal religion, the one Catholic, the other Anglican: it is a telling instance of a wonderful crossing of religious and geographical boundaries. Although TheCaseofRichardMeynell was initially seen by Mrs Ward as ‘Robert Elsmere II’,the result wasby no means a ‘loss of faith’ novel like its prequel, but rather a ‘certainty of faith’ tale63. This is a striking difference with Sullivan’s ThePriest. When we meet Meynell, an Anglican minister in a village in the mining district, he is a pronounced 60. Catherine Elsmere’s sister and brother-in-law, Rose and Hugh Flaxman, who figured in RobertElsmere, also appear again in TheCaseofRichardMeynell(n. 30). 61. Charles Wendte thought Robert Elsmere a “work of genius”; see RACKMALES, NovelsofCompromise (n. 16), p. 98. See also PETERSON, VictorianHeretic (n. 32),p. 180, quoting Wendte: “Where one person reads Hume, Renan, Strauss, Theodore Parker, Spencer, or even Robert Ingersoll, a hundred read ‘Robert Elsmere’”. 62. Quoted by PORTIER, DividedFriends (n. 1), p. 275 note 49; reference to a letter from Sullivan to Throckmorton, Kansas City, MO, July 9, 1910, Folder 17, and Sullivan to Throckmorton, Washington, DC, May 17, 1906, Folder 14. Ratté suggests, referring to UnderOrders(n. 9), pp. 189, 80, that IlSantomay have been a source of inspiration for ThePriest(ThreeModernists [n. 1]), p. 334 note 42). 63. See also the subtitle of the Dutch translation (n. 59). According to Mary Ward herself, a major difference between RobertElsmere and TheCaseofRichardMeynell was that in the latter novel she made an attempt to describe collective change, whereas the story in the former was about individual change; see VANCE, Bible and Novel (n. 59), p. 258, referring to Ward, Introduction to The Case of Richard Meynell, Westmoreland Edition, p. ix. See also Mary Ward’s ‘Foreword to the American edition of TheCaseof RichardMeynell’. As to the reception of TheCaseofRichardMeynell in Catholic periodicals, see for instance M.-E. BELPAIRE, DebeideMrsWard’s, in DietscheWarandeen Belfort (1912) 415-426; S., The Case of Richard Meynell, in The Dublin Review 150 (1912) 419-421; W. WARD, Reduced Christianity: Its Advocates and Its Critics, in ID., MenandMatters, London etal., Longmans, Green, and Co, 1914, 394-420.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

137

modernist, and is singled out by fellow modernists to be their leader, chairing their newly founded ‘Reform League’. He is to be to the modernist movement what Newman was to the Oxford Movement – no minor claim64. Meynell, in his mid-forties, a man of remarkable mental and physical vigor, is past the mental and spiritual struggles provoked by the new critical scholarship. When at an earlier stage of his life he suffered from religious doubt, like Father Hanlon, he, again like Father Hanlon, consulted spiritual advisers about his inner conflicts. “And the card houses, the frail resting places, thus built, along the route, had lasted long”, writes Mary Ward, till at last a couple of small French books by a French priest and the sudden uprush of new life in the Roman Church had brought to the remote English clergyman at once the crystallization of doubt and the passion of a freed faith. ‘Modernism’ – the attempt of the modern spirit, acting religiously, to re-fashion Christianity, not outside, but inside the warm limits of the ancient churches – was born; and Richard Meynell became one of the first converts in England65.

Remarkably, it is first of all Roman Catholic modernism that is identified by the novelist as the major impetus to the rise of Anglican modernism. The “passion of a freed faith” appears to be inspired by the revival in the Catholic Church, implying that in this respect Anglican liberal currents are of less or no importance to Mary. Secondly, modernism is defined as an internal ecclesiastical movement. And, thirdly, the birth of Anglican modernism is due to Alfred Loisy, who is said to have played the key role in Meynell’s conversion, and not to George Tyrrell, in spite of Mary Ward’s deep admiration for “the English Loisy”66. In this respect Ward’s novel resembles Sullivan’s ThePriest in that it is again Loisy who receives most praise, though it is not the Catholic priest but the Protestant Unitarian who expresses his great admiration. “There is one scholar in your Church whom I admire from my heart”, Danforth tells Hanlon, “and that is the Abbé Loisy. I hope you share my feelings for that splendid student?”. As this conversation takes place in 64. The Case of Richard Meynell (n. 30), p. 363. Meynell is not merely likened to Newman, but also to Mary Ward’s grandfather Thomas Arnold; she presents him as a kind of synthesis of “the two great leaders, the two foes of a century ago”, who are now united in the person of Meynell “standing side by side, twin brethren in a new order of battle, evolved from the old, with a great mingled host behind them!” (p. 460). 65. The Case of Richard Meynell (n. 30), pp. 68-69. Just like Sullivan’s Danforth, Meynell has an extensive collection of modernist and other titles at home. And also, like Danforth, Meynell is an active contributor to modernist periodicals and will become the chief editor of TheModernist. 66. RATTÉ, ThreeModernists (n. 1), p. 204.

138

E. VAN DER WALL

the beginning of the novel, with a still unconverted Ambrose, Sullivan has Hanlon state that he cannot think favorably of Loisy: “He is recklessly attacking the doctrines of the Church”, says the young priest, “And I must say that I cannot tolerate such men”, adding that Loisy has been repeatedly censured and warned by the highest Church authorities: “His disobedience is wilful and stubborn”. Why not look at it in another way, Danforth asks him. “Consider this lonely student living in laborious solitude, his heart pure, his conduct irreproachable, seeking truth, spending himself for truth, persecuted for truth. Do you forget his sufferings? Do you think it is for a whim that he incurs disgrace and anathema? Why, every feature of that great priest’s life is simply glorious. I revere the man”67. These last sentences are insightful because they touch, however lightly, upon themes central to the discussion between modernists and anti-modernists, particularly the emphasis on the purity of the heretic’s life and conduct, the centrality of the quest for truth, and the almost inevitable suffering that comes with that quest. As to purity of heart and irreproachable conduct, this is precisely what the main plot in TheCaseofRichard Meynell is about. Its modernist hero becomes the target of a campaign of slander conducted by his traditionalist fellow believers, who in this manner hope to get the heretic out of the way. Their strategy is doomed to fail since the near-saintly Meynell is the epitome of absolute purity and almost suprahuman decency. The reference to these tactics on the antimodernists’ part, aimed at discrediting the modernists, is employed by the novelist to prove that immorality is all on the side of the orthodox faction. It is also used to demonstrate the inability of those orthodox heresy hunters to enter into an intellectual debate about the religious and theological views at stake68. Similarly, Father Hanlon, when still in his orthodox phase, does not for a moment think of engaging with Loisy’s ideas on an intellectual level. Instead, he merely insists on external arguments, simply stating that the audacious priest ought to submit his personal views to the command of authority69. 67. ThePriest (n. 2), p. 57. Sullivan’s Preface begins by quoting Father Tyrrell. The works consulted most by Sullivan were those by Tyrrell, Loisy, von Hügel, Duchesne, and Fogazzaro; see his letters from 1906 and 1910 to Charles W. Wendte and Estelle Throckmorton, respectively (SCOT APPLEBY, “ChurchandAgeUnite!” [n. 3], p. 173, p. 275 note 18). 68. It is said of Pascendi that it was in this encyclical that for the first time heresy was condemned without reference to immorality. 69. ThePriest (n. 2), pp. 57-58. Later on Hanlon will devote weeks to the reading of Loisy’s works, next to those of Tyrrell, Le Roy and other leaders of advanced Catholicity, seeThePriest, p. 112.

PORTRAITS OF A MODERNIST CONSCIENCE

139

V. MARTYRS OF CANDOR – OR SERVANTS OF DUPLICITY? In the end both Ambrose Hanlon and Richard Meynell find themselves turned out of their churches by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Meynell has lost his ‘war’: there is no room for ‘two Christianities’ in his church. Hanlon has been suspended and sent to an isolated Trappist monastery. Thus, the recurrent question ‘leave or stay?’ has been decided by their opponents. Meynell, to be sure, does not wish to leave the church, being convinced of his legitimate position within “the warm limits of the ancient churches”. Hanlon, on the other hand, wants to leave the Church after his conversion to advanced Catholicism. If one were to remain, what would this mean? How to still the inner voice that keeps saying: “But your character will suffer. You cannot play at double-dealing and not be injured in sincerity and honor. […] Leave, and be a martyr of candor, rather than remain and be a servant of duplicity”70. After hours of profound mental struggle, however, Hanlon decides against leaving the church because of the hurt his exit will cause to his mother and sister. Submission looms. But this is not going to happen. As we saw, it is Dorothy Wakefield who, at the last moment, steers him in the direction outside the church. Both ThePriest and TheCaseofRichardMeynell illustrate the strong moral and ethical commitment of their modernist protagonists. These characters are first and foremost presented as moral heroes who demonstrate the courage of conscience. They might have said with Robert Elsmere: “I take my stand on conscience and the moral life. […] In them I find my God”71. The role of conscience is intricately linked with notions of honesty and sincerity, of candor and plain speaking, of honor, integrity, and personal dignity72. With their emphasis on the moral and ethical issues and on the wealth of emotions connected with spiritual struggles and conflicts, novels like The Priest and The Case of Richard Meynell

70. Ibid., p. 195. 71. RobertElsmere, V, 32, p. 408. 72. On the role of sincerity and integrity in relation to the modernist position, see E. VAN DER WALL, Hetoudeennieuwegeloof: Discussiesrond1900, Leiden, Universiteit Leiden, 1999; EAD., Roger Martin du Gard, godsdienst en oprechtheid (Jaarrede Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde), in JaarboekvandeMaatschappijderNederlandseLetterkunde2010, Leiden, 2011, 13-33; EAD., PrivateBelief,PublicAvowal:Religious Liberals and the Ethics of Sincerity, in W. HOFSTEE – A. VAN DER KOOIJ (eds.), ReligionbeyondItsPrivateRoleinModernSociety (International Studies in Religion and Society, 20), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2013, 191-212; EAD., TheHeroicAge?(n. 26); EAD., Tussenzekerheidentwijfel:DeschrijfsterAnnadeSavorninLohmanovergeloof, ongeloofenhypocrisie(Teylers Genootschapslezing), Haarlem, 2017.

140

E. VAN DER WALL

address universal issues which, for many readers who struggled with similar conflicts, superseded national, geographical, and denominational boundaries. Doubtless there was [and still is] a variety of modernisms and modernists, but as these ‘novels of conscience’ show, this variety did not preclude deep feelings of belonging to a universal community inspired by the religion of the spirit73. Leiden University Ernestine VAN DER WALL Faculty of Humanities Leiden Centre for the Study of Religion (LUCSoR) Matthias de Vrieshof 1 Room number 2.02c NL-2311 BZ Leiden The Netherlands [email protected]

73. For the notion of the ‘novel of conscience’, see Paul Bourget’s letter to Mary Ward, quoted in the Preface to the Westmoreland Edition of HelbeckofBannisdale.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY THE FRENCH CONNECTION

I. THE BREAK

WITH

MEDIEVALISM

The basic assumptions which formed the climate of opinion of both the Patristic Period and the Middle Ages in the West stressed that human existence had a supernatural, transcendent destiny in contrast to a purely immanent, this-worldly one. In other words, the tacit presuppositions characterising the Western mind until the end of the medieval period (16th cent.) were based on a collective assumptionof the primacy of the divine over the human, the sacred over the profane, transcendence over immanence, the vertical dimension over the horizontal, supernatural over natural, spiritual over material, eternal over temporal, the other world over this one. The notion of human self-realisation within this world did not arise within this mind-set. Humanity’s destiny resided rather in a dynamic movement towards transcendence, towards the divine. Within this context, religious faith was the first principle of the age. Faith held a primacy and independence over reason and was beyond rational critique. In the event of conflict, reason had to submit to faith. In seeking the support of reason faith simply betrayed its own imperfection. This theological tradition derived from St. Augustine (354-430), a Platonist, who emphasised the transcendent dimension of human existence. Augustine believed that in the depth of the human soul lay a restless longing for God. A certain initial knowledge of God resides in human nature itself and propels humanity in search of the divine. This dynamism is not initiated by our own natural abilities but is a free gift (grace) from God. Faith is a response to a gracious revelation of God. Salvation is exclusively the work of grace, and one is free to respond or not to this divine initiative. Circa 1250 the Aristotelian philosophical thought spread into the West and became the basis for a new approach to Christian theology. Utilising the Aristotelian philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) argued that human nature was created in the image of God and ipsofacto, receptive to grace. However for Aquinas, humanity’s openness to God was simply a passive potency. In other words, a human being’s natural capacity for the divine was simply dormant and could only be actualised by a free gift

142

J.J. KELLY

of God (grace). In this Thomas was simply following in the footsteps of Augustine. Human beings are paradoxical beings in the sense that they can only achieve their natural end through a free gift from outside. This notion of ournatural desire for God is a common presupposition of all theological schools during the 14th and 15th centuries and forms part of the climate of opinion of the time. The same fundamental position is present in Luther, though of course not in Thomistic terms, but in this respect Luther may be situated alongside the medievals. During the 16th century, however, the medieval synthesis collapsed with the rise of theological naturalism. This collapse may be attributed in large measure to Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Cajetan (1469-1534) whose novel interpretation of Aquinas’ notion of natural desire occasioned a reversal of the medieval position. Cajetan introduced a rupture within the Thomistic synthesis, affording the possibility of the complete separation between nature and supernature. According to him, if the supernatural order had not been added (superadditus) to our nature by a gift (grace) from God, our ultimate bliss would have consisted in the highest realisation of our nature. In heralding this separation between natural and supernatural Cajetan initiated the modern spirit of naturalism and humanism. This marked a deep historical crisis in which humans no longer viewed their nature as directed towards God but rather towards their own human connatural perfection, their natural self-realisation here on earth. This new understanding soon prevailed, even in Christian theology, and became as common and uncontested an assumption in the 17th and 18th centuries as the previous presupposition had been in earlier centuries1. II. THE TRANSITION TO SECULAR MODERNITY This radical transition ushered in a change in the climate of opinion and a new age. Subsequently, human existence is regarded as directed towards purely natural goals achieved by purely human means, completely separate from any supernatural sources or ends. Within this naturalistic perspective reason replaces faith as a first principle. Faith now requires rational justification and continual rational critique. Theology thus becomes distinctly apologetic and dogmatic. The reduction of human existence to the purely mundane creates a fundamental shift, indeed an 1. I have been indebted throughout this introductory section to: J.H. WALGRAVE, Geloof en theologie in de crisis, Kasterlee, De Vroente, 1966, a superb, though little known book.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY

143

inversion, in human self-understanding and a reversal from a religious to the modern, purely humanist, naturalist perspective. While the scientific revolution (1500-1700) has often been regarded as the decisive event leading to modernity, the reversal from a sacred (transcendent) to a purely natural (immanent) perspective was equally potent. Deism was the theological outcome of this development. It focuses on the present world as the true home of humanity and reduces the hereafter to a beneficent reward for an orderly, good life here on earth. The further development into secular modernity may be more easily understood from within this perspective. The new age of science was inaugurated by Isaac Newton (16421727). Thereafter the natural world is invested with unrivalled authority. The implicit assumption is that natural law rules every area of life and is available for investigation by reason. Nature and the laws of nature become the new test of truth and human ideas and institutions are judged by their conformity to these laws. Newton’s rules of philosophising become the new philosophical mantra of the age. Unlike previous thinkers, Newton does not start with some first principles, general concepts or axioms from which he deduces knowledge of the particular or the factual. Newton’s method moves in the opposite direction, namely, from observation and analysis of the data of experience. Observation produces the data of science. Principles and laws are now the object of the investigation. They are no longer the starting point of scientific investigation but rather its goal. Following Newton, philosophy likewise demands that the existence of God be inferred from the observable data of the world. To be enlightened is to understand the double truth that it is not in Scripture but in the great book of Nature, open for all to read through reason, that the laws of God have been recorded. This is the new revelation – the secret door to knowledge. Newton does not doubt that the heavens declare the glory of God, but he discovers this only by looking through a telescope and working out how precisely this was managed. These new developments were reflected particularly in John Locke’s (1632-1704) ReasonablenessofChristianity(1695). Locke maintains that the existence of God can be established by natural theology but this God is separate from the world and does not interfere with its workings. God is seen alongside the world as its creator and architect. Locke regards God after the analogy of a watchmaker (Paley) who, after the watch is made, looks on while it continues to work without any further intervention from the watchmaker. This narrow, rather simplistic perspective soon becomes the acceptable currency of both the rationalists and supernaturalists, except the latter allow for God to intervene in the world on

144

J.J. KELLY

extra-ordinary occasions through miracles. Locke does not doubt the certainty of revelation; however, reason is the ultimate criterion. In this way Christianity is fashioned into a rational religion devoid of mystery – a complete reversal of the medieval position. Deism reduces the God of theism to the role of Creator and Beneficent Benefactor of an ethical life here on earth. Future deists would apply Locke’s ideas, seeking revelation in the laws of nature and subjecting revelation to rational standards. Nature, natural law and reason become the buzz words of the 18th century. The climate of opinion focuses on the laws which nature reveals to reason in all times and places. Deists’ court of appeal is the open book of nature and for them natural religion is sufficient. The assumption is that since humans are shaped by the nature that God has created, so it is possible for them, by the use of their natural faculties, to bring their ideas and conduct and hence their institutions into harmony with the universal natural order. 1. TheFrenchContext With the advent of the French Revolution (late 18th century) many of these new developments were institutionalised within France and spread throughout continental Europe and the USA. To surmount Christianity, however, it was not enough to claim that the Christian message was redundant; it had to be replaced and so a new, more modern secular version was demanded. A huge re-interpretative process of the older Christian world view evolved and replacement templates emerged. As part of this enlightened project human progress and perfectibility become the articles of faith of the new secular culture. Through its principles of Liberté,Égalité,Fraternitéthe French Revolution attempted to replace the traditional faith with a new religion of humanity. It recalled the past as a period of ignorance and repression from which the revolution freed humanity to create a better future for itself within this present world. A new substitute version of the Christian story of Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Fall and subsequent redemption, salvation and eternal bliss in paradise was needed. The old Christian story had it all. It gave each human life a value and meaning during its temporary sojourn on earth within an overall framework of eternity. The new secular version would have to match this. Any replacement construct would need to respond to all the human needs and requirements which the religious story had provided. As Carl Becker wrote: Thus, the Philosophers called in posterity to exercise the double illusion of the Christian paradise and the golden age of antiquity. For the love of

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY

145

God they substituted love of humanity; for the vicarious atonement the perfectibility of man through his own efforts; for the hope of immortality in another world the hope of living in the memory of future generations2.

As Becker writes: “the Philosophes demolished the Heavenly City of St. Augustine only to rebuild it with more up-to-date materials” 3. In France especially, the doctrine of progress and human perfectibility became an essential creed of a new religion of humanity. The notion of progress served only to render the eschatological hopes profane and open up the horizon of expectation in an earthly utopian fashion. But the question remains as to whether this does not foreclose the future and history as a source of disruption from beyond? Even during this period however, other, alternative voices were simmering beneath the religious embers in France. A prime example was Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). Pascal was the greatest exponent of the PortRoyal Jansenist theology. His theology shifted the focus from reason to the heart. For him God speaks interiorly and directly to the heart of the religious person who may respond in faith without the need for any rational proof. Pascal’s God is not the God of the philosophers but of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Furthermore, he distinguishes between l’espritdegéometrieandl’espritdefinesse, between two distinct mind sets or personality types, namely the rational/logical and the intuitive/mystical type. This foreshadows the two distinct mind sets which would develop within the Roman Catholic Church during the ensuing Quietist controversy (Bossuet and Fénelon) and the two different mentalities Blondel saw as dividing Catholicism during the 19th century and, we might add, throughout the modernist controversy and up until Vatican II. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was another French philosopher of the Enlightenment, a forerunner of Romanticism and a Deist who refused to accept philosophical rationalism as a primary assumption4. For Rousseau, like Kant, the royal road to the knowledge of God passed through conscience which holds the key to religious truth. Consequently, all theology is ethical theology and ethical certainty is the foundation of religious certainty. Therefore, there is no need for a theoretical religion resting on metaphysical proofs. Genuine religion is not about ideas to be understood but precepts for living. Here he distances himself from the 2. C.L. BECKER, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1932, 1973, p. 130. 3. Ibid., p. 31. 4. J.-J. ROUSSEAU set out his religious convictions in his Professiondefoiduvicaire Savoyard, cf. Profession of Faith, in J. COLLINS, God in Modern Philosophy, Westport, CT, Greenwood, 1978, 155-161.

146

J.J. KELLY

philosophes who had made reason the sole criterion of faith, instead of judging religion by ethical certainty. Doctrinally, Rousseau’s deism is as radical as the deists’ for whom true Christianity is natural religion, but better expounded. However, any kind of mere deification of nature is alien to Rousseau. The real miracle for him is human freedom and conscience as evidence for this freedom. For him religion arises from within. It is written in the heart, in the idea of justice, which he holds to be eternal and immutable. In the meanwhile, Post-Reformation Catholic theology and the Council of Trent (1545-1563) had already taken a decidedly counter-reformation, polemical tone. In its attempt to counter the rising rationalism on its own grounds it became distinctly rationalistic and dogmatic and to meet the new challenges the Church increased the power of her centralised hierarchy, her teaching authority, the magisterium, and the supreme pontiff. 2. TheQuietistControversy Alongside the above, deep internal conflicts had arisen within Catholicism, particularly with the advent of Jansenism5. With its rigorous moral code and its stress upon human frailty and sinfulness, external religion and ritualism, Jansenism had a devastating negative effect on subsequent Catholicism into the middle of the 20th century. And as though this was not bad enough, the situation within Catholic theology was further aggravated by an even more disastrous conflict between Bossuet and Fénelon on the issue of Quietism and Pure Love6. This was the ostensible reason for the quarrel between the two men but, since their disagreement centred on the very heart of the religious/spiritual/mystical life, it necessarily extended to the very core of Christianity and its effect would spread to every aspect of religious, theological and ecclesiastical life during the subsequent centuries. The earliest form of Quietism had surfaced in Spain in the 16th century with a religious group known as the ‘Illuminists’ or ‘Alumbrados’7 and was condemned finally by a Decree of the Inquisition (1623). Their 5. Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638) and his book Augustinus (1638) sparked the controversy. 6. The two main contentions of Quietism are: the belief in the complete unification of the soul’s functions and acts and their expression in one single act of pure love. And secondly, a belief in the passivity of the soul i.e., the soul remains a passive recipient in relation to the divine. 7. In 1525 Rome published an Edict against them as it believed that their teachings were too close to the Lutheran teaching of justification by faith alone and also denied the efficacy of external works.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY

147

influence, nevertheless, had already spread to Italy where their teachings were promoted by Miguel de Molinos (1628 -1696)8. Molinos’ teachings, however, made very little impression in France where a spiritual revival known as devout humanism under the influence of St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) and St. Jeanne de Chantal (1572-1641) was already underway. Madame Guyon (1648-1717) imbibed a great deal of this spirituality and was further guided into the mystical ways by the Barnabite priest, François La Combe (1640-1715). In 1685 Madame Guyon published her first book: Moyen court et très facile de faire l’oraison, emphasising interior religion and inward contemplation, quietude in prayer and pure, disinterested love of God. However, accusations against her and Fr. La Combe’s teachings soon began to surface and in October 1687 Fr. La Combe was arrested, imprisoned in the Bastille and interrogated about the teachings in his book: Orationismentalisanalysis(1686)9. Madame Guyon was arrested in January 1688 but released on 22nd August after signing a statement condemning any errors which might have appeared in any of her writings. The crisis reached its zenith when the controversy spilled over into a dispute between the two most respected churchmen of the epoch, namely the Gallican, Bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704), and the ultramontane, Abbé François de Salignac de la Mothe Fénelon (16511715), subsequently Archbishop of Cambrai (1695-1715). After Bossuet had obtained the condemnation of Madame Guyon’s spirituality in 1695, Fénelon felt obliged to defend the spiritual and mystical tradition in his Explicationdesmaximesdes saints(1697). Bossuet responded a month later with his Instructionsurlesétatsd’oraisonand the following year with his Relationsurlequiétisme. Along with disparaging the great mystics and misquoting them, Bossuet relegated mysticism to the miraculous and extraordinary and confined it to a specially chosen, elite few. Fearing condemnation by the (Gallican) Assembly of French Clergy, Fénelon appealed beyond the mountains (ultramontes) to the religious authority of the Roman Pontiff (1697). But through the political machinations of Bossuet’s nephew in Rome and the support of Louis XIV at home, Bossuet obtained the condemnation of Quietism and of 23 propositions from Fénelon’s Explication des maximes des saints on 12th March 8. Molinos published his most famous work: ASpiritualGuide in 1675. However, on 24th September 1685 the Inquisition of Saragossa condemned his ‘Guide’ and imprisoned Molinos. The charges against Molinos were delivered by Rome on 3rd September 1687 in the Bull CaelestisPastor whichcondemned 68 propositions of Molinos. 9. This work was subsequently condemned by Decree of the Inquisition on 9th September 1688 and Fr. La Combe died in prison in 1715.

148

J.J. KELLY

169910. On 9th April Fénelon submitted unreservedly and was rewarded with a very complimentary Brief from the Pope and, later in October of the same year, the Pope displayed his true sentiments by creating Fénelon a Cardinal. But the damage had been done and resulted in what Henri Bremond (1865-1933) has called ‘the route of the mystics’ and for which Bremond held Bossuet11 responsible. Equated with Quietism, mysticism was now viewed with suspicion and debased as enthusiasm. Consequently, the mystical element, indeed a whole spiritual tradition, was driven underground and gradually replaced by a multiplicity of external ecclesiastical devotional practices under clerical supervision. The late 17th century had also witnessed the suppression of the historical-critical method with the condemnation of Richard Simon’s Histoirecritiquedu VieuxTestament(Paris, 1678) also at the instigation of Bossuet. In one fell swoop both a deeply spiritual and a scholarly tradition were squashed, with the former being replaced by a plethora of external devotional practices and instead of sincere critical scholarship, unquestioning obedience and submission to the dictates of a clerical hierarchy was demanded. To a large extent, Roman Catholicism now turned its back on its own spiritual and mystical heritage – the very heart of religion – which was now held in contempt and also on historical critical scholarship and honest intellectual endeavour. Thereafter, the institutional Church began its retreat into an authoritarian ghetto mentality accompanied by a progressive isolation from modernity. 3. TheRestorationThinkers Along with the above, the chaos ravishing Europe after the French Revolution set a number of conservative Catholic politicians off in search of some principles of order upon which they might re-found European society which was now in disarray. A counter-revolutionary reactionary mentality arose in France led by some nobles hoping for a Restoration of the ancient régime. This was spearheaded particularly by two Roman Catholic conservative thinkers namely, Vicomte de Bonald (1754-1840) the founder of Traditionalism and Count Joseph Marie de Maistre (1753-1821) a proponent of Neo- Ultramontanism12. With a profound distrust of human nature de 10. In place of a solemn Bull, what emerged was a Papal Brief, Cum alias, with a clause, motuproprio(on his own initiative) from Pope Innocent XII. The 23 condemned propositions were from the Maximes and no other writings of Fénelon were included. 11. One of Bossuet’s criticisms of Fénelon was that he was a disciple of St. Francis de Sales. 12. I use Neo-Ultramontanism for de Maistre’s political Ultramontanism.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY

149

Bonald considered the individual intellect too weak and wretched to be able to recognise truth, so faith in tradition and its bearers, namely the sovereign state and ultimately the Roman Pontiff, was derigueur. Both these lay politicians countered the new liberal spirit with ideas such as tradition, custom and centralised authority as the unifying principle for reviving a decaying European society. In their view, before the Reformation and French Revolution, Christianity’s spiritual force had provided a unifying principle for European civilisation. Roman Catholic principles, they believed, had in the past been the indispensable bulwark of the European social and institutional order, so why not now once again. Consequently, they initiated a political renewal by harking back to earlier times when the Roman Church had provided the basis for order and stability in Europe. Within this model the papacy, the rock of Peter, appeared as the one solid, stable foundation upon which to build the new social order. The religious notion of Church and papacy would now become perverted and utilised politically as a new principle of unity, order, stability and authority in a Europe shaken to its foundations. The Church and papacy would here be utilised for political rather than religious motives. To its shame and detriment the Roman Church succumbed to this temptation in order to re-position itself at the centre of power in Europe and signed on for this political role. By emphasising the practical utility of the papacy de Maistre’s influential work DuPape (1819) underpinned this new more political version of Ultramontanism. For de Maistre, just as papal power was essential for order within the Church, the institutional Church itself, governed by the Pope, was now proposed as the only hope for order and stability in a disordered Europe. The real purpose of DuPape was not to promote the papacy as a religious institution, but to re-establish papal sovereignty and supremacy as the foundation for all authority on earth. De Maistre sums up his views in 1814: No public morality or national character without religion, no European religion without Christianity, no Christianity without Catholicism, no Catholicism without the Pope, no Pope without the supremacy that is due to him13.

The line runs very neatly from God to Christ to the Supreme Pontiff and thence to the secular authorities. Unable to fathom the full magnitude of the crisis, de Maistre believed he could resolve the course of modern Western history by a simple, 13. E. VOEGELIN, From Enlightenment to Revolution, ed. J.H. HALLOWELL, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1975, p. 183.

150

J.J. KELLY

indeed simplistic organisational solution, namely the restoration of a divinely pre-ordained system following the template of the Christian medieval world order. At the centre and head of this new divinely instituted Christian social order would reign the Supreme Roman Pontiff, God’s Vicar on earth. The older Ultramontanism of a Fénelon which had been religious and theological now takes on a directly practical, utilitarian indeed political character. This new brand of Ultramontanism propagated by de Maistre quickly becomes the gospel of a new traditionalist, neo-ultramontane political Catholicism which remained supreme in the Catholic Church until at least 1926. De Maistre’s neo-ultramontanism with its system of papal and regal absolutism would subsequently harden through Félicité Lamennais (1782-1854) into the ultramontane party of Louis Veuillot (1813-83) whose extreme assertions of papal claims drew the battle lines between the Church and modern culture. The disparagement of the individual intellect, which de Bonald had so carefully limited, would now be extended to a distrust and contempt for modernity. The institutional Church and the world were being divided into two opposing camps. Catholicism would henceforth perceive itself as the defender and fortress of the essential religious, moral and social order under siege from the attacks of modern liberalism. All this was graphically illustrated when on December 8th 1864 Pius IX promulgated the Encyclical Quanta Cura, accompanied by a SyllabusofErrors – a collection of 80 erroneous propositions. The notorious last proposition is particularly worth quoting as it condemned all those who asserted that: “The Roman Pontiff can and must come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization”14. The Church was at war with the modern world and hence strong central leadership was required. This emerged in 1870 when Vatican I proclaimed that the sovereign Pope was indeed infallible. Thereafter an absolutist papacy with its centralised Roman bureaucracy was to be the defender of a divinely ordained, unchangeable social, moral order and religious truth against all change and innovation into the future. 4. Modernism Under the leadership of the peasant Pope Pius X (1903-14) the battle against modernity reached its zenith within Catholicism with the condemnation of what was perceived as a new heresy: Modernism 14. M. RANCHETTI, TheCatholicModernists:AStudyoftheReligiousReformMovement1864-1907, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1969, p. 206.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY

151

(1907)15. Modernism was not really a new heresy but the culmination of a history of crises which had been occurring periodically since the 17th century and which peaked during the first decade of the 20th century. Labelled Modernism and regarded as the heresy of all heresies, Rome believed its condemnation would deliver the definitive fatal blow to any change from the status quo. Perceiving Modernism as liberalism’s concerted attack on their divine institution and fearing for its survival, the clerical authorities took every measure imaginable to defend the institution and crush the movement. The devastation wrought by them on Catholic intellectual life in the wake of the condemnations of Modernism persisted right up until Vatican II and cannot be overestimated. Unfortunately, so long as the Church’s solutions remained on the level of Church condemnations, excommunications and power politics the real issues at the heart of the crisis were never averted to and were destined to remain unresolved. To recapitulate: the Quietist controversy initiated a fundamental shift in Catholicism and lies at the origins of the ensuing crises. Two different incompatible Roman Catholic mentalities grew out of this conflict and continued down the centuries. This may be witnessed in the continued internal Church controversies between de Bonald and de Maistre on one side and the romantic liberal Chateaubriand on the other, then between the Ultramontane party of Veuillot and the liberal Montalembert and Acton and finally in the decisive conflict between the neo-Ultramontanes and those labelled Modernists. However, even after the latter’s condemnation (1907) the battle continued within Church circles and any attempt at renewal within the institution was deemed modernist and pursued vigorously by the likes ofActionfrançaise and its founder Charles Maurras16. Its most vehement persistent opposition arose from the Roman ‘Integrists’, the defenders of integral Catholic orthodoxy, under the leadership of the Roman Mgr. Umberto Benigni (1862-1934)17 with his network of spies 15. Modernism was first condemned in a decree of the Inquisition Lamentabilisane exitu (3 July 1907) and more directly in the Encyclical Pascendidominicigregis (8 September 1907). 16. Charles Maurras (1868-1952) was an ultra-conservative atheistic politician and journalist and founder in 1899 of Action française. The unholy alliance between Rome and the professed atheist Maurras illustrates how desperate Rome was. In 1907 Pius X saw Maurras as un bel difensore della fede. For an excellent introduction to this whole saga consult A. DRU, Maurice Blondel: The Letter on Apologetics and History and Dogma. Texts presented and translated by A. DRU – I. TRETHOWAN, London, Harvill Press, 1964, p. 30. 17. Benigni’s contempt for liberalism in all its forms, political, theological, social, cultural coalesced with Maurras’ conviction that the Catholic Church was the buttress of French and European civilisation.

152

J.J. KELLY

under the umbrella of a secret organisation SodalitiumPianum (the Fellowship of Pius X), known in France as La Sapinière18. The eventual suppression of this secret spy ring in 1921 and formal condemnation of Actionfrançaise in 1926 at least brought this sorry episode to a conclusion. Yet, the climate of fear and suspicion continued to prevail in the Church, stifling creative thought up until Vatican II. The fact that from the late 17th until beyond the mid-20th century the institutional Church of Rome choose to side and even identify itself with these reactionary parties in the struggle against modernity contributed immensely to the Church’s progressive decline and alienation from the modern world. In their mistaken attempt to hold on to their power position, Church leaders went to war with what they perceived as an evil world and its liberal adherents. As the institutional harbinger of divine truth and goodness they pursued a life and death struggle against liberalism and modernity. Never for one moment did the Church imagine that it too could be, as indeed it was, a part of the problem. From its position on high, Rome continued to issue condemnations and recriminations against modernity and in the process became further estranged, indeed irrelevant to much of modern society. Realising the complexity of the issues at stake, towards the end of the 19th century some French thinkers like Maurice Blondel (1861-1949) and Lucien Labertonnière (1860-1932) were proposing solutions19. However, to a generation of churchmen who had lost contact with the earlier more authentic traditions (those before the condemnation of Quietism) their ideas were regarded as novel and deemed modernist. So the condemnations and repressive measures were continued in the hope of crushing any deviation from the neo-orthodoxy. Although crushed for a time by the blunt instruments of ecclesiastical power, the seeds sown by a number of the more balanced thinkers during this period were revived in the 1950’s by a new generation, among the most prominent of whom were the French theologians, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Henri Bouillard. The result was the nouvelle théologie. 18. As late as 25th of February 1913 Cardinal Gaetano De Lai wrote to Benigni: “I have presented to the Holy Father the programme … of the SodalitiumPianum… the Holy Fatherapproves and blesses this initiative, and wishes that it may be realised for the greatest glory of God and the well-being of souls…”. É. POULAT, Intégrismeetcatholicisme intégral: Un réseau secret international antimoderniste: La ‘Sapinière’ (19091921), Paris, Casterman, 1969, p. 114. 19. Outside of France people like Franz Xaver Kraus (1840-1901) and the Reformkatholizismus movement in Germany and Friedrich von Hügel (1852-1925) in England were also deeply aware that the real problem resided in the choice between political Catholicism and religious Catholicism.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY

153

While suppressed by Rome as a new form of modern(ist) theology the thought of these men and others from the previous generation came to fruition during Vatican II. With the accession of Angelo Roncalli (18811963) to the papacy as Pope John XXIII (1958)20, a new era dawned especially when, within 90 days (25 January 1959) of his election, the new pontiff announced the convening of an Ecumenical Council. After nearly four years of preparation the Second Vatican Council opened on 11 October 1962. Among its documents the Council proposed the Church as The People of God21 who by this very fact were in the Modern World and must take cognisance and read the Signs of the Times there. Unfortunately however, many of the Council’s bold initiatives were never fully implemented and, for the most part, the institutional Church trundled along as before. The intervening 56 years have witnessed a profoundly changed world with a new generation becoming further alienated from religion and the Church, especially in the wake of the institution’s lamentable failure to deal effectively with the many clerical child abuse cases and other scandals. III. CONCLUSION Though still in the making thephilosophes seem to have succeeded in demolishing traditional religion and replacing it with today’s secular humanism. Throughout the West the principles of the Enlightenment and French Revolution have been actively implemented. The watch words of our age are Liberation, Equality and Rationality. And while the protagonists of our liberal, material secularity may not themselves see the fulfilment of this heaven on earth, for them life’s meaning and human contentment resides in the belief that they are playing their part in constructing the earthly paradise for future generations. The notions of progress and future earthly utopias have replaced the eschatological heaven and seem, for many, to resolve life’s underlying discontentment. Consequently, the current climate of opinion mitigates against all religious sensibilities. Nevertheless, while we have ostensibly come of age, we and future generations still share the same humanity as our predecessors with similar 20. Because of his early friendship with Ernesto Buonaiuti, a modernist, the young Roncalli himself had been suspected of Modernism, WALGRAVE, Geloofentheologieinde crisis (n. 1), pp. 14-15. 21. I suggest we need a new word for Church. As currently used, over 50 years after Vatican II, the term Church is still used in the narrow sense of institutional Church.

154

J.J. KELLY

fears, hopes, needs and desires. And for some the discontentment lying at the core of the human spirit cannot be eradicated by promises of future earthly utopias nor can there be some final state of rest or contentment within this world. And though a constant drive to resolve the underlying unease persists, all human attempts at its resolution are futile and ultimately doomed to failure. The question remains as to whether this human ennui could possibly open those who experience it to a different interior journey – to some other meaning or mysterybehind or beyondthe humdrum and stress of modern life? In their desire to connect with their spiritual core many seek some resolution or quiet through human centring, mindfulness, yoga or other forms of holistic meditation. Could it be there, in such a still point, that some of the older mystical, spiritual paths, meditative methods, contemplative traditions alluded to earlier in this essay might offer some assistance? A spiritual sensitivity to these ways coupled with a sense and feeling of the sacral and numinous in nature might elicit some personal and practical religious commitment from people without necessarily an adherence to specific doctrines, institutional claims or obligations. In this context might we speak rather of a cultural or social Christianity? What then for the future of the institutional Church in an increasingly secular age where the climate of opinion is so antipathetic, indeed hostile to it? As a celibate, male dominated hierarchical institution with its dogmatic tenets, the Catholic Church has been sidelined and by-passed by so many that its future in anything resembling its present form is quite debatable. Unfortunately, as often occurs in times of radical change, there is a lurking danger that the proverbial baby will be thrown out with the bath water. In the rush to jettison the present institutional form for a myriad of perfectly legitimate reasons there remains a danger of discarding institutional religion completely as a carrier of important spiritual values, myths, symbols, rites and traditions. Of course, such symbols and traditions cannot be viewed as plaster-casts which can be effortlessly retrieved and transplanted within our 21st-century secular culture. The insights and lived experiences of the earlier spiritual geniuses beckoning us from within those dynamic traditions are treasures which require to be recovered continually anew by each individual and each successive generation under the specific conditions of their own unique time and place. Indeed, in no matter how piecemeal a manner, perhaps, a seed from some of these might, in time, appeal to or spark a response in some seekers and so awaken a dormant bud and help bring to fruition a fresh, different, more meaningful secular spirituality among the often barren landscapes of this contemporary secular

CHRISTIANITY AND THE JOURNEY TO MODERNITY

155

world. And while the voices and actions of some such individuals or groups will no longer echo through the corridors of power or in the echelons of established institutions, they may, nonetheless, more effectively resonate through the example and actions of those living more authentic, spiritually human lives in the secular world. And though their voices and lives may seem peripheral and marginal, might they not, in the spirit of early Christianity, become a source for a renewed more integral spiritual secularity? School of Religions and Theology Trinity College University of Dublin College Green Dublin Ireland [email protected]

James J. KELLY

LA SUCCESSION DU CARDINAL MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE MGR VAN ROEY

La succession du cardinal Désiré-Joseph Mercier1 par Mgr JosephErnest Van Roey2 à la tête de l’archidiocèse de Malines, survenue après la mort du cardinal dans les premiers mois de 1926, apparaît aujourd’hui comme logique, tant l’alternance entre un archevêque flamand et francophone est devenue la règle dans l’histoire de l’Église de Belgique3. Les quelques historiens qui se sont penchés sur l’épisode, ont déjà souligné que la nomination de Van Roey était «dans la ligne des attentes, même si dans les coulisses d’autres noms circulaient», comme l’a écrit Lieve Gevers4. Pour l’éminent historien de l’Église qu’était Roger Aubert, le choix se situait entre les deux vicaires généraux Van Roey et Jean Van Cauwenbergh, comme il l’écrivit dans une note biographique juste après le décès de Van Roey en 19615. L’unique biographe de Van Roey, Jozef 1. Sur Désiré Joseph Mercier (1851-1926), une biographie complète manque toujours, puisque celle d’A. SIMON, LecardinalMercier, Bruxelles, La Renaissance du Livre, 1960, date sur plusieurs points. Voir surtout les nombreux articles de Roger AUBERT, publiés par J.-P. HENDRICKX – J. PIROTTE – L. COURTOIS, LecardinalMercier(1851-1926):Unprélat d’avant-garde, Louvain-la-Neuve, Academia, 1994. 2. Sur Joseph-Ernest Van Roey (1874-1961), prêtre du diocèse de Malines en 1897, professeur de théologie morale l’UCL en 1901, vicaire général en 1907, archevêque en 1926, voir J. KEMPENEERS, LecardinalVanRoeyensontemps, 1874-1961:Trente-cinq annéesd’épiscopat (BETL, 30), Bruxelles, Œuvres Pontificales Missionnaires; Gembloux, Duculot, 1971; R. AUBERT, VanRoey(JosephErnest), dans Catholicismehier,aujourd’hui, demain, t. 15, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 2000, c. 721-725. Ses œuvres sont regroupées dans Auservicedel’Église:Écritsetallocutionsdedoctrineetd’actionpastorale, Turnhout, Brepols, 8 t., 1939-1955. 3. Ainsi depuis l’indépendance de la Belgique en 1830: Engelbert Sterckx (18321867), flamand; Victor-Auguste Dechamps (1867-1883), francophone; Pierre Lambert Goossens (1884-1906), flamand; Désiré-Joseph Mercier (1906-1926), wallon; Ernest-Joseph Van Roey (1926-1961), flamand; même logique après la scission de l’archidiocèse et l’érection de Malines-Bruxelles en 1962: Léon-Joseph Suenens (1961-1979), bruxellois francophone; Godfried Danneels (1979-2010), flamand; André-Joseph Léonard (20102015), wallon; Joseph De Kesel (nommé 2015), flamand. 4. L. GEVERS, Hoogtepunteneindevaneentijdperk:Hetaartsbisdomonderkardinaal VanRoey(1926-1961),dans HetaartsbisdomMechelen-Brussel:450jaargeschiedenis, t. II, Antwerpen, Halewijn, 2009,173-253, p. 173. 5. R. AUBERT, LecardinalVanRoey, dans LaRevueNouvelle 34 (1961) 113-130, p. 116. Mgr Jean Van Cauwenbergh (1879-1950), était vice-recteur de l’Université catholique de Louvain de 1911 à 1918, quand il fut nommé doyen et curé de la paroisse Saint-Pierre à Louvain. En 1920, il fut nommé vicaire général de l’archidiocèse de Malines par Mercier, ce qu’il resta jusqu’à sa mort. En 1930, il fut nommé évêque auxiliaire avec le titre d’évêque de Sinaus (http://www.odis.be/hercules/toonPERS.php?id=33581, consulté le 22.1.2018).

158

J. DE VOLDER

Kempeneers, confirma dix ans plus tard que le choix à faire était «entre les deux vicaires généraux Van Roey et Van Cauwenbergh»6. Or, en réalité, comme nous l’avons découvert sur base d’une étude approfondie des archives disponibles à Rome et en Belgique7, et comme nous le démontrerons dans cet article, pour le Saint-Siège, le vrai candidat alternatif à Van Roey n’était pas en premier lieu Van Cauwenbergh, mais bien Mgr Thomas-Louis Heylen, évêque de Namur depuis 18898. Cette candidature était d’ailleurs bien vue par le Premier Ministre belge de l’époque, Prosper Poullet. D’autres noms étaient aussi envisagés, comme le père dominicain et sénateur Georges Rutten9 et Mgr Simon Deploige10. Cet article montrera aussi comme, depuis Laeken, le Roi Albert contesta vivement l’hypothèse Van Roey. Il insista, par personnes interposées, pour la nomination de Mgr Paulin Ladeuze, recteur de l’Université catholique de Louvain11. L’accessibilité des archives vaticanes pour le pontificat de Pie XI (19221939), et notamment les Archives des Affaires Ecclésiastiques Extraordinaires, permet aujourd’hui, pour la première fois, de dresser le tableau d’ensemble de la succession du Cardinal Mercier. Cet article propose aussi 6. KEMPENEERS, LecardinalVanRoeyensontemps (n. 2), p. 90. 7. Les archives consultés pour cet article sont: au Vatican, Archivio degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari (dorénavant AAES), notamment Belgio-Lussemburgo IV, pos. 173174, fasc. 29 et 30; à Bruxelles, Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères de Belgique (dorénavant AMAEB), notamment le dossier n° 11.411 «sur la nomination du cardinal Van Roey», la correspondance diplomatique de 1926 et le Fonds Beyens, notamment le n. 12.481, farde XXV. Les Papiers Poullet, conservés aux Archives Générales du Royaume (AGR) et au Kadoc à Louvain. Les Archives du Palais Royal à Bruxelles, les Archives de l’Archevêché de Malines et les Archives de l’Université catholique de Louvain furent également contactées mais n’ont pas donné de résultat par rapport à notre sujet. 8. HEYLEN, Thomas-Louis (1856-1941), prémontré belge, élu en 1887 abbé de Tongerlo. Évêque de Namur en 1889, fonction qu’il occupa pendant plus d’un demi-siècle. Cf. J. LEBLON, dans Annuairedel’UniversitécatholiquedeLouvain 85 (1940-1941) I-VI; C.-J. JOSET, MonseigneurTh.-L.HeylenévêquedeNamur(1899-1941)etlesapparitions deBeauraing, dans NRT 103 (1981) 209-237. 9. RUTTEN, Ceslas, au siècle Georges Albert (1875-1952), entré dans l’ordre des dominicains en 1890, ordonné prêtre en 1898. Figure-clé du syndicalisme chrétien. Aumônier du mouvement ouvrier chrétien de 1919 à 1927. Sénateur coopté à partir de 1922. http:// www.odis.be/lnk/PS_3992 (consulté le 17.1.2018). 10. DEPLOIGE, Simon (1868-1927). Ordonné prêtre en 1896, il succède à Mercier comme président de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie à Louvain en 1906. Elu sénateur en 1923. Voir P. HARMIGNIES, MgrSimonDeploige.Inmemoriam, dans Revuenéoscolastiquedephilosophie 30 (1928) 206-228. Sur son activité pendant la première guerre mondiale, quand il fut envoyé par Mercier à Rome, voir e.a. J. ICKX, DeoorlogenhetVaticaan:GeheimverzetnadebrandvanLeuvenin1914, Tielt, Lannoo, 2017. 11. LADEUZE, Paulin (1870-1940). Prêtre en 1892, exégète à la Faculté de Théologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain; recteur de l’université de 1909 à 1940. Sur son action pendant la guerre, voir aussi ICKX, DeoorlogenhetVaticaan (n. 10).

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

159

d’explorer les différents dynamiques et jugements qui ont porté à la nomination de Van Roey. L’épisode offre une occasion d’évoquer le regard romain vis-à-vis de la situation ecclésiale et politique de la Belgique de l’entre-deux-guerres, dominée largement par la question flamande. I. MORT, FUNÉRAILLES D’ÉTAT ET PREMIÈRES HYPOTHÈSES DE SUCCESSION Le cardinal Mercier mourut à l’âge de 74 ans, le samedi 23 janvier 1926, à Bruxelles, dans une chambre de l’hôpital Sainte-Elisabeth, situé rue des Cendres12. Son décès n’était nullement inattendu. Sa santé était fragile depuis plusieurs années. Le 8 décembre 1925, une tumeur à l’estomac avait été diagnostiquée. Pendant les préparations des célébrations de Noël, il se nourrissait uniquement d’aliments liquides. Une opération à l’estomac, le 26 décembre 1925, confirma la nature maligne de la tumeur et le caractère incurable de la maladie. Des témoignages publiés peu après son décès, de nature plutôt hagiographique, témoignent de sa lucidité face à la maladie et à la mort13. Les dernières semaines de vie de l’archevêque de Malines, vécues dans la conscience de l’approche de la mort, virent une succession de visites d’adieu à son lit de malade: visites répétées du Roi Albert et de la Reine Elisabeth, du prince Léopold, des ambassadeurs de différents pays, ministres, prélats, collaborateurs. Il y avait aussi les interlocuteurs des «Conversations de Malines». Dans un geste remarquable, le cardinal donna son anneau épiscopal à Lord Halifax, son ami anglican14. Dans ce contexte d’approche de son décès, il était normal qu’il fût aussi question de la succession, en présence ou pas du malade. Dans une lettre personnelle à Giuseppe Pizzardo, substitut de la Congrégation pour les Affaires Ecclésiastiques extraordinaires, le nonce apostolique Clémente Micara, après une visite au chevet du cardinal, se plaint d’ailleurs de ces rumeurs concernant la succession: Torno dall’aver visto il Cardinale. E’ tranquillo e riconoscentissimo al Papa. Sta malissimo, sono ricominciati i vomiti, ora sanguigni. E’ questione di

12. SIMON, LecardinalMercier (n. 1), p. 168. 13. Voir le chapitre signé Henri DAVIGNON, LeCardinalMercierdevantlasouffrance etlamort, dans LeCardinalMercier, Bruxelles, Desmet-Verteneuil, 1927, 163-167. Avant l’opération: «Si vous voyez que j’ai chance de fournir encore du travail, opérez-moi; s’il ne s’agit que me faire traîner, n’opérez pas». Après l’opération, quand il a soif mais ne peut boire: «Sitio» mais avec ce correctif sublime: «Seigneur, j’ai soif de vous donner des âmes». 14. Cf. SIMON, LecardinalMercier (n. 1), p. 112.

160

J. DE VOLDER

giorni o al più di qualche settimana. Intanto, cosa che mi dispiace, sono cominciate le combinazioni, le chiacchiere per la successione. Credo sia bene scriva subito alla Santa Sede, facendo delle proposte. Mi pare assolutamente necessario che la provvista avvenga con celerità per tagliar corto. Scriverò e ti manderò il rapportò15.

Le nom, qui, dès le début circulait le plus, était effectivement celui du vicaire général Van Roey. Depuis sa nomination en 1907, ce théologien reconnu était la main droite de l’archevêque dans la gestion quotidienne des affaires diocésaines. Quelques mois auparavant, Mercier avait encore confirmé son appréciation pour ce fidèle collaborateur en lui faisant conférer le titre romain honorifique de pronotaire apostolique. Selon Kempeneers, «il l’appréciait autant pour sa profonde piété, pour sa bonté native, pour sa réserve et sa discrétion, que pour la rigueur de sa réflexion théologique et la modération de ses jugements»16. La question est de savoir si le cardinal, dans les dernières semaines de sa vie, alors qu’il savait que sa fin était proche, a lui-même exprimé une préférence pour sa succession. Selon plusieurs sources, c’était bien le cas. Mais sur le point de savoir vers qui allaient ses préférences, les sources divergent. Plus de dix ans après la mort de Mercier, Van Roey raconta que, l’avant-veille de sa mort, le cardinal l’avait appelé près de lui, seul, et lui avait confié: «Je sens que ma fin approche. Vous serez mon successeur». Van Roey déclara qu’il était abasourdi et très ému17. Mais sur cette préférence existe un témoignage différent, qui ne vient pas du dernier venu, à savoir le Roi Albert. En effet, Mercier lui aurait confié que ni Mgr Van Roey, ni Mgr Heylen, l’évêque de Namur, ne conviendrait à ses yeux pour la succession. Dans une lettre au Baron Beyens, ancien ambassadeur de Belgique auprès du Saint-Siège, datée du 6 février 1926, le Souverain belge écrit: À propos de Mgr Van Roey, je crois bien faire de vous signaler ce que disait de lui le Cardinal Mercier: «Mgr Van Roey est un excellent administrateur, mais dans la situation actuelle du pays et vis-à-vis d’un clergé insubordonné, sa nomination à l’archevêché, à laquelle on songera sans doute, serait un véritable malheur»18. 15. AAES, Belgio-Lussemburgo IV, pos. 160, fasc. 8: lettre non datée, mais il me paraît que la datation mentionnée de la farde (‘1923-1924’) dans les Regestenlijsten du Kadoc pour cette correspondance entre Micara et Pizzardo n’est pas précise. Il s’agirait plutôt d’une lettre de janvier 1926. 16. KEMPENEERS, LecardinalVanRoeyensontemps (n. 2), p. 87. 17. Ibid., p. 90. Dans la note, il se réfère à une allocation prononcée à Schilde, le 11 août 1937, et au témoignage du chanoine F. Dessain, rapporté par Mgr Ryckmans. 18. Albert I à Beyens, Laeken, le 6 février 1926, dans AMAEB, Fonds Beyens.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

161

Le même jugement négatif prévaut sur Heylen: Quant à l’évêque de Namur, le Cardinal redoutait l’influence prépondérante qu’avait réussi à prendre sur lui le Chanoine Tharcisius, Hollandais exalté.

Et le Roi Albert de conclure: Toujours est-il que dans les deux entretiens que j’ai eu avec lui, Monseigneur Mercier a insisté sur la faiblesse du caractère de Mgr Van Roey et l’exagération flamingante irréfléchie de Mgr Heylen.

Comme nous le verrons par la suite, le Roi était en faveur de la nomination de Mgr Ladeuze, recteur de l’Université catholique de Louvain. Il s’efforça, par le biais du Ministre d’État et ami intime, le Baron Beyens, de convaincre le Saint-Siège du bien-fondé de ce choix. Une autre confidence dans ce même sens venait de l’abbé Vrancken, qui avait été le secrétaire particulier de Mercier et était alors curé de la paroisse où habitait Beyens19. Dans un entretien privé avec le nonce apostolique, Mgr Micara, Vrancken se disait envoyé par Mercier luimême pour communiquer la préoccupation de celui-ci quant à sa succession. Mercier n’aurait vu que deux candidats valables: Mgr Ladeuze et Mgr Van Roey. Mais selon Vrancken, le cardinal préférait de loin Mgr Ladeuze et le chanoine insista sur ce point, bien inopportunément selon le nonce20. Le Cardinal Mercier avait-il vraiment une préférence pour Ladeuze21? S’était-il réellement exprimé en ce sens à l’abbé Vrancken? Avait-il vraiment chargé son ancien collaborateur d’une mission auprès du nonce apostolique? Et pourquoi le cardinal n’avait-il pas évoqué personnellement la question avec le nonce? Le nonce Micara se le demanda. Mais, comme il l’écrivit à ses supérieurs à Rome, il avait des raisons d’en douter: Come io ho conosciuto il Cardinale, la sua estrema delicatezza, mi pare che, data l’affettuosa benevolenza con cui mi ha sempre trattato, mi avrebbe forse detto una parola, tanto più che molte volte gli ultimissimi giorni, mi disse che pregava per me affinche il Signore mi aiutasse nella mia missione, e cose simili22. 19. Paul Vrancken (1872-1935), secrétaire particulier du cardinal Mercier de 1906 à 1920, puis curé de Ste-Croix à Ixelles (Bruxelles). 20. Micara à Gasparri, Bruxelles le 3 février 1926, dans AAES, Belgio-Lussemburgo IV, pos. 173-174, fasc. 29: «sulla provvista dell’archidiocesi di Malines», N. 5385, f. 42. 21. Aloïs Simon, dans sa biographie de Mercier aujourd’hui sur plusieurs points datée, confirme la préférence de Mercier pour Ladeuze. SIMON, Le cardinal Mercier (n. 1), p. 152. 22. Micara à Gasparri, 3 février 1926, dans AAES, Belgio-LussemburgoIV, pos. 173174, fasc. 29: «sulla provvista dell’archidiocesi di Malines», N. 5385, f. 43.

162

J. DE VOLDER

Micara ne tenait pas l’abbé Vrancken en haut estime. Il avait beau être un «bon prêtre», mais il était aussi connu pour ses «sentiments excessifs». Il le considérait comme un personnage «très passionné» et d’un caractère «d’idées étroites et tenace»23. En outre, un autre ecclésiastique, le chanoine Francis Dessain, qui avait succédé à Vrancken comme secrétaire particulier du cardinal, et que le nonce considérait, par contre, comme un prêtre «di ottimo carattere, aperto, distinto e delicato», lui apportait peu après une information en sens contraire. Selon lui, le Cardinal Mercier, avait pensé uniquement à Van Roey comme successeur24. Le cardinal mourut le 23 janvier, dans l’émotion générale de la nation et attirant l’attention de l’opinion publique internationale, dans les milieux où l’on avait apprécié son rôle «héroïque» durant la Grande Guerre25. Le gouvernement, probablement à la demande d’Emile Vandervelde, Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, décida de rendre honneur au cardinal par des funérailles nationales. Elles eurent lieu le 28 janvier 1926, à Bruxelles. La famille royale, tout le gouvernement, des personnalités venues de l’étranger, comme le Maréchal Ferdinand Foch, des dignitaires de tous bords, ainsi qu’une foule nombreuse rendirent un dernier hommage au grand cardinal belge, qui avait marqué le premier quart du vingtième siècle en Belgique. Qui pouvait succéder à une pareille personnalité exceptionnelle dans un contexte national délicat? II. LA QUESTION FLAMANDE Les archives romaines confirment comment, aux yeux du Saint-Siège, la question centrale pour l’avenir de l’Église et de la nation belge, au milieu des années 1920, était l’épineuse question flamande. Selon le nonce Micara, celle-ci était désormais «alla base di tutto». Dans son long rapport du 3 février 1926, le nonce apostolique décrivit en détail la situation. Selon lui, la question flamande menaçait l’unité du 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid., f. 44. Francis Dessain (1875-1951). Le frère cadet de Charles Dessain, bourgmestre de Malines, était d’abord avocat. Vocation tardive, il était ordonné prêtre le 2 janvier 1921. Secrétaire particulier du cardinal Mercier jusqu’à la fin de sa vie. LedictionnairedesBelges, Bruxelles, Legrain, 1981, p. 164. 25. Sur ce rôle, voir e.a. R. AUBERT, Lex deux premiers grands conflits du cardinal Mercieraveclesautoritésallemandesd’occupation, Leuven, Peeters, 1998.J. DE VOLDER, CardinalMercierintheFirstWorldWar:Belgium,GermanyandtheCatholicChurch (Kadoc Studies on Religion, Culture and Society), Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2018.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

163

pays et l’existence même de la Belgique26. Il estimait qu’après la guerre les revendications légitimes des Flamands, dont le bien-fondé était aussi reconnu par l’épiscopat, avaient été à peu près rencontrées. Il ne restait que la question de la flamandisation de l’Université de Gand, «tanto discussa e discutibile», mais elle était aussi en train de se concrétiser. Pourtant, cela n’avait pas calmé les esprits, devait admettre le nonce. Certains milieux «flamingants» se radicalisaient et soutenaient même une scission de la Belgique, «à travers une éphémère république flamande, ou à travers l’union pure et simple de la partie flamande à la Hollande, tout en laissant aux Wallons de disposer d’eux-mêmes ou d’être avalés par la France». Le nonce y voyait plusieurs problèmes. Tout d’abord, pour la stabilité politique en Europe, car un tel projet pouvait, selon lui, déclencher une nouvelle guerre en Europe. Mais aussi pour l’Église, parce qu’il constatait que le nationalisme flamand divisait profondément les esprits et surtout, que les catholiques n’acceptaient pas l’autorité ecclésiastique dans ce domaine, réclamant le droit à leur liberté de pensée. Dans son rapport, le nonce souligna que la question flamande était surtout un problème au sein du monde catholique: E sono sempre, disgraziatissimamente, i cattolici che ne fanno le spese. Sono gli alunni di tutti o quasi i collegi vescovili delle Fiandre, futuri alunni di Lovanio, che danno il maggior numero di reclute. E’ il clero fiammingo più giovane che sposa con ardore, e a volte con dolorosa intemperanza, questa causa, ed è in gran parte esatto che queste idee hanno le loro radici in certi conventi, p.e. di cappuccini, di domenicani.

Pour Micara, les mondes socialiste et libéral étaient beaucoup moins affectés par ce débat. Ils profitaient visiblement de la division que la question flamande semait dans le monde catholique. Il existait dès lors un risque de répercussions au niveau politique, en particulier pour l’unité et le pouvoir du parti catholique. De surcroît, le débat avait aussi gravement miné l’autorité ecclésiastique puisque, ni les appels répétés des évêques, ni la lettre de Benoît XV de 1921 à ce sujet, n’étaient parvenus à calmer les esprits27. Pour le Roi Albert, préoccupé par l’unité de la nation, le clergé catholique jouait un mauvais rôle et pas seulement le bas clergé flamand, acquis à la cause flamande. Il se lamentait aussi des divisions entre les 26. Micara à Gasparri, Bruxelles le 3 février 1926, dans AAES Belgio-LussemburgoIV, pos. 173-174, fasc. 29: «sulla provvista dell’archidiocesi di Malines», N. 5385, f. 34 e.s. 27. Sur la lettre de Benoît XV, datée du 10 février 1921, voir R. BOUDENS, HetVaticaanendeVlaamseBewegingindejaren1919-1921, dans WetenschappelijkeTijdingen, 1991/2, pp. 102-116.

164

J. DE VOLDER

évêques. D’après lui, les évêques de Liège, Mgr Rutten, et de Namur, Mgr Heylen, étaient toujours en opposition avec le Cardinal. L’évêque de Bruges, l’octogénaire Mgr Gustave Joseph Waffelaert, quant à lui, aux yeux du Roi, ne surveillait pas assez son clergé, à cause de son âge et puisqu’il s’occupait surtout de ses recherches. Le nonce commenta que le Roi, mal informé par certains collaborateurs, avait tendance à exagérer la situation. Il souligna que l’épiscopat était plus uni sur la question que le Souverain ne le pensait, mais il admettait que les évêques flamands, qui gardaient une ligne modérée et acceptée par les autres évêques, «sont impuissants, débordés, avec les mains liées»28. Le nationalisme flamand était alors pour le nonce la grande question dont il fallait tenir compte pour le choix d’un successeur à Malines puisque les trois-quarts des 2,6 millions d’habitants et du clergé de l’archidiocèse étaient flamands. Il rappelait comment le cardinal Mercier lui-même, malgré son prestige, son autorité et son intelligence, était resté impuissant face à la problématique, ce qui l’avait fait beaucoup souffrir. Quelques jours après les obsèques nationales du cardinal, le nonce n’osait pas critiquer l’attitude du cardinal Mercier qui, par son intransigeance, avait partiellement contribué à la radicalisation de certains milieux catholiques flamands. Était-il conscient de donner une vision unilatérale des faits quand il disait que le cardinal «avait toujours couru bras ouverts vers les Flamands»29? Pour Micara, le fait que Mercier était wallon et francophile lui ôtait d’emblée toute autorité auprès des Flamands. «Il Cardinale era vallone, e c’era sempre contro di lui il sospetto, il partito preso, l’incomprensione. Egli non ha potuto prendere delle misure che sarebbero state accolte se venute da un vescovo fiammingo». Pour le nonce, le choix primordial à faire était de trancher entre un candidat flamand ou un candidat wallon. Pour lui, il était clair qu’il serait de loin préférable que le successeur soit flamand («même pas un wallon qui parle bien la langue, mais un flamand de naissance»).

28. Micara à Gasparri, Bruxelles le 3 février 1926, f. 34 e.s. 29. Notamment dans les questions d’introduction systématique de la langue flamande dans les écoles secondaires et la scission de l’Université catholique de Louvain, le cardinal n’avait pas fait preuve de grande compréhension ou d’ouverture vis-à-vis des revendications flamandes. Le fait que les évêques avaient appuyé l’interdiction de toute manifestation politique des étudiants à Louvain, interdiction émise par le recteur Ladeuze dans l’année académique 1924-1925, avait renforcé encore les revendications nationalistes. Cf. R. BOUDENS, KardinaalMercierendeVlaamsebeweging, Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1975, notamment le dernier chapitre, «Een periode van verstrakking 1918-1926» (196-263).

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

165

Il était bien conscient que son avis n’était pas partagé par tout le monde. «Quelques-uns semblent préconiser le choix d’un prélat wallon, énergique et résolu, capable de se faire respecter et de grand prestige. Celui-là, ils croient, pourrait endiguer le clergé, rompre définitivement certaines illusions et menées séparatistes et surtout préparer un clergé meilleur». Et le nonce de conclure: «Si tratterebbe in qualche modo della maniera forte: contraria contrariis». Mais Micara n’était pas prêt à suivre ce raisonnement. Il redouta «la maniera forte». Il avait de bonnes raisons pour cela. Il avait interrogé plusieurs personnes, des ecclésiastiques dignes de foi et attachés au SaintSiège, quelques laïcs aussi, surtout dans la partie francophone du pays. Selon lui, tous avaient conjuré (il répète et souligne le mot, ‘scongiurare’, en italien) le Saint-Siège de nommer un Flamand. Pour renforcer cette option, le nonce ajouta à son rapport quelques documents, notamment du père Emile Thibaut, ex-provincial des Jésuites et de Mgr Joseph Schyrgens, prélat domestique de Sa Sainteté. Voici une partie du raisonnement développé par le père Thibaut, couché sur papier le 30 janvier, deux jours après les obsèques du cardinal Mercier, qui ose qualifier l’action du cardinal, en matière linguistique, «d’échec»: La grande épreuve du Cardinal Mercier fut précisément de constater son impuissance à contenir beaucoup d’éléments flamands de son clergé; et pourtant nul n’ignore le prestige exceptionnel qui l’entourait et imposait partout ailleurs son autorité. Or, quand on recherche les causes de cet échec – il faut bien appeler les choses par leur nom – on arrive à cette conviction que le fait de n’être pas Flamand a été pour beaucoup dans cet insuccès du défunt archevêque: sa qualité de Wallon a suscité la défiance d’une bonne partie du clergé flamand et a même empêché le cardinal de jouir de l’autorité morale qui lui était indispensable; souvent, il n’a pas pu prendre certaines mesures ou certaines sanctions qu’on aurait acceptées de la part d’un évêque flamand30.

De son côté, Mgr Schyrgens développait le raisonnement suivant pour démontrer qu’un archevêque flamand pourrait être plus efficace qu’un Wallon comme Ladeuze, afin d’endiguer la vague séparatiste: Le Cardinal Mercier, malgré son immense prestige, s’est senti impuissant, parce que d’origine wallonne, à contenir le mouvement, à endiguer le courant du séparatisme. Il s’est borné à se ranger derrière Mgr l’Évêque de Bruges interdisant à son clergé les journaux séditieux anti-dinastiques, il a fait sienne cette mesure, à laquelle l’épiscopat a adhéré, il n’aurait pas osé la prendre motu proprio. 30. Note du père Thibaut, 30 janvier 1926, Allegato III au rapport du 3 février 1926, f. 57.

166

J. DE VOLDER

Avec l’Évêque flamand de Bruges, c’est l’Évêque flamand de Liège qui a énergiquement réprimé l’audace des flamingants, des étudiants flamingants de Louvain qui, pour protester contre l’interdiction des manifestations politiques portée par le Recteur, organisaient publiquement, dans le Limbourg une campagne contre les quêtes en faveur de l’Université. L’éminent Recteur s’est couvert de l’interdiction des évêques flamands, mais la situation reste lamentable. Il y a scission, il y a un schisme absolu entre les étudiants wallons et les étudiants flamands (...). Fait douloureux, le sectarisme louvaniste n’a pas fléchi devant le cercueil du Cardinal: à ses glorieuses funérailles, pas un seul drapeau flamand, pas ombre de représentation d’une société flamande d’étudiants, mais tous les étudiants wallons, en tête de la délégation universitaire. (...) Voilà le fait: devant les excès de la démagogie flamingante, seuls ont pu résister, prendre l’initiative d’actes énergiques, les Evêques flamands, enfin débordés. Ni Malines, ni Louvain, avec tout leur prestige, n’ont osé s’attaquer au mal de leur propre chef et, des deux côtés, la division est flagrante.

Et Schyrgens de conclure: Avec Monseigneur Ladeuze, que les Flamands, sauf des exceptions individuelles, ont en horreur, le schisme de Louvain se répéterait, en s’envenimant dans le clergé de Malines et le monde de la jeunesse et des instituteurs. Leur colère ne pardonnerait pas. Voilà la conclusion logique: la nomination d’un évêque wallon à Malines serait une catastrophe, et la cause de la dynastie, la cause de l’unité de la Patrie seraient plus en péril que jamais31.

Or, comme nous l’avons vu, le choix de Ladeuze était farouchement défendu par le Souverain belge. III. PLAIDOIRIES POUR LADEUZE Quelques jours après la réception du rapport du nonce Micara, le Cardinal Gasparri, Secrétaire d’État de Pie XI, reçut une lettre personnelle de la part du Baron Eugène Beyens32. L’ancien ambassadeur de la Belgique auprès du Saint-Siège tenait à fournir, de manière confidentielle, «aussi objectivement que possible», sa vision sur la question flamande et sur la succession de Mercier. Il la présenta comme sa propre opinion,

31. Note Schyrgens; Allegato IV, f. 58-59. 32. Beyens à Gasparri, Bruxelles, le 9 février 1926, originale dans AAES, Belgio-LussemburgoIV, pos. 174, f. 26-27; version martyre dans AMAEB, Fonds Beyens. On sait que la lettre arriva quelques jours plus tard, à cause de la mention, écrite par Gasparri en marge du rapport du Nonce, sur la lettre de Beyens: «Non ho ricevuto la lettera» et puis («pervenne più tardi»), f. 43v.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

167

ne révélant pas à ce moment qu’il se faisait en réalité l’interprète des sentiments du Roi. Selon lui, les gouvernements d’après-guerre s’étaient efforcés «de donner aux Flamands toutes les satisfactions qu’ils réclamaient légitimement». La flamandisation de l’Université de Gand était en cours et pouvait aboutir à la suppression totale de l’enseignement en français. Mais, il soulignait un paradoxe: «plus on a fait de concessions aux meneurs flamingants, plus on a vu croître leurs exigences. Aujourd’hui, ils réclament une autonomie complète pour le pays flamand sous le nom de séparation administrative, et cela même ne les contenterait pas, ils visent à une indépendance absolue, à la rupture de l’unité nationale». Il se lamentait de ce que les nationalistes flamands ne pensaient pas aux conséquences désastreuses éventuelles: «Intervention des grandes Puissances, dépeçage de la Belgique, danger d’une conflagration européenne, avenir misérable réservé à une Flandre séparée de la partie la plus industrielle du pays». Il constatait avec amertume que les nationalistes avaient su miner le respect pour la monarchie: «les meneurs flamands cherchent à saper la fidélité à la monarchie dans le cœur de leurs compatriotes et ils y sont parvenus jusqu’à un certain point, témoin l’accueil glacial fait récemment à la Famille royale dans des régions flamandes qui étaient autrefois les plus royalistes du royaume». Il soulignait le rôle de l’Église en Flandre et, notamment, celui du clergé: Il m’est pénible d’ajouter que les plus actifs et les plus aveugles propagandistes d’une Flandre indépendante sont les membres du bas clergé flamand et des ordres monastiques, sourds aux recommandations du Souverain Pontife et rebelles dans le diocèse de Malines à la voix de leur Pasteur.

Tout comme le nonce, le Baron Beyens semblait ne pas comprendre que la question linguistique, vécue avec passion par de nombreux Flamands, n’était pas uniquement une affaire de nationalisme classique, en vogue dans l’entre-deux-guerres, mais qu’elle était intimement liée à une question sociale. Les néerlandophones n’acceptaient plus la domination francophone sur le plan culturel, économique et politique dans un pays où ils étaient majoritaires. Ils cherchaient la pleine émancipation de leur propre langue et culture. Beyens en arriva au choix du successeur de Mercier: Les esprits timides – il s’en trouve parmi nos hommes politiques, même parmi les Wallons – se contenteraient d’un archevêque sage et modéré, qui prêcherait la conciliation et qui aurait chance d’être écouté, s’il était de race et de culture flamande. Le prélat qui semble réunir ces conditions est Mgr Van Roey, vicaire général du diocèse de Malines. C’est un homme

168

J. DE VOLDER

un peu effacé, digne de tout respect, mais dont on connaît mal le caractère et le degré de fermeté.

Beyens rappelait ensuite comment Mercier, sur son lit de malade, avait réfléchi aux candidats potentiels à sa succession. Il affirma que, «sans éliminer Mgr Van Roey, dont il appréciait le dévouement à l’Église et la science théologique, ses préférences se portaient invinciblement sur Mgr Ladeuze, Recteur Magnifique de l’Université de Louvain». Beyens insistait qu’il le savait «de source sûre», sans révéler à ce moment que la source était le Roi lui-même. Le meilleur candidat était sans conteste, à ses yeux, Mgr Ladeuze, même si sa nomination causerait sans doute beaucoup d’oppositions. Mais, elle réveillerait aussi les vraies forces patriotiques de leur torpeur. Il argumentait sa position de la manière suivante: Mgr Ladeuze est Wallon. Sa nomination à la tête d’un diocèse dont la majeure partie est flamande serait, dira-t-on, un défi porté aux Flamingants. Il parle mal le flamand. On l’accueillerait par des protestations, des cris de guerre, des sifflets, et ses plus ardents adversaires seraient les membres de son clergé. Cela est bien possible. Mais Mgr Ladeuze personnifierait, d’autre part, aux yeux des autres Belges, l’unité nationale en danger; ainsi présentée, sa nomination réveillerait de leur torpeur les défenseurs de la Belgique une et indissoluble. Elle serait le signal d’une lutte, désormais nécessaire, contre les destructeurs de notre patrie, elle servirait à les démasquer, à leur faire avouer leurs menées séparatistes, et puisqu’il faut livrer bataille au flamingantisme, pour l’empêcher de parvenir à ses fins, mieux vaudrait le faire aujourd’hui avant qu’il soit trop tard.

Ladeuze avait d’autres qualités aussi: un «administrateur hors pair», quelqu’un «d’avisé et énergique» à la fois, qui savait «comment guider la jeunesse» et qui en même temps était «conscient des besoins de la population flamande». Pour preuve, Ladeuze avait introduit à l’Université de Louvain de nombreux cours en néerlandais. Beyens semblait reconnaître que Ladeuze était en quelque sorte une copie de Mercier et qu’il rencontrerait les mêmes difficultés: «Il ne parviendrait pas plus que Mgr Mercier, dont la douce autorité était impuissante à se faire obéir de son bas clergé, à empêcher ce dernier de poursuivre son œuvre sournoise de dissolution sociale et politique sous le masque de son patriotisme flamand. Le mal est fait pour toute une génération de prêtres; on ne peut que réprimer leurs excès, quand ils sont trop apparents». Mais pour l’ancien ambassadeur, il fallait tenir bon. Au-delà des premières résistances et des difficultés, la nomination de Ladeuze ferait beaucoup de bien, surtout à plus long terme: il faut songer à un prochain avenir; il faut s’efforcer d’élever dans le culte de la patrie commune la jeunesse qui remplit le séminaire de Malines. Et cette tâche, Mgr Ladeuze paraît plus apte que personne à la remplir.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

169

Selon Beyens, de toute évidence, le moment de lutte pour l’unité nationale était arrivé. En plus, les Wallons, ne comprendraient pas que cinq des six diocèses soient guidés par des évêques flamands. Les Belges qui ne veulent pas entendre parler de la rupture de leur lien politique forment encore la majorité. Ils se rallieraient autour du nouvel archevêque, s’ils le voyaient lutter de toutes ses forces pour la cause nationale. Que diraient, d’autre part, les Wallons, dont on ne tient pas assez compte quand on discute la question flamande, s’ils constataient qu’un nouvel archevêque flamand – ce serait le cinquième prélat flamand sur six chefs de diocèse et la proportion ne serait guère équitable – n’est pas capable, en dépit des meilleures résolutions, de résister aux exigences et de s’opposer aux manifestations antipatriotiques de son clergé? Il y aurait là de quoi décourager les partisans les plus résolus de l’Unité nationale.

Et Beyens, en guise de conclusion, souligna une fois encore qu’il interprétait la volonté de Mercier: «En exposant ces considérations à Votre Excellence, j’ai la conviction de me conformer au vœu suprême du Cardinal Mercier sur son lit de mort». IV. LES CANDIDATS DU

NONCE

Le nonce Micara, comme nous l’avons vu, n’était pas du tout du même avis. Dans son rapport du 3 février 1926, il passe en revue les différents candidats. Il est intéressant de regarder de plus près son jugement sur chacun. Si jamais le Saint-Siège pensait qu’il valait quand-même mieux nommer un Wallon, il ne voyait que deux candidats: Mgr Rasneur, l’évêque de Tournai («ottimo sotto ogni riguardo e che fa benissimo in quella diocesi») et Mgr Paulin Ladeuze. Sur ce dernier, il était d’accord que, en vertu de ses connaissances, de son prestige en Belgique et à l’étranger, sa santé, son âge, sa bonne présence et ses qualités en tant qu’administrateur, il serait la personne «toute indiquée». Mais comme Wallon, il passait pour un «ennemi» des Flamands et il ferait la même expérience que Mercier. Micara préférait donc de loin un candidat flamand de culture et de naissance. Parmi l’épiscopat, vu l’âge avancé des évêques de Liège et de Bruges et l’état de santé de l’évêque de Gand, il ne voyait que l’évêque de Namur, Mgr Heylen, comme candidat valable. Heylen était évêque depuis 28 ans déjà, et à ce titre, il était bien connu à Rome. II était Flamand d’origine, mais il avait su se maintenir dans un diocèse entièrement francophone. Tout cela le rendait tout à fait apte pour occuper le siège central de la Belgique, à Malines.

170

J. DE VOLDER

Le nonce ne dressa pourtant pas d’éloge de Mgr Heylen. Il énumérait plutôt six réserves sur la candidature. La première était l’âge: avec ses 71 ans, il serait ardu de prendre en main un diocèse aussi grand et important que celui de Malines. On notait déjà chez lui des «signes de fatigue». Deuxièmement, il évoquait comme élément négatif, l’emprise qu’avait sur lui son secrétaire. Ce chanoine, Tharcisius, était hollandais, également Prémontré, venu avec lui de l’Abbaye de Tongerlo. Or ce chanoine était vu comme quelqu’un «d’imprudent, de bavard et d’indiscret» et qui se mêlait beaucoup des affaires du diocèse. Plusieurs personnes avaient suggéré à l’évêque Heylen de l’éloigner, mais rien n’y fit33. Le troisième point négatif était son comportement présumé pendant la guerre. Un rapport retrouvé à Bruxelles après la retraite des allemands en 1918 avait révélé comment l’occupant pouvait «rouler» (en français dans le rapport) l’évêque de Namur. Ce dernier y faisait «una figura curiosa». Le nonce ne donnait pas plus de détails et il ajoutait que peu de personnes étaient au courant34. La quatrième raison, celle qui pesait le plus selon le nonce, était le fait que, dans l’opinion publique, les évêques de Liège et de Namur étaient souvent présentés comme étant en désaccord avec le cardinal Mercier sur la question flamande. Contrairement à son prédécesseur Achille Locatelli, 33. Ce père Tharsicius, de nom Elibert Bootsma, venait de Tilburg, aux Pays-Bas. Camille Joset a décrit le caractère de cette personne ainsi: «(le chanoine Tharsicius) s’institue le ‘saint-bernard’ de son supérieur. Il ne réalise pas que, par son caractère même, il le dessert. Arrogant, sans-gêne à l’égard du clergé, il finit par devenir indésirable. L’évêque, bienveillant et charitable, habitué à ses familiarités, ne se rend pas compte que cet homme forme un écran entre lui et son diocèse» (JOSET, MonseigneurTh.-L.Heylen [n. 8], p. 213). 34. On peut supposer cependant qu’il s’agit du rapport que le Baron Oscar von der Lancken, chef du département politique de l’administration occupante à Bruxelles, avait envoyé à Berlin le 14 mai 1915. On y lit notamment sur Mgr Heylen de Namur: «Celui-ci a récemment fait preuve d’une germanophobie ouverte en plusieurs occasions, qui pourraient encore trouver un prolongement. Nous avons l’espoir justifié de pouvoir le ramener à l’attitude plus calme, qui était la sienne auparavant. Contre lui, les autorités allemandes possèdent un moyen de pression. Lors de la conquête de Namur, l’évêque et tous les prêtres de la ville avaient d’abord été arrêtés comme otages. Partant de l’idée que les nombreux ennemis que l’Église possède à Namur pourraient susciter des incidents pour mettre les otages dans une mauvaise situation, la Kommandantur proposa à l’évêque de donner la liste noire de ses adversaires politiques qui était sûrement en sa possession, après quoi ces éléments de désordre seraient échangés comme otages contre les ecclésiastiques. Après quelques hésitations, l’évêque accepta cette proposition, tout en déclarant que ce faisant, il se livrait entièrement aux mains de l’officier avec lequel il négociait. Ces faits viennent d’être rappelés à l’évêque de façon adéquate: le résultat en a été que le secrétaire de l’évêque fit aussitôt son apparition au Département politique pour y apporter les assurances les plus larges quant à la bonne conduite de son supérieur». Publié dans M. AMARA – H. ROLAND, GouvernerenBelgiqueoccupée:OscarvonderLancken–Wakenitz.Rapportd’activités1915-1918, Bruxelles, Peter Lang, 2004, pp. 69-70.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

171

Micara ne partageait pas trop cette vision des choses, mais il admettait qu’une éventuelle nomination de Heylen serait perçue comme une revanche à l’encontre du cardinal. Ensuite, le nonce évoquait encore le fait que le prémontré Heylen, tout en étant évêque, avait continué à s’occuper de son ordre et que les abbayes des Prémontrés se trouvaient toutes dans l’archidiocèse de Malines. Finalement, à son avis, Mgr Heylen manquait un peu de «distinction» dans ses manières. Il concluait par un jugement négatif net en disant que sa nomination était «vivement déconseillée». Le nonce dressait ensuite le portrait de Mgr Van Roey, vicaire général du cardinal Mercier. Avec ses 52 ans seulement, sa santé robuste, sa présence, son sérieux, son attitude «extrêmement sacerdotale et digne» et son trait affable, ce docteur en théologie et en droit canon était le candidat idéal. Le nonce ne cachait pas sa préférence. Si pour Heylen, il s’était étendu sur les réserves, pour Van Roey, il ne manquait pas de louanges. Pour renforcer la proposition, le nonce joignait des citations de plusieurs ecclésiastiques belges, toutes extrêmement élogieuses à son encontre. Le jésuite Thibaut disait de Van Roey qu’il avait «piété, science, modestie, zèle, prudence dans une mesure exceptionnelle». L’abbé général des Prémontrés ne voyait d’autre candidat que Van Roey: «Il est un saint prêtre, modeste, discret, ayant un air respectable, grand théologien (...) Ce qu’il dit et écrit est marqué au coin d’une doctrine sûre, d’une grande clarté et d’une rigoureuse exactitude des termes». Le Provincial des Rédemptoristes, van de Steen, disait de Van Roey: «Il n’a évidemment pas tous les talents ni le prestige de l’Éminent Prince de l’Église auquel il succèderait, mais parmi tous les candidats dont on cite les noms, c’est certainement lui, pour autant que j’en puisse juger, qui réunit les plus belles qualités», parmi lesquelles «intelligence puissante et universelle», «forte volonté», «beau caractère, sincère et droit», et finalement «flamand mais modéré». Le provincial pensait que les plus hautes personnalités et même la Cour l’auraient apprécié à fur et à mesure qu’ils l’auraient connu. Mgr Schyrgens, quant à lui, reconnaissait à peu de choses près les mêmes qualités chez Van Roey. Sur son attitude visà-vis de la question flamande, il précisait: Il est entouré de la vénération et de la confiance du clergé du diocèse, sans distinction. Si son attachement bien connu à la cause flamande lui a conquis les ardentes sympathies des prêtres flamands, qui représentent les quatre cinquièmes du clergé diocésain, sa prudente modération et sa communauté de vues sur cette question avec le Cardinal, lui ont valu le respect et la profonde estime de tous les autres. Indubitablement, il n’est personne que le clergé malinois lui préfère. Son autorité est peu commune. Il la doit à l’ascendant de ses vertus et à la supériorité de son intelligence.

172

J. DE VOLDER

Le clergé du diocèse et tous les autres évêques de Belgique, sondés par le nonce, semblaient d’accord avec l’hypothèse de choisir Mgr Van Roey. Mgr Heylen de Namur avait dit qu’il fallait «de toute nécessité un Flamand qui ait la sympathie de la population et qui veuille bien accorder ce qu’elle demande légitimement, tout en résistant aux exigences déraisonnables des extrémistes». Pour lui, Van Roey était tout indiqué. «Il pourra faire beaucoup de bien». D’autres, comme Rasneur de Tournai, Rutten de Liège ou Waffelaert de Bruges avançaient le nom des deux vicaires généraux: Mgr Van Roey et Mgr Van Cauwenberg. Le nonce mettait surtout en exergue le jugement de Mgr Legraive, un des deux auxiliaires de Malines, qui était francophone et qui avait un rapport intime avec le cardinal défunt. Il avait dit, en trois points: «a) il faut nécessairement un Flamand; b) Monseigneur Van Roey me semble le plus apte, il est modéré et juste; c) le Cardinal Mercier s’appuyait presque exclusivement sur lui». Comme éventuelle réserve, le nonce ne retenait qu’un seul point faible au candidat: «un po’ di timidezza», comme l’un ou l’autre de ses informateurs lui avait aussi fait remarquer. Mais pour le nonce apostolique, cela ne devait pas être un obstacle. Il citait Mercier qui avait dit à propos de Van Roey, en plaisantant: «il se fait, il se fait». Le nonce parlait encore brièvement de l’autre candidature évoquée par plusieurs évêques, celle de Mgr Van Cauwenberg. L’autre vicaire général de Malines avait autant de qualités que Van Roey, disait le nonce, mais il avait un sérieux défaut: «una marcata durezza di carattere, una grande freddezza di tratto, nessuna affabilità nelle manière». Le nonce évoquait comment Van Cauwenberg, comme vice-recteur de l’Université de Louvain, avait dû être déplacé à Malines, à cause d’une série de conflits avec les étudiants. Mais à Malines aussi, il s’était fait des ennemis car il devait s’occuper de la discipline du clergé. Et le nonce de conclure: «Au fond, il est plus craint qu’aimé, même si tous reconnaissent que c’est un homme d’une vie exemplaire, cultivé et très intelligent». Quelques jours seulement après l’envoi de ce long rapport détaillé, le nonce apprit du baron Beyens que la source de celui-ci était le Roi en personne. Beyens répéta au nonce ce qu’il avait écrit à Gasparri, à savoir que Mercier avait insisté sur «la faiblesse de caractère de Mgr Van Roey», ainsi que sur «l’exagération irréfléchie de Monseigneur Heylen», entretenue par son secrétaire, «un Hollandais excité». Cette confidence fut le motif pour le nonce d’évoquer, dans une nouvelle lettre à Gasparri, les souhaits prétendus de Mercier quant à sa succession. Il expliqua que certains disaient qu’il ne voyait que Ladeuze et Van Roey comme successeur; une autre source soutenait qu’il écartait Van Roey et d’autres encore,

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

173

qu’il avait exclu Ladeuze. Le nonce en était assez peiné. Il n’excluait pas que le cardinal moribond, «dato il suo carattere assai spontaneo», ait exprimé l’un ou l’autre jugement sur telle ou telle personne. Mais, s’il avait vraiment eu des doutes sur sa succession, il l’aurait dit au Pape ou au Secrétaire d’État eux-mêmes et, probablement aussi, au nonce qui lui avait rendu visite dans ses derniers jours35. Il réfléchissait encore sur le choix à faire entre les deux vicaires généraux, Van Roey et Van Cauwenbergh. Si la qualité prépondérante devait être «l’énergie» du candidat, alors Van Cauwenbergh devait être préféré à Van Roey, admettait le nonce. Mais, si on prenait en compte toutes les autres qualités requises, il était convaincu que Van Roey était l’option la meilleure36. Quelques jours après, il revit le Provincial des Rédemptoristes, le Flamand Van de Steen, ainsi que le Wallon Schyrgens. Tous deux le confirmèrent dans son choix et ils furent d’accord qu’étant donné les circonstances, le choix de Van Roey s’imposait37. V. LES ÉTOILES DE GASPARRI Alors que le Roi belge, par le biais du baron Beyens, s’efforçait encore à mettre en avant l’option de Mgr Ladeuze, le nonce Micara ne l’avait pas pris sérieusement en compte dans ses rapports et lettres. Il l’évoqua quelques fois, mais toujours pour déconseiller sa candidature. Il cita l’évêque de Tournai, Mgr Rasneur, qui écartait Ladeuze comme possible candidat à cause de son profil très francophone. Sur base des archives, il est difficile de voir comment le processus décisionnel au Vatican s’est exactement déroulé. Au milieu des années 1920, 35. «Se mi fosse pertanto lecito di esprimere un parere, sarei incline a pensare che l’Eminentissimo, dato il suo carattere assai spontaneo, abbia manifestato qualche giudizio su l’una o l’altra persona, sotto l’impero di impressioni momentanee; ma che, se davvero Egli avesse creduto, davanti a Dio e per gravi motivi, di dire il suo avviso su quelli che poteva ritenere come possibili candidati alla sua successione, se ne sarebbe aperto unicamente col Santo Padre e coll’Eminenza Vostra». Bruxelles, 10 février 1926, Micara à Gasparri, dans AAES, Belgio-LussemburgoIV, pos. 174, fasc. 30, f. 5-7. 36. Ibid. 37. Bruxelles, 18 février 1926, Micara à Gasparri, dans AAES, Belgio-Lussemburgo IV, pos. 174, fasc. 30, f. 11-12. D’autres lettres, retrouvées dans les Archives du Vatican, soutiennent aussi la piste Van Roey. Ainsi, le R.P. Theunissen qui parle dans sa lettre autographe au Pape d’une véritable ‘persécution’ du peuple flamand et qui considère l’État de Belgique ‘una finzione politica’: «Evviva Mgr Van Roey! L’uomo della situazione! Il salvatore della santa Fede christiana in Belgio (sic!)». Hal, 25 février 1926, Theunissen à Pie XI, dans AAES, Belgio-LussemburgoIII, pos. 174, fasc. 30, f. 14.

174

J. DE VOLDER

le Vatican était encore un monde restreint, avec moins de bureaucratie et d’instances à consulter qu’aujourd’hui. Quand il s’agissait de nominations importantes, comme celle de Malines, le Pape et son Secrétaire d’État s’en occupaient personnellement. Soit dit en passant, Pie XI et Gasparri ne semblaient pas beaucoup apprécier la pression exercée par le Roi et l’ancien ambassadeur Beyens pour faire nommer Ladeuze, tout en y mêlant d’éventuelles recommandations de la part du cardinal défunt sur son lit de mort. Pie XI a écrit une lettre à ce sujet au Roi Albert au mois de février 1926 qui, malheureusement, ne se trouve ni dans les Archives du Palais Royal à Bruxelles, ni dans les Archives du Vatican, ni dans le Fonds Beyens des Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères à Bruxelles. On connaît l’existence de cette lettre sur base d’une lettre du Roi à Beyens, datée du 20 février: «Hier m’est parvenue une lettre de Sa Sainteté, je m’empresse de vous la communiquer. Le Pape ne paraît pas très satisfait de ce que j’ai partagé l’avis du Cardinal sur son successeur»38. Dans les archives des Affaires Ecclésiastiques au Vatican, il existe cependant deux brefs documents qui dévoilent quelque peu le processus décisionnel et les critères pris en compte. L’une est une courte lettre, anonyme et non datée (mais qui apparemment a été rédigée en janvier 1926) écrite en italien, provenant sans doute d’un ecclésiastique belge à Rome39. Il s’agit d’une note qui compare la candidature du père Rutten, sénateur et dominicain, et du recteur Ladeuze. Sur Rutten, l’auteur a peu de doutes: «Sembra che tale nomina sarebbe una grande disgrazia, anzi una calamità, essendo il personaggio più uomo di mondo che religioso e esagerato nelle sue opinioni». Une telle nomination causerait, selon l’auteur anonyme, une «division irrémédiable des forces catholiques». Sur Ladeuze, l’auteur est globalement très positif: «A questo non manca né scienza né virtù». Une légère tendance moderniste, affichée vingt ans auparavant, pouvait être pardonnée40. Son unique défaut serait «de ne pas être Flamand». L’auteur, lui aussi, confirma que Ladeuze était l’option préférée du défunt cardinal («lo so perché l’ha detto lui stesso a

38. Laeken, 20 février 1926, Roi Albert à Beyens, dans AMAEB, Fonds Beyens. Malheureusement la copie annoncée ne s’y trouve pas. Dans la lettre, le Roi fait aussi comprendre qu’il n’est pas trop d’accord avec ce que lui dit le Pape. «Je suis loin, j’avoue, de partager plusieurs des considérations qui se trouvent dans la lettre». 39. Dans AAES, Belgio-Lussemburgo IV, pos. 174, fasc. 29, f. 29. La note est de janvier puisque l’auteur parle d’une dernière rencontre avec Mercier «questo mese». 40. Ladeuze avait mis en doute dans une publication que le texte du Magnificat ait été prononcé par la Vierge elle-même.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

175

Monsignor Vescovo il 16 di questo mese»). Il propose donc de le nommer, pour satisfaire, dans une certaine mesure, le désir exprimé par le cardinal défunt. Mais visiblement, Pie XI et Gasparri n’étaient pas de cet avis-là. Un autre document le prouve. Il s’agit d’une très brève note manuscrite, non datée, qui se révèle être de la main de Gasparri41. C’est très probablement sur la base de cette note que la décision fut prise. Gasparri y rangea les différents candidats qu’il considérait comme valables et leurs attribuait des étoiles. Recevaient trois étoiles, dans l’ordre, Mgr Heylen de Namur et Mgr Van Roey. Deux étoiles étaient attribuées à Mgr Van Cauwenberg. Sans étoiles, le dominicain Rutten et, quelque peu surprenant car c’est l’unique fois qu’on retrouve son nom cité, Mgr Deploige. À noter que le nom de Ladeuze ne figure même pas sur cette shortlist. Ensuite, à côté des candidats aux trois étoiles, on retrouve aussi quelques remarques. Pour Heylen, est écrit, probablement sur base du rapport de Micara: «vecchio. Si teme il Segretario». Pour Van Roey, il est précisé: «Dotto. Prudente. Forse non eloq[uente]. Vissuto negli studi e meno nel mondo». Le mot «Vallone» est barré et corrigé en «Fiammingo». Et puis un ajout, peut-être décisif, «Fiammingo, ma non compromessosi»: Flamand, mais sans s’être compromis. VI. VAN ROEY NOMMÉ C’est ainsi qu’à la mi-mars 1926, avec une rapidité qui peut étonner aujourd’hui, Mgr Van Roey fut nommé archevêque de Malines. Son intelligence et sa culture théologique, le fait qu’il ait travaillé étroitement avec le cardinal Mercier et qu’il soit très estimé dans et au-delà de l’archidiocèse, avaient joué un rôle important dans la décision. Mais c’est surtout le fait qu’il soit Flamand de souche et de culture, sans être excessif, qui s’était révélé décisif. Ainsi, le Saint-Siège poursuivait sa politique d’équilibre délicat dans la question flamande. Il ne s’agissait pas de suivre les thèses de ceux qui prêchaient la confrontation pure et dure visà-vis des revendications flamandes, même si c’était le Roi qui s’en faisait l’avocat. Car, en fin de compte, malgré tout son prestige et son savoirfaire, Mercier avait échoué à calmer les esprits. La piste Ladeuze, prônée par le Roi, Beyens et quelques autres, n’aurait fait qu’exciter les esprits. 41. Dans AAES, Belgio-LussemburgoIV, pos. 173-174, fasc. 29, f. 30.

176

J. DE VOLDER

Le choix de Van Roey s’imposait: Flamand, mais très équilibré dans ses positions. Au nouvel ambassadeur de Belgique, Maximilien-Henri van Ypersele de Strihou, à peine arrivé à son poste à Rome, le cardinal Gasparri expliqua la ligne choisie par le Saint Siège: «nous avons toujours conseillé, à ceux qui en désiraient de chercher, à obtenir le plus de concessions possibles, jusqu’à une limite qui ne doit pas être franchie: la désunion nationale». Et le cardinal avait continué, avec un visage peiné: «Que voulez-vous que deviennent quelques millions de Flamands isolés en Europe? Que voulez-vous qu’ils fassent avec leur langue flamande?42». Immédiatement, avec une lettre datée le 7 mars, le Premier Ministre Prosper Poullet donna personnellement des instructions à l’ambassadeur. Selon lui, pour le choix du successeur de Mercier trois lignes directrices étaient essentielles. Il devait s’agir d’un candidat qui, premièrement, maniait «à fond la langue flamande», et, deuxièmement, jouissait de l’autorité et de la confiance nécessaire, «en raison de qu’il est flamand d’âme et de cœur», pour réprimer les écarts éventuels des prêtres, «notamment en matière de séparatisme». Il est assez évident que Poullet avait en tête Mgr Heylen de Namur, puis que la troisième directive concernait la nomination d’un prêtre wallon, comme évêque de Namur, dans le cas où Heylen serait nommé à Malines (clairement pour éviter un déséquilibre au sein du collège épiscopal). En effet, les milieux belges à Rome étaient en ce moment convaincus que la nomination de Heylen était imminente et cet hypothèse semblait plaire à Poullet43. Dans ses colloques avec le Secrétaire d’État Gasparri et Mgr Francesco Borgongini-Duca, secrétaire de la Congrégation des Affaires Ecclésiastiques extraordinaires, l’ambassadeur belge ne trouva aucune résistance quant au deux premiers points, mais quand il évoqua le nom de Heylen, ses interlocuteurs faisaient preuve d’une grande réserve. Qu’est-ce que cela voulait dire? «Faut-il interpréter ce double silence comme le désir de ne pas entrer dans les vues exposées sous le numéro 3 comme la dérobade de quelqu’un qui ne veut pas se laisser surprendre et confirmer une nouvelle qui court sous le manteau, ou comme un éloignement pour la candidature de monseigneur Heylen? Il m’est difficile de me prononcer...», écrivit van Ypersele de Strihou.

42. Van Ypersele de Strihou à Vandervelde, Rome, 3 mars 1926, dans AMAEB, Corresp. Pol. Lég. St. Siège, 1926. 43. Van Ypersele de Strihou à Poullet, Rome, 12 mars 1926, dans Papiers Prosper Poullet, 132, conservés au Kadoc.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

177

En réalité, la décision était déjà prise. Le 15 mars, l’ambassadeur fut averti que Van Roey avait été choisi. Il en informa aussitôt, par télégramme chiffré, le Ministre Vandervelde qui, à son tour, transmit l’information au Premier Ministre et au Palais Royal44. Le lendemain, l’ambassadeur belge eut l’occasion de s’entretenir personnellement avec le Secrétaire d’État d’abord, et le Pape ensuite, au sujet du choix de Van Roey. Gasparri souligna que la décision était le fruit d’une longue réflexion, sur base «d’une documentation aussi ample que sûre». Selon lui, Van Roey réunissait exactement les conditions que le Gouvernement pouvait exiger d’un Archevêque de Malines, à savoir qu’il maniait la langue flamande et que, flamand de cœur et d’esprit, il jouisse par là de la confiance et de l’autorité nécessaire pour réprimer, s’ils venaient à se produire, les écarts des membres du clergé, notamment en matière de séparatisme45.

À ceux qui craignaient que Van Roey soit trop doux, Gasparri répondait avec un proverbe bien en vogue à Rome: «on attrape plus de mouches avec du miel qu’avec du vinaigre». Il soulignait aussi que la douceur n’excluait pas la fermeté. Et selon les renseignements parvenus, «il n’y a rien qui puisse laisser croire qu’il manquera de cette dernière qualité», avait ajouté Gasparri. Pie XI, quant à lui, tint un monologue devant l’ambassadeur et son épouse et motiva le choix de Van Roey en disant qu’il fallait un successeur, qui était à la fois dans la ligne de Mercier et qui était différent de celui-ci: «Nous avions à cœur de trouver au regretté cardinal Mercier un successeur qui s’inspirait de son œuvre, tout en ménageant une situation qui, faute d’ailleurs de ménagement, rendrait pour ainsi dire impossible le ministère d’un nouvel archevêque»46. Le cardinal Gasparri dira encore par la suite, de manière encore plus lapidaire: «Un évêque flamand pour contenir les excès du flamingantisme, n’est-ce pas la meilleure des combinaisons?»47.

44. «Saint Père a nommé chanoine capitulaire Van Roey archevêque Malines et m’en a informé personnellement aujourd’hui. Nomination paraîtra ce soir presse Vatican». Télégramme chiffré du 15 mars 1926, van Ypersele à Vandervelde, dans AMAEB, Corresp. Pol. Lég. St. Siège, 1926 et aussi dans AGR, PapiersPoullet, 158 quater, correspondance avec van Ypersele. 45. Van Ypersele de Strihou à Vandervelde, 16 mars 1926, dans AMAEB, Corresp. Pol. Lég. St. Siège, 1926. À noter que Gasparri utilisait exactement les mêmes mots que Poullet avait utilisés dans ses instructions à l’ambassadeur. 46. Ibid. 47. Van Ypersele de Strihou à Vandervelde, 21 mai 1926, dans AMAEB, Corresp. Pol. Lég. St. Siège, 1926. Cité dans BOUDENS, KardinaalMercier (n. 29), p. 263.

178

J. DE VOLDER

Comme c’est le cas lors d’une telle nomination, les premières réactions en Belgique furent unanimement positives. Le Roi, informé aussitôt par le nonce, se félicita de la nomination. Ladeuze aussi exprima son appréciation et se disait heureux du fait que le nouvel archevêque ne soit pas wallon. Les milieux flamands accueillirent la nomination avec enthousiasme48. Van Roey fut consacré archevêque de Malines le 25 avril 1926. Ainsi, débutait un épiscopat qui durera 35 ans. Ce long règne s’étendait, au niveau politique belge, sur une période mouvementée avec la crise de la démocratie, la deuxième guerre mondiale et une nouvelle occupation allemande, la question royale, la guerre scolaire et, au niveau ecclésial, correspondait à une période de gloire et de puissance du catholicisme belge, très influent au niveau social et culturel. Une période associée aujourd’hui à ce qu’on appelle, avec une belle expression néerlandaise, «het Rijke Roomse leven». Quant à la question flamande, Van Roey ne put pas, comme son prédécesseur, éviter certains excès parmi les catholiques, y compris les dérives d’une partie non négligeable d’entre eux vers les idées de l’Ordre nouveau qui se répandrait bientôt en Europe. C’est une autre histoire qui mériterait des recherches approfondies, sur base des Archives romaines du Pontificat de Pie XI, dans l’attente de l’ouverture de celles du Pontificat de Pie XII. Cet article a permis de développer, sur base d’une documentation inexploitée jusqu’aujourd’hui, les considérations qui ont amené le Pape Pie XI à nommer Mgr Van Roey comme archevêque de Malines. La question flamande y fut déterminante. Elle était perçue à Rome, avant tout, comme un danger pour l’unité, l’autorité et l’influence politique de l’Église catholique en Belgique, plutôt donc comme une question politique que comme une question de justice sociale. À Rome, s’il y avait aussi incontestablement une certaine compréhension vis-à-vis des revendications des Flamands, connus comme une population plus catholique que les Wallons, on se demandait comment en contenir les excès et en limiter les risques. Pour ce faire le Saint-Siège jugea primordial, après le très francophile Mercier, très apprécié par l’establishment belge et au niveau international, mais contesté par les nationalistes flamands, de nommer un «vrai» Flamand à Malines. Dans ce domaine, le Pape ne se montra pas prêt à suivre l’avis du Souverain belge, même quand celui prétendit s’appuyer sur les préférences du cardinal défunt lui-même. Tout porte à croire que le Pape lui fit même remarquer qu’il n’apprécia guère l’immixtion du Roi au sujet de la décision à prendre qui relevait 48. Ph. VAN ISACKER, TussenStaatenVolk, Anvers, Sheed and Ward, 1953, pp. 78-79.

LA SUCCESSION DE MERCIER ET LA NOMINATION DE VAN ROEY

179

exclusivement des compétences du Saint-Siège. L’histoire de cette nomination permet d’évaluer une fois encore, comment le privilège romain de nommer de manière autonome les évêques catholiques, peut parfois contribuer à surmonter les logiques locales et nationales ou à les appréhender différemment que ceux qui détiennent le pouvoir. Finalement, la vraie alternative pour Van Roey n’était pas en premier lieu, comme on le croyait jusqu’aujourd’hui, Van Cauwenbergh, jugé trop autoritaire et trop peu aimé, mais bien l’évêque expérimenté de Namur, Heylen, qui avait aussi le soutien du Premier Ministre Poullet. Mais, le Pape se laissa convaincre par le raisonnement bien réfléchi et solidement étoffé de Micara, qui privilégia sans hésitations le choix de Van Roey. L’avis pondéré du nonce apostolique fut finalement suivi sur toute la ligne. Faculté de Théologie et de Sciences religieuses KU Leuven Sint-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgique [email protected]

Jan DE VOLDER

RELIGIOUS ORDERS ABROAD AND AT HOME

UNE PAGE OUBLIÉE DANS L’HISTOIRE DES SEMAINES DE MISSIOLOGIE DE LOUVAIN LES ORIGINES ET LES DÉBUTS AU THÉOLOGAT DES PÈRES DE SCHEUT EN 1923 ET 1924

I. INTRODUCTION Les Semaines de missiologie de Louvain qui se tenaient de 1923 à 1975, avec une rupture de 1939 à 1946, ont été bien étudiées et contextualisées par des historiens tels que Luc Courtois et Jean Pirotte1 ou encore An Vandenberghe2. Par leurs contributions, on sait que la naissance de la missiologie catholique devrait être considérée comme l’aiguillon de la recherche ethno-linguistique. Ainsi les Semaines de missiologie étaient bien les successeurs de la première et deuxième Semaines d’ethnologie religieuse qui se tinrent à Louvain en 1912 et 19133. Néanmoins les débuts de cette entreprise missiologique restent ou bien décrits très vaguement ou bien mal compris voire même datés fautivement4. 1. L. COURTOIS – J. PIROTTE, Prélude.Louvainetl’ethnologiereligieuse:DesSemaines d’ethnologie religieuse de Louvain aux Semaines de missiologie, dans Fr. LAUGRAND – O. SERVAIS (éds), Dumissionnaireàl’anthropologue:Enquêtesurunelonguetradition en compagnie de Michael Singleton, Paris, Karthala, 2012, 13-40 (sur les débuts des Semaines de missiologie de Louvain, voir p. 28). 2. A. VANDENBERGHE, Beyond Pierre Charles: The Emergence of Belgian Missiology Refined, dans C. DUJARDIN – Cl. PRUDHOMME (éds), Mission&Science:MissiologyRevised. Missiologierevisitée,1850-1940, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2015, 151-169. 3. R. AUBERT, AuxoriginesdesSemainesd’ethnologiereligieuse:LecardinalMercier et la curie romaine, dans Studi in onore di Lorenzo Bedeschi (Fonti e Documenti, 14), Urbino, Istituto di storia dell’Università di Urbino, 1958, vol. 2, 581-622; L. COURTOIS, La première Semaine d’ethnologie religieuse à Louvain en 1912: Les débuts difficiles d’une démarche progressiste sur fond de crise moderniste, dans O. SERVAIS – G. VAN ’T SPIJKER (éds), AnthropologieetmissiologieXIXe-XXesiècle:Entreconnivenceetrivalité, Paris, Karthala, 2004, 95-118. 4. COURTOIS – PIROTTE, Prélude (n. 1), p. 28: «C’est le 10 septembre 1923 que s’ouvrit à Louvain, dans la maison des scheutistes, la première Semaine de missiologie, animée par le jésuite A. Lallemand. …/… La première semaine de Louvain en 1923 avait porté sur ‘Les méthodes d’apostolat et l’organisation des missions’. La deuxième en 1924 traitait d’un double problème: d’une part, ‘La propaganda protestante’ et d’autre part, ‘La question scolaire’»; VANDENBERGHE, Beyond Pierre Charles (n. 2), p. 162: «The first missiological week was held in 1919, around the same time that Dom Edouard Neut had started to enlarge the scope of the Benedictine BulletindesMissions. The participants were missionaries from different Belgian mission congregations. The practical organization was initially in the hands of the Mission Society of Scheut, while the discussion sessions were presided over by the Jesuit Albert Lallemand».

184

D. VANYSACKER

Comment expliquer cette page oubliée dans l’histoire des Semaines de missiologie de Louvain? II. LA PREMIÈRE SEMAINE DE MISSIOLOGIE EN 1923 Ce n’est pas que les sources fassent défaut. D’abord on trouve dans le compte rendu de la troisième Semaine de missiologie de Louvain, édité en 1925, une introduction écrite par le jésuite Polydore Meulenyzer, missionnaire au Kwango (Congo Belge), sur les origines de la Semaine de missiologie de Louvain: Narrer les origines d’une idée est chose malaisée. Au reste, le germe n’intéresse guère le public avant qu’il ait brisé sa gaine et que par une fissure du sol il soit venu prendre sa place au soleil. C’est en septembre 1922, lors du Congrès d’Ethnologie religieuse tenu à Tilbourg [sic] que surgit l’idée de la Semaine de Missiologie. Un des éminents directeurs de cette Semaine d’ethnologie ayant déclaré très nettement qu’elle ne s’occupait pas du problème de l’apostolat chrétien, la Semaine de missiologie avait du même coup le droit et le devoir d’exister. S. Ém. Le Cardinal Mercier voulut bien lui accorder sa bénédiction paternelle et Sa Sainteté Pie XI lui octroyait, la même année, sa charte solennelle, par une lettre autographe pleine de la plus grande bienveillance. Le 10 septembre 1923 s’ouvrait dans la grande salle du théologat de Scheut, à Louvain, sous la présidence d’honneur de S.G. Mgr Janssens, vicaire apostolique de Mongolie Orientale, la première séance du Congrès missiologique. Assemblée fraternelle, véritable réunion de famille: soutanes de toutes couleurs, barbes de toutes nuances, teints brunis sous tous les climats, mais cœurs unis dans une même vocation et enthousiasmés d’un même idéal, d’un même amour! La réalité dépassait les plus légitimes espérances. Cette Semaine de Louvain, initiative du P. A. Lallemand S.J. qui en fut du reste l’infatigable organisateur, était bien de nécessité et d’intérêt très actuels! Le résumé des rapports de la première Semaine fut distribué et envoyé dans les missions5.

Une des sources les plus pertinentes pour résoudre l’énigme des origines des Semaines de missiologie de Louvain, mais vraisemblablement oubliée dans les recherches jusqu’aujourd’hui, est une brochure d’annonce imprimée de 31 pages, intitulée Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre 1923. Louvain, Théologat de Scheut, 19, Rue des Flamands6. Dans ce 5. P. MEULENYZER, Introduction:LesoriginesdelaSemainedemissiologiedeLouvain, dans Les aspirations indigènes et les missions: Compte rendu de la troisième SemainedelamissiologiedeLouvain (Museum Lessianum – Section Missiologique, 4), Louvain, Éditions du Museum Lessianum, 1925, 9-13, ici pp. 11-12. 6. Il existe différents exemplaires conservés de cette brochure. À Louvain, on en trouve, entre autres, deux exemplaires à la Bibliothèque Maurits Sabbe KU Leuven (3-022557/A et 210C41) et deux exemplaires au KADOC KU Leuven (KX113519230911 et KBRB23260).

LE THÉOLOGAT DES PÈRES DE SCHEUT EN 1923 ET 1924

185

document bilingue français-néerlandais, on apprend que le pape Pie XI avait été contacté par le cardinal Mercier pour exprimer sa joie et ses encouragements aux organisateurs de la Semaine, ce qui s’était concrétisé par une lettre autographe du 25 juillet 1923. La lettre, écrite en latin, fut publiée entièrement dans la brochure7. Le pape soulignait qu’il ne saurait pas, comme il a tant à cœur les missions catholiques, rester étranger à rien de ce qui se faisait par le monde en vue de leur développement. De plus, écrit-il, quiconque examine les sujets d’étude inscrits à l’ordre du jour du congrès, s’apercevra aisément que son prédécesseur Benoît XV et luimême ont fait à plusieurs reprises des problèmes de ce genre l’objet de leurs préoccupations. Le pape énumérait quelques-unes des questions les plus importantes qui seraient mises à l’étude à Louvain: principes directeurs de l’apostolat; moyens d’attirer et amener au Christ les infidèles, suivant les différences de pays, de race et de culture; système mieux adapté qui doit présider à la fondation et à l’organisation de nouvelles communautés chrétiennes; conduite à tenir par les missionnaires envers les autorités gouvernementales de leurs territoires respectifs et les ministres des sectes rivales. Le pape était assuré que si de très nombreux missionnaires accouraient de tous côtés à Louvain et mettaient en commun les leçons de leur longue expérience, la discussion de ces problèmes grouperait une abondance de connaissances que les jeunes recrues pourraient appliquer dans la pratique de la vie de mission8. 7. Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, pp. 3-4. 8. «DilectoFilioNostroDesideratoS.R.E.Presb.Card.MercierArchiepiscopoMechliniensiPiusP.P.XIDilecteFiliNoster,salutemetapostolicambenedictionem.Officiosissimam epistulam, quam, tua ipsius commendatione fultam, ad Nos dederunt religiosi ii viri, quibusconstatConciliumapparandohabendoqueproximeLovaniiMissionaliumConventui, libenter perlegimus, eiusdemque et sententiam et summam libentius quidem probavimus. Neque enim alienum a Nobis esse queat, ut sumus catholicarum Missionum studiosissimi, quicquidubiquegentium,fitprovehendisearumutilitatibus.Immoetiamquisquisconsideraveritdequibusrerumcapitibusibidemvidendumsit,isfacileanimadvertet,hauddissimilia proximodecessoriNostroatqueNobismetipsiscuraeiterumatqueiterumfuisse.Etenim,a LovaniensiConsilioistoproposita,haec,praeteralia,indeliberationemcadent:quaevidelicetsintprincipia,quibusapostolatusregitur;quopactoinfidelesadChristumallicietperduci, pro locorum,stirpiumingeniorumque varietate,queant; quo aptiore rerum temperationeconstituiatqueordinarinovaechristianorumcommunitatesdebeant;quaeagendiratio missionalibuscumsuicuiusqueterritoriigubernatoribusaemularumquesectarumadministris sitadhibenda.Quoingenereprocertohabemus,siquidemmissionalesundiquefrequentissimiLovaniumcoeantet,quaediuexperiendodidicerint,incommuneconferant,foreuttalis indeexsistataccongeraturcognitionumcopia,quamadusumtransferreMissionumtirones percommodepossint.Iisigiturmissionalibus,quiadindictumConventumseconferent,ipse esto,DilecteFiliNoster,testisNostraeergaeosbenevolentiae;quorumlaboresutsaluberrimosafferantfructus,efficiatapostolicabenedictio,quamtibiiisqueuniversis,caelestium munerumauspicem,amantissimeinDominoimpertimus.DatumRomaeapudSanctumPetrum dieXXVmensisIuliiannoMDCCCCXXIII,PontificatusNostrisecundo.PIUSP.P.XI».

186

D. VANYSACKER

Le comité organisateur9 était constitué de Louis De Clercq (1882-1969), missionnaire de Scheut, faisant fonction de président10; Oger Ulrix (18741954), père blanc, vice-président11; P.G. Mahau, père du Saint Esprit, trésorier; Ignace Baufays (1871-1945), franciscain, secrétaire12; et Albert Lallemand (1890-1966), jésuite, secrétaire-adjoint13. Dans le programme, sous le titre «Invitation aux missionnaires», on apprend les visées et le public cible de l’entreprise14. Tout d’abord, la Semaine de missiologie voulait répondre à un besoin des missions lointaines et au désir général des missionnaires de retour en Europe. Pour les organisateurs, il importait «de dégager nettement les principes de l’apostolat, d’étudier les méthodes de conversion, l’organisation des chrétientés, l’attitude à prendre envers les gouvernements et les sectes rivales». Ils étaient conscients que malgré la diversité des missions, et en partie à cause de cette diversité même, les études missiologiques qu’ils projetaient, seront de la plus grande utilité. Les organisateurs faisaient remarquer que le travail personnel des membres les amènerait à mettre au point leur acquis personnel; la vue des œuvres variées entreprises dans les différents pays pourrait être pleine de suggestions fécondes: le contact fraternel avec d’autres missionnaires était de nature à provoquer une collaboration efficace. L’étude doctrinale de l’apostolat précisait l’idéal, mettait en lumière les principes directeurs, et donnait au zèle plus d’assurance et de sérénité. Enfin, les organisateurs ne doutaient pas de 9. Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, p. 6. 10. De Clercq partait en 1908 pour la première fois au Congo Belge. En 1921, il publiait la première grammaire du Kiyombe (voir, entre autres, D. VERHELST – H. DANIËLS, Scheut vroeger en nu, 1862-1987: Geschiedenis van de Congregatie van het Onbevlekt HartvanMariaC.I.C.M. [Ancorae, 10], Leuven, Universitaire Pers, 1991, pp. 206, 216, 220). 11. Ulrix fut le premier provincial de la province belge des spiritains (1920-1924), voir: Witte Paters – Belgische provincie (1943-2008), dans ODIS: http://www.odis.be/ lnk/OR_995 [consulté le 28/12/2017]; H. BAILLIEN, InmemoriamE.P.OgerUlrix, dans HetOudeLandvanLoon 10 (1955) 144. 12. Henry Beaufays, docteur en théologie et ancien préfet apostolique de l’île de Rhodes, publiait un nombre incroyable de livres et d’articles (voir, entre autres, www. idref.fr/08331346X [consulté le 28/12/2017] et HenriBeaufays, dans ODIS: http://www. odis.be/lnk/PS_2034 [consulté le 28/12/2017]). 13. Contrairement à ce qu’écrit An VANDENBERGHE (Beyond Pierre Charles [n. 2], p. 162), le jésuite Lallemand n’était pas âgé quand il fut remplacé par son confrère Pierre Charles en 1925 comme secrétaire(-adjoint) des Semaines de missiologie. Lallemand, qui avait 35 ans, à savoir sept ans de moins que Charles, repartait en Inde, où il travaillait entre autres comme recteur du collège Saint-Xavier de Calcutta (Th. NÈVE, Vingt-cinqans d’efforts, dans CatéchèseetMissions:RapportsetcompterendudelaXXVeSemainede missiologie Louvain 1955 [Museum Lessianum – Section Missiologique, 34], Louvain, Desclée de Brouwer, 1956, p. 12). 14. Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, p. 5.

LE THÉOLOGAT DES PÈRES DE SCHEUT EN 1923 ET 1924

187

l’influence de cette Semaine sur la formation et l’initiative future des aspirants missionnaires. Le public qu’ils avaient en vue, était exclusif, mais avec une attention portée à l’équilibre hommes-femmes: Pour assurer les fruits de ces études, la Semaine n’est ouverte qu’aux Missionnaires, anciens et aspirants; dans le même but, elle a demandé la participation des Sœurs missionnaires, puisqu’elles ont une compétence hors de pair à certains égards15.

Le programme général de missiologie nous fournit un aperçu très intéressant des idéaux qui animaient les pionniers de la Semaine missiologique à Louvain16. Ils envisageaient trois grandes sections dans leur projet missiologique: 1) la doctrine; 2) l’histoire et 3) la pratique. Dans la section «doctrine», ils désiraient avant tout mettre en évidence la raison d’être de l’évangélisation et la fin des missions. En concertation avec l’encyclique Maximum illud du pape Benoît XV (30 novembre 1919), ils soulignaient que la politique et le nationalisme n’avaient rien à voir dans le travail pour l’extension du règne de Jésus Christ 17. Ils optaient clairement pour l’évangélisation et non pas pour la colonisation. La fondation de l’Église indigène était un but central. Les autres accents doctrinaux portaient sur le naturel et le surnaturel dans les conversions, la conscience païenne et les questions de morale et de droit canon. La section «histoire» devait mettre en évidence l’œuvre des apôtres, l’évangélisation de l’Europe et les anciennes missions de l’Inde et de la Chine, de l’Afrique, de l’Amérique et du Proche Orient. La section «pratique» s’avérait la plus élaborée. Il est clair que les organisateurs voulaient surtout réfléchir sur six branches concrètes de la pratique missionnaire. Tout en concertation avec la réalité des missions après la Grande Guerre, ils s’accordaient bien avec les idées missiologiques novatrices ayant émergé dans le monde missionnaire catholique. Pendant l’Entredeux-guerres, l’ecclésiologie traditionnelle fut remise en question par la reconnaissance d’une certaine valeur de salut présente dans des religions non-catholiques. Le paternalisme du missionnaire était rejeté et subordonné au but principal de son activité missionnaire: la fondation d’une Église locale et la formation d’un clergé indigène. Le modèle d’ancienne chrétienté cédait peu à peu la place à une pastorale de «nouvelle chrétienté», caractérisée par une reconnaissance de l’autonomie du temporel, par une plus grande ouverture à un monde qu’il faut pénétrer pour le consacrer au Christ. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid., pp. 7-8. 17. Sur l’encyclique, voir entre autres, Cl. SOETENS (ed.), L’Encyclique Maximum illud:Introductionetnotes (Cahiers de la RTL, 9; Recueil des archives Vincent Lebbe, 3), Louvain-la-Neuve, Université catholique de Louvain, 1983.

188

D. VANYSACKER

La première branche, «méthode de conversion», étudiait les conditions de travail, les œuvres d’approche et de conquête, et leur rendement, ainsi que les mouvements de conversion, leurs facteurs, obstacles et résultats. La branche «organisation religieuse» abordait l’enseignement religieux avec ses œuvres, méthodes et manuels. Cinq points étaient concernés: le catéchuménat (l’obligation, la durée et le programme), les catéchistes et instituteurs (leur recrutement, formation, salaire et rendement), le clergé séculier (leur recrutement, formation, position vis-à-vis du missionnaire européen), le clergé régulier (avec la question: une congrégation autochtone ou bien européenne?) et finalement l’adaptation locale des pratiques de piété. La branche «organisation scolaire» était divisée en trois points. La pédagogie devait s’intéresser à la psychologie indigène, à l’enseignement autochtone et adapter l’enseignement européen. Le système scolaire devait être clair sur le programme et la graduation, les manuels, l’inspection, le minerval et les subsides. Le troisième point soulevait des questions spéciales comme l’éducation des mulâtres, celle des orphelins, l’éducation morale et religieuse des élèves non catholiques et l’attitude vis-à-vis des dialectes. La branche «organisation sociale» envisageait la nécessité des œuvres sociales dans les missions et prévoyait comme œuvres concrètes, entre autres, des hôpitaux, lazarets, dispensaires, maternités; des banques, coopératives, œuvre des émigrants; des écoles industrielles, cercles d’études, et la presse. La branche «organisation financière» développait la nécessité, l’importance relative et les inconvénients des ressources des missions et la contribution locale, ainsi que la distribution des ressources. La branche finale «relations extérieures» concernait les rapports entre les missions et les gouvernements européens et indigènes avec une attention pour la situation de fait et l’idéal; l’attitude des missionnaires et des catholiques vis-à-vis des blancs et des protestants; et particulièrement l’attitude des missionnaires catholiques vis-à-vis de la propagande protestante. L’élaboration concrète de ce défi missiologique se manifesta clairement dans les discours des intervenants de la première Semaine de missiologie autour du thème «Les méthodes d’apostolat et l’organisation des missions»18. Le mardi 11 septembre, après la messe des missionnaires et le discours d’ouverture, le franciscain Beaufays parla des méthodes d’apostolat de saint Paul19. Dans l’après-midi, il fut suivi par le missionnaire de Scheut et professeur en histoire ecclésiastique Jozef Calbrecht (18861977) qui intervenait sur le rôle du Saint-Siège, la Congrégation de la 18. Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, pp. 13-14 (compte rendu). 19. Ibid., pp. 15-16 (compte rendu).

LE THÉOLOGAT DES PÈRES DE SCHEUT EN 1923 ET 1924

189

Propagande et les missions20. Le jésuite Pierre Dahmen, missionnaire à Maduré, conclut la première journée en traitant de Roberto de Nobili et de la méthode d’adaptation aux Indes au dix-septième siècle21. Le mercredi 12 septembre, la session matinale accueillit trois interventions: le bénédictin de l’abbaye de Saint-André et professeur d’histoire ecclésiastique Michel Van der Waeter sur les méthodes d’évangélisation au 7e siècle en Europe22; sœur Marie, franciscaine, missionnaire de Marie, sur les religieuses indigènes aux Indes23; et le lazariste Vincent Lebbe (1877-1940) sur le clergé indigène en Chine24. L’après-midi fut entièrement dévolue aux assomptionnistes. Fulbert (Auguste-Marcelin) Cayré (1884-1971)25, missionnaire en Turquie, parla des méthodes d’apostolat dans le Proche-Orient26, tandis que son confrère Auguste (Joseph-Auguste) Maniglier (1874-1958) se concentra sur les méthodes d’apostolat en Russie27. Au matin du jeudi 13 septembre, les trois intervenants, à savoir le missionnaire de Scheut Louis De Clercq, le missionnaire d’Afrique P. Van den Bulcke et le père des Sacrés-Cœurs (picpus) Jean-Baptiste Velghe (1857-1939)28, missionnaire aux Îles Marquises, traitèrent respectivement des catéchistes et des catéchuménats au Mayombe (Congo belge)29, des catéchuménats au lac Albert (Congo belge)30 et des catéchistes en Polynésie31. Pendant la session de l’aprèsmidi, deux sœurs missionnaires de Notre Dame d’Afrique, à savoir sœur Pauline et sœur Christian, abordèrent la question de la femme noire et 20. Romeendemissien, dans Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, p. 16 (compte rendu). 21. Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, pp. 17-18 (compte rendu). 22. Ibid., p. 19 (compte rendu). 23. Ibid., p. 20 (compte rendu). 24. Ibid., p. 13 (sans compte rendu). Sur Lebbe, voir entre autres, Cl. SOETENS, Inventaire des archives Vincent Lebbe (Cahiers de la RTL, 4), Louvain-la-Neuve, Université catholique de Louvain, 1982; J.-P. WIEST, TheLegacyofVincentLebbe, dans International Bulletin of Mission Research 23 (1999) 33-37; Freddy Lebbe, dans ODIS: http:// www.odis.be/lnk/PS_47796 [consulté le 28/12/2017]. 25. Pour une biographie, voir http://www.assomption.org/fr/mediatheque/necrologies/ fulbert-auguste-marcellin-cayre-1884-1971 [consulté le 28/12/2017]. 26. Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, pp. 21-22 (compte rendu). 27. Ibid., p. 14 (sans compte rendu). Sur Maniglier, voir, entre autres http://www. assomption.org/fr/mediatheque/necrologies/auguste-joseph-auguste-maniglier-1874-1958 [consulté le 28/12/2017]. 28. Voir A. COOLS, RépertoiredesArchivesdesPèresdessacrés-Cœursconcernant l’Océanie, dans JournaldelaSociétédesOcéanistes 25 (1969) 345-357, ici p. 349. 29. DekatechistenendekatechumenateninMayombe, dans Semainedemissiologie 11,12,13,14septembre1923, pp. 22-23 (compte rendu). 30. Het katechumenaat in ’t Albertmeer, dans Semaine de missiologie 11, 12, 13, 14septembre1923, pp. 23-24 (compte rendu). 31. Semainedemissiologie11,12,13,14septembre1923, p. 24 (compte rendu).

190

D. VANYSACKER

de la femme Kabyle en Tunisie32. La dernière journée de la première Semaine s’ouvrit par une intervention sur la méthodologie spéciale de la religion au Congo par le frère de la Charité Gabriel33. Il fut suivi par le rédemptoriste P. De Keyser, qui s’entretint de l’éducation et de l’hérédité au Bas Congo34, et puis par la chanoinesse de saint Augustin, dame M. Bernard, qui aborda le thème des orphelinats et asiles dans le sud de l’Inde35. L’après-midi vit se succéder le franciscain Cassien Kleinenbroich, missionnaire à Hou-pe en Chine, qui souligna l’importance de l’œuvre de la Sainte Enfance36, ainsi que le jésuite-organisateur Albert Lallemand qui fit le point des œuvres sociales en missions37. Le tout fut conclu par une session synthétique38. Une autre source contient et décrit le même programme de la première Semaine de missiologie, à savoir le numéro d’octobre 1923 de la revue néerlandophone Kerk en Missie, organe de l’Union missionnaire du clergé (Priester-Missiebond)39. La revue avait déjà annoncé l’initiative louvaniste dans son numéro d’avril de la même année40.

III. LA

DEUXIÈME

SEMAINE DE MISSIOLOGIE EN 1924

La deuxième Semaine de missiologie fut organisée du 9 au 11 septembre 1924, toujours au théologat des missionnaires de Scheut à Louvain. On y abordait comme thèmes principaux la propagande protestante et la question scolaire41. Cette fois-ci, les organisateurs et participants reçurent une lettre du cardinal Willem Marinus van Rossum (18541932)42, rédemptoriste et préfet de la Congrégation de la Propagande,

32. Voir, respectivement, ibid., p. 25 et p. 26 (comptes rendus). 33. Ibid., p. 27 (compte rendu). 34. Ibid., p. 28 (compte rendu). 35. Ibid., pp. 29-30 (compte rendu). 36. Ibid., pp. 30-31 (compte rendu). 37. Ibid., p. 31 (compte rendu). 38. Lesaspirationsindigènesetlesmissions (n. 5), p. 14. 39. De Missiologische Week te Leuven, dans Kerk en Missie: Driemaandelijksch tijdschriftvoormissiekennisenmissie-actie.OrgaanvandenPriester-Missiebond 3/4 (1923) 140-145. 40. Missiewetenschap, dans KerkenMissie 3/2 (1923) 66-67. 41. P. VAN DEN EYNDE, Herdenkingsrede, dans CatéchèseetMissions (n. 13), 23-29, surtout p. 24. 42. Voir, entre autres, V. POELS – Th. SALEMINK – H. DE VALK (éds), LifewithaMission:CardinalWillemMarinusvanRossumC.Ss.R.(1854-1932), dans Trajecta.Religie, cultuurensamenlevingindeNederlanden 19-20/1-2 (2010-2011) 3-208.

LE THÉOLOGAT DES PÈRES DE SCHEUT EN 1923 ET 1924

191

missive écrite le 5 septembre 1924 à Carlsbad43. Le cardinal y exprimait sa gratitude en voyant que la Semaine allait aborder le grand problème de ce qu’il nommait «l’invasion protestante». Pour Van Rossum, ce problème était un de ceux qui le préoccupaient le plus, vu le petit nombre de missionnaires catholiques, le manque de moyens matériels de ceux-ci et ce qu’il appelait «les suites funestes du travail des missionnaires protestants». Le cardinal se montrait également satisfait de constater que la deuxième Semaine mettait les fins et les principes religieux et surnaturels posés à l’activité missionnaire par l’encyclique Maximum illud comme point de départ et comme idéal de ses travaux, et qu’ils constituaient l’unique critère de leurs jugements et les uniques prémisses de leurs conclusions. Van Rossum mettait en exergue le fait que la Semaine de Louvain excluait de son travail «tout ce qui n’était pas digne d’une cause si haute, uniquement importante, bien au-dessus de tout autre intérêt: la politique et le nationalisme n’ont rien à voir dans le travail pour l’extension du règne de Jésus-Christ». Il finissait sa lettre en espérant que le congrès portera de grands fruits, celui, avant tout, d’exciter les missionnaires à se donner de plus en plus corps et âme et d’une manière toujours plus intelligente à leurs saints travaux apostoliques; ensuite qu’on s’applique plus encore à cultiver les vocations missionnaires et pas moins certes les vocations indigènes, à rendre toujours meilleurs les moyens et les méthodes d’enseignement, à donner une éducation parfaite selon leur nature et leur entourage aux peuples évangélisés; qu’on s’applique aussi de plus en plus à exciter les fidèles à la prière pour les missions et qu’on ne néglige nullement de recueillir les moyens matériels, selon les directions du Saint-Siège, de sorte que tout le peuple catholique, avec toutes les facultés dont il dispose, coopère à cette grande cause, et cela d’une manière autant que possible purement surnaturelle. Qu’on fasse bien comprendre à toutes les classes de la société catholique l’urgence et l’obligation d’étendre le règne de Jésus-Christ.

Selon le jésuite Meulenyzer, plus de 200 missionnaires, anciens et aspirants, suivirent la deuxième Semaine. La nouveauté était un élargissement du programme et l’obtention de la collaboration des savants d’Europe44. L’assomptionniste français Auguste (Joseph-Auguste) Maniglier (1874-1958) fut élu vice-président du comité organisateur45.

43. La lettre fut publiée dansLesaspirationsindigènesetlesmissions (n. 5), pp. 7-8. 44. MEULENYZER, Introduction (n. 5), p. 12. 45. VAN DEN EYNDE, Herdenkingsrede (n. 41), p. 24.

192

D. VANYSACKER

Les rapports présentés à la deuxième Semaine étaient au nombre de douze46. Après une introduction par le jésuite Lallemand, le père Aloïs Janssens (1887-1941), missionnaire de Scheut, étudia l’œuvre des missions chez les protestants. Le franciscain Sanders donna un aperçu historique sur le protestantisme et ses relations avec les missions, tandis que le jésuite Bourgeois se pencha sur la propagande protestante en Chine. P. Van den Eynde, missionnaire d’Afrique, parla de l’action protestante dans l’Uganda et au lac Albert. Le jésuite Pierre Charles (1883-1954) conclut le thème sur le protestantisme avec une contribution sur l’erreur des idolâtres47. La deuxième section était consacrée à la question scolaire. Le frère de la Charité, Gabriel, parla de la formation religieuse et morale des jeunes noirs. Sœur Pauline, missionnaire de Notre-Dame d’Afrique, étudia l’instruction des filles au Congo. Le père Vanneste, missionnaire d’Afrique, disserta sur la question des élèves non catholiques dans les écoles des missionnaires, tandis que la sœur Saint-Oger, missionnaire de Notre-Dame d’Afrique, présenta la situation des filles non-catholiques dans les ouvroirs de la Kabyle et du Sahara. Pour ce qui se rapportait aux missions asiatiques, le jésuite Pierre Dahmen développa le sujet de l’enseignement supérieur et les missions aux Indes Orientales, le marianiste De Bil exposa un exemple de cours de morale naturelle aux étudiants païens au Japon, tandis que le lazariste Vincent Lebbe se centra sur les étudiants chinois à l’étranger. Grâce au rapport du franciscain S. Wuyts publié dans KerkenMissie, on en sait désormais plus48. L’introduction par le jésuite Lallemand accentuait la nécessité d’une connaissance profonde de la missiologie par chaque missionnaire. Le but de la mission n’était pas de sauver des âmes, mais d’instituer une nouvelle Église dans les missions afin qu’elle puisse exister en elle-même avec des évêques et des prêtres indigènes. C’était le projet que le Saint-Siège avait en tête pour les missions. Néanmoins cette tâche n’était pas facilement à achever. Les défis étaient multiples, et plus compliqués les uns que les autres. La deuxième semaine se concentra donc sur deux d’entre eux. Pour ce qui avait trait aux protestants, Lallemand soulignait leurs points forts: ils avaient un grand nombre de missionnaires, ils pouvaient compter sur des fonds financiers immenses et ils excellaient ainsi 46. RapportsprésentésàladeuxièmeSemainedemissiologie,1924, dans Lesaspirationsindigènesetlesmissions (n. 5), p. 15. 47. Sur Pierre Charles et son importance pour la missiologie, voir entre autres, COURTOIS – PIROTTE, Prélude (n. 1), pp. 29-36 (avec une ample bibliographie); J. MASSON, Pierre Charles S.J. 1883-1954: Advocate of Acculturation, dans G.H. ANDERSON – R.T. COOTE – N.A. HORNER (éds), MissionLegacies:BiographicalStudiesofLeadersof theModernMissionaryMovement, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 1994, 410-415. 48. S. WUYTS, De tweede Missiecursus te Leuven, dans Kerk en Missie 5/1 (1925) 41-42.

LE THÉOLOGAT DES PÈRES DE SCHEUT EN 1923 ET 1924

193

sur le plan de l’enseignement et des institutions médicales. Mais la faiblesse des protestants était d’après le jésuite que leur travail s’apparentait plus à une œuvre de caractère culturel qu’évangélique. Selon lui, cette méthode n’aboutira finalement qu’à l’indifférence religieuse, au matérialisme et même à l’athéisme parmi les classes supérieures. Et celles-ci pourraient même dénoncer l’entrée des missionnaires dans leur pays une fois qu’elles auraient pris le pouvoir. Selon son opinion, les missionnaires catholiques devraient suivre les protestants sur le plan de l’éducation supérieure et les sciences, investir dans des hôpitaux, et demander aux laïcs intellectuels de collaborer sur tous ces terrains. Ainsi les catholiques pourront vraiment gagner la guerre qui décidera du destin de la religion dans les pays de mission. Car un jour les lettrés, les intellectuels et les classes supérieures des missions deviendront les chefs des pays. En insistant une fois de plus sur la nécessité de la missiologie comme objet d’étude pour les ex-missionnaires et pour les futurs missionnaires, le franciscain Wuyts notait que la deuxième Semaine de missiologie exprimait dans ses conclusions le vœu de lancer une revue internationale de missiologie49. IV. LA TROISIÈME SEMAINE DE MISSIOLOGIE EN 1925 Dans une lettre envoyée au Cardinal Mercier au nom du comité de la troisième Semaine de missiologie, Louis De Clercq et Polydore Meulenyzer souhaitaient la présence du cardinal à Louvain pour l’édition de 1925. Les pères revenaient sur «la sympathie que vous avez témoignée aux deux premières Semaines de missiologie». En annexe, ils lui faisaient parvenir en même temps une liste des rapports annoncés sur le thème central, à savoir les aspirations indigènes et les missions. Grâce à une annonce imprimée, on apprend que le comité invitait les missionnaires qui désiraient présenter un rapport à la troisième Semaine de missiologie les 26, 27 et 28 août 1925, à contacter le secrétariat avant le 30 juin50. Avant la tenue de la Semaine ellemême, la situation devait avoir changé, vu que le collège Saint-Pierre, situé à la Rue des Récollets, remplacerait finalement le théologat de Scheut en tant que siège de l’événement. L’adresse du secrétariat avait été modifiée: au lieu de la Rue des Flamands, 55 ou 59, il se situait dorénavant à la Rue

49. Selon Wuyts, on avait pris la revue DeStemvanSint-Antonius comme référence (ibid., p. 42). 50. Pour la lettre non datée et les annexes, voir Archives de l’Archevêché de Malines, Archive Mercier VII, 111.

194

D. VANYSACKER

des Récollets, 11. La composition et les fonctions du comité organisateur changeaient également. Le père blanc Oger Ulrix devenait le nouveau président; le missionnaire de Scheut Louis De Clercq et le lazariste Vincent Lebbe les vice-présidents; le père blanc Van den Eynde le trésorier; et les jésuites Pierre Charles et Polydore Meulenyzer respectivement secrétaire et secrétaire-adjoint. Cette Semaine autour des aspirations indigènes fut un succès, comptabilisant plus de quatre cent participants, entre autres des religieux et supérieurs généraux des congrégations diverses; des missionnaires de la Belgique, des Pays-Bas, du Luxembourg et de la France; des prêtres chinois et hindous. Quatre évêques et vicaires apostoliques suivirent ou intervinrent pendant les sessions: Andréa-Léonce-Joseph Eloy (1864-1947) des Missions Étrangères de Paris, vicaire apostolique de Vinh au Viêt Nam51; le jésuite Francis T. Roche (1879-1955), évêque de Tuticorin en Inde52; le dominicain Robert-Marie Constant Lagae (1882-1966), vicaire apostolique de Niangara/Uélé oriental au Congo Belge53; et le missionnaire de Scheut Natalis De Cleene (1870-1942), coadjuteur de Léopoldville54. Ce fut à partir de cette session que le nouveau secrétaire Charles dirigea les débats tout le long de la Semaine de 1925. Dans un article publié dans le BulletindesMissions55, le bénédictin Dom Edouard Neut (18901975)56 annonçait la publication des rapports de cette semaine dans un volume. À son avis, les lecteurs: y liront le superbe rapport du P. Charles, S.J., secrétaire de la Semaine de missiologie sur l’Église et les Aspirations Indigènes et sur l’attitude des 51. Voir, entre autres, sa notice biobibliographique sur le site des Archives des Missions Étrangères de Paris http://archives.mepasie.org/fr/notices/notices-biographiques/eloy [consulté le 28/12/2017]. 52. Voir, entre autres, http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/brochef.html [consulté le 28/12/2017]. 53. Voir, entre autres, VijftigjaardominikaneninCongo, Gent, Dominikanenklooster, 1962, pp. 20-29; M. CHEZA, Lagae(Robert-Marie;enreligionConstant), dans DHGE 29 (2004-2007) 1381-1382; M. STORME, Lagae (Robert-Marie, Constant), dans Belgische Overzee Biografie, vol. VII-B, Bruxelles, Koninklijke Academie voor Overzeese Wetenschappen, col. 229-232 (voir aussi http://www.kaowarsom.be/documents/bbom/ Tome_VIIb/Lagae.Robert_Marie_Constant.pdf [consulté le 28/12/2017]). 54. Sur De Cleene, qui partait pour la première fois au Congo Belge en 1893 pour diriger la colonie scolaire de Boma et deviendra vicaire apostolique de Léopoldville en 1926, voir entre autres VERHELST – DANIËLS, Scheutvroegerennu (n. 10), pp. 136, 138, 148, 153, 206, 214 et 216. 55. Sur cette revue, voir G. MARY, Het Bulletin des Missions: Inhoudelijke analyse vaneenprogressiefmissietijdschrift(1920-1940) (mémoire inédit, Louvain, KU Leuven, 1998) et L. SCHOKKAERT, BulletindesMissions([1924]-[1952])(periodiek), dans ODIS: http://www.odis.be/lnk/PB_2015 [consulté le 28/12/2017]. 56. Voir, entre autres, Edouard Neut, dans ODIS: http://www.odis.be/lnk/PS_47779 [consulté le 28/12/2017].

LE THÉOLOGAT DES PÈRES DE SCHEUT EN 1923 ET 1924

195

protestants. Ils n’y verront pas ‒ et ce sera grand dommage ‒ comment, tout le long de la Semaine, le P. Charles a dirigé les débats avec une compétence et une maîtrise qui donnèrent l’unité de ligne aux discussions et permirent ces coups d’œil synthétiques dans lesquels chaque élément prend une place harmonisée57.

V. CONCLUSIONS On a l’impression que l’ombre de la grande personnalité du jésuite Pierre Charles (1883-1954), qui deviendrait le nouveau secrétaire de l’organisation à partir de 1925 et dirigerait les Semaines de missiologie jusqu’à sa mort en 1954, a totalement remisé aux oubliettes de l’histoire les origines et les débuts de cette entreprise missiologique. Ajoutons aussi que la décision prise à la demande de l’assemblée de publier les rapports et résumés de la troisième Semaine dans la série «Museum Lessianum – Section missiologique», contrairement à ceux des deux premières Semaines de missiologie de 1923 et 1924, combinée avec les échos de l’édition de 1925 par divers articles et recensions dans des journaux58 et des revues spécialisées59, pourraient expliquer l’existence de cette page oubliée de l’histoire des Semaines de missiologie. Néanmoins la tâche de l’historien (de l’Église) reste de scruter les sources afin de bien documenter et comprendre la totalité d’un phénomène historique. Avec cette contribution, nous avons essayé de combler un peu ce vide… Faculté de Théologie et Sciences Religieuses KU Leuven St.-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgique [email protected]

Dries VANYSACKER

57. E. NEUT, Jésus-Christ et les aspirations indigènes: À propos de la Semaine de missiologiedeLouvain, dans BulletindesMissions 21/7 (1925) 229-337, ici p. 335. 58. Entre autres les journaux OsservatoreRomano, DeTijd, DeMaasbode, LaLibre Belgique, LeXXeSiècle et DeStandaardmentionnaient la troisième Semaine (voir DemissiologischeweekteLeuven, dans KerkenMissie 6/1 (1926) 34-36, ici p. 37 – avec des citations du commentaire d’un missionnaire néerlandais dans De Standaard –; MEULENYZER, Introduction[n. 5], p. 13). 59. À côté des revues Kerk en Missie, Bulletin de l’Union du Clergé et Bulletin desMissions, on songe ici surtout à la recension très positive écrite par le professeur et chanoine Jacques Forget (1852-1933) dans la Revued’histoireecclésiastique: J. FORGET, Lesaspirationsindigènesetlesmissions, dans RHE22 (1926) 669-670.

MISSIONARY ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE CORDILLERA REGION IN NORTHERN LUZON, PHILIPPINES I. INTRODUCTION The role of the CICM missionaries in the evangelization of the peoples of the Cordillera Region in Northern Luzon is undoubtedly significant1. They labored among the peoples of this mountainous enclave which was either not fully evangelized by the Spanish missionaries or remained uncharted territory until the arrival of the Americans. The region thrived with ethno-linguistic communities which were relatively uninfluenced by Spanish colonizing efforts. The Mountain Province, situated within the vast expanse of the Cordillera, was established by the United States government in 1908 and was composed of the sub-provinces of Apayao, Kalinga, Bontoc, Ifugao, Benguet, Lepanto and Amburayan. This rugged terrain of northern Luzon was inhabited by different ethno-linguistic peoples: the Ibalois, the Kankana-eys, the Bontocs, the Ifugaos, the Kalingas, the Itnegs, the Tinggians, and the Bagos. On 18 June 1966, Republic Act No. 4695 was enacted which created four separate and independent provinces out of the old Mountain Province: Kalinga-Apayao, Mountain Province, Ifugao and Benguet2. The episodes at the turn of the twentieth century that brought various religious congregations to work in the Philippines were a gamut of socio-political and religious events that had immense repercussions in all 1. The abbreviation CICM stands for Congregatio Immaculati Cordis Mariae. The Congregation was founded by a Belgian diocesan priest, Fr. Théophile Verbist (18231868), on 28 November 1862 and was formally inaugurated on 27 April 1863. The members are also known as Scheut missionaries. The General Chapter of the Missionary Canonesses of St. Augustine in 1963 decided that the Congregation would be associated with the CICM Congregation. They are now known as the Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (ICM). They are also called ICM sisters and Zusters van de Jacht. Although the role of the ICM Sisters is undoubtedly significant in the evangelization of the Cordillera Region, their missionary engagements will not be mentioned in this article. 2. For the history of the Mountain Province, see H. FRY, A History of the Mountain Province, Quezon City, New Day Publishers, 2006. Kalinga-Apayao was divided into two provinces of Kalinga and Apayao with the passage of Philippine Republic Act No. 7878 on 14 February 1995.

198

M.G. LAYUGAN

aspects of Philippine society. US Secretary of War, William Howard Taft, in an address delivered before the faculty and students of the University of Notre Dame on 5 October 1904, had this to say: The condition of the Roman Catholic Church after the treaty of peace between Spain and the United States was a critical one; and while it was somewhat improved, there still remains much to be desired before the Church can assume its proper sphere of usefulness. Many of the churches were injured in the war of insurrection, and many of the parishes had to be abandoned for lack of priests. The native clergy, consisting mainly of priests of limited education who had acted as assistants to the friars, have become the parish priests; and the learning and character of many of them are by no means as high as those of Catholic priests of other countries. The friars who were parish priests could not return to the parishes because of the enmity felt against them; and it was difficult to obtain priests from other lands who could discharge the duties of ministers of religion among people whom they did not understand and who did not understand them. I am informed that arrangements are now being made to bring in French, Belgian and American missionaries. The funds which the Spanish government was under obligation to furnish for the salaries of the parish priests, by reason of the Concordat with the Pope, are of course not now available3.

The defeat of Spain during the Spanish-American War and the subsequent establishment of a new colonial government significantly changed the relationship between the Church and the State as the separation between these two institutions became evident during the American governance of the Islands. When many Spanish missionaries left the country, Catholic parishes were without pastors. As Taft reported, [T]hough the Vatican declined the term of the contract to withdraw the Spanish friars from the Philippines, they have been very largely reduced in number, indeed in a much shorter time than that in which we asked the Vatican to stipulate they should be. There were over 1000 friars in the Philippines in 1898; by the first of January 1904, they had been reduced to 246 and 83 of these were Dominicans who have renounced the right to go into the parishes and have devoted themselves to education. Fifty of the remainder are infirm and unable to do any work or indeed to leave the islands on account of the danger of the change of climate so that there are only a few more than 100 available to be sent back to the parishes, and of these many are so engaged in educational work as to make it impracticable for them to act as parish priests. The consequence is that as there are more than 900 parishes, the question of the intervention of the Spanish friars in the islands as parish priests ceases to be important4.

3. W.H. TAFT, TheChurchandOurGovernmentinthePhilippines, Notre Dame, IN, The University Press, 1904, pp. 21-22. 4. Ibid., pp. 44-45.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

199

This situation was exacerbated by the scarcity of the Filipino Clergy, the rise of an independent Filipino national church and the introduction of Protestantism in the Islands. These events caught the Roman Catholic Church unaware which prompted its hierarchy to seek the assistance of various religious congregations in Europe. These circumstances led the CICM missionaries to work in the Philippines. While the evangelizing efforts of Spanish missionaries gained success in many parts of the archipelago, there was little or no success at all in the southern region in Mindanao and in the remote mountain ranges of the Cordillera where communities flourished with non-Christian inhabitants. The inaccessible domain of the Cordillera was home to various ethno-linguistic communities which remained uncharted until the establishment of the American government in the region. Dean C. Worcester who at that time was the Secretary of the Interior of the Philippine Islands acknowledged, My acquaintance with the wild men of northern Luzon began in July 1900, shortly after the arrival of the second Philippine Commission at Manila. We now know that there are but seven non-Christian tribes in northern Luzon, namely the Negritos [Aetas], the Benguet Lepanto Igorots, the Ilongots or Ibalois, the Ifugaos, and the Tinggians; but at that time no member of the Philippine Commission had any personal familiarity with the tribes of this region…. I was therefore forced to get my information concerning non-Christian people of northern Luzon from the available literature, which was full of contradictions and obvious misstatements5.

II. THE ARRIVAL OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE CORDILLERA REGION IN THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY In 1901 Fr. Albert Gueluy, CICM, the first assistant to the CICM Superior General, received an invitation from Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, the Vatican Secretary of State, to start a CICM mission in the Philippines6. Apostolic Delegate Ambrogio Agius sent a letter to Superior General Adolf Van Hecke on 14 February 1906 with the request to

5. D. WORCESTER, Field Sports among the Wild Men of Northern Luzon, in The NationalGeographicMagazine 22/3 (March 1911) 215-267, p. 215. 6. A. DEPRÉ, FromaTinyShoot:HistoryoftheRPCICMProvince1907-1982, Quezon City, s.p., 1992, p. 13. See also D. VANYSACKER, C.I.C.M. in the Philippines, in D. VERHELST – N. PYCKE(eds.), CICMMissionaries,PastandPresent1862-1987 (Verbistiana, 4), Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1995, 214-230, p. 216.

200

M.G. LAYUGAN

send Scheut missionaries to the Islands7. It was for this reason that Fr. Alfons Decock, the Mission Procurator of Shanghai, was tasked to look into the conditions of the region where the prospective mission of the CICM was situated. He arrived in Manila on 24 March 1907. In his preliminary report, Fr. Decock recommended the acceptance of the Philippine mission: It is a beautiful mission. It has a great future from the religious point of view. You should send as soon as possible some fine missionaries, men who are physically strong, very prudent, intelligent and devout. They should at least be eight. I am convinced that they should be sent two by two. They should bring along church ornaments, of linen and light material, and complete tableware because there is absolutely nothing. All what the parish priest of Cervantes is using has been borrowed. Money can be sent via Credit Lyonnais to the Hongkong Bank in Manila. I have enjoyed the trip very much8.

His extensive report on 7 June 1907 detailed his observations during his sojourn in the Islands. While in Manila he met Msgr. Eberhard Limbrock, SVD, who was requested by Msgr. Ambrogio Agius to visit the province of Abra. Fr. Decock observed that “the Igorots are more industrious than most of the lowlanders. Their rice fields are magnificent. They possess carabaos used to cultivate the fields…. This people had made a very favorable impression on me”9. During his stay in Bontoc, he related that the Catholic church in Bontoc is still there. It looks graceful. It is a wooden structure badly in need of repairs. Some claim that it would be better to tear it down and build a new one. An American officer is presently living in the rectory. Bontoc is the most beautiful station I have seen in the province of Lepanto-Bontoc10.

After receiving the report of Fr. Decock, the members of the CICM General Council, during their session on 30 June 1907, appointed Fr. Pieter Dierickx the superior of the Philippine mission while Fr. Herman Ramaekers and Fr. Albert Botty were chosen as council members. The other CICMs who were destined for the Philippines were Fr. Florimond Carlu, Fr. Albert Dereume, Fr. Séraphin Devesse, Fr. Constant Jurgens, Fr. Jules Sepulchre, Fr. Oktaaf Vandewalle, Fr. Henri Verbeeck and Br. Christiaan Hulsbosch. Most of these were young priests who had completed their theology course around that time. Except for the superior and his councilors, their average 7. DEPRÉ, FromaTinyShoot (n. 6), p. 14. 8. Ibid., p. 21. 9. Ibid., p. 25. 10. Ibid., p. 27.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

201

age was 28 years. The youngest of them, Fr. Devesse, was barely 24 years old. Superior Dierickx was 45. He had spent ten years as missionary in China and was then recalled to become the Director of Novices in Scheut for 8 years. All the younger members of the caravan had been his novices. This brought along the danger that he might continue to treat them still as such. In fact, complaints along that line emerged later11.

It was Van Hecke who assigned Scheut missionaries to open CICM mission outposts in northern Luzon. 1. TrailblazersalongaMissionTrail The first group of CICM missionaries who arrived in the Philippines was composed of eight priests and one brother from Belgium and two other missionaries from China. Fr. Dierickx, Fr. Carlu, Fr. Dereume, Fr. Devesse, Fr. Jurgens, Fr. Sepulchre, Fr. Vandewalle, Fr. Verbeeck and Br. Hulsbosch arrived on 2 November 190712. The aforementioned missionaries were the trailblazers who paved the way for the Catholic evangelization of the Mountain Province. Fr. Dierickx was their superior. The missionaries were welcomed at the Manila harbor by Msgr. James Jordan Carroll, the Vicar General of Bishop Dennis Joseph Dougherty of the Diocese of Nueva Segovia, together with two other Belgian citizens: Consul Levionais and Prosper Verstockt. They stayed with the Augustinians at the Intramuros in Manila. After days of preparations, the Scheut missionaries were divided into two groups: one group, Fr. Vandewalle, Fr. Verbeeck and Fr. Devesse, headed for Baguio and the other group proceeded to Cervantes in Ilocos Sur13. On 14 November, the group destined for Baguio took the train bound for Dagupan where they spent the night. On the following day, they left for Pozorrubio in Pangasinan. They started their ascent towards Baguio 11. Ibid., p. 29. 12. P. PEÑARANDA, CarryingontheMission:100YearsofCICMinthePhilippines, Quezon City, CICM-Philippines, 2007, p. 24. See also ElenchusDefunctorumC.I.C.M., Roma, Congregatio Immaculati Cordis Mariae, 2008. 13. To the Philippine Missions for the First Time, in The Apostle 36/8 (1967) 1-17, p. 3. See also PEÑARANDA, CarryingontheMission (n. 12), p. 25. See also TheChristianizationoftheWholeVicariatebytheC.I.C.M., in GoldenYears–GoldenHarvest:The ChristianizationoftheMontañosa, Baguio, Black and White Printing Press, 1979, p. 32. Fr. Dierickx told his companions that they would all proceed to Cervantes. Upon the request of Bishop Dougherty, however, the group was divided into two: one group would proceed to Cervantes in Ilocos Sur and the other group to Baguio. See DEPRÉ, FromaTiny Shoot (n. 6), p. 34. Cervantes formerly belonged to the province of Lepanto-Bontoc until it was made a part of Ilocos Sur by virtue of Act No. 1646 which was enacted by the Philippine Commission on 15 May 1907.

202

M.G. LAYUGAN

through the newly-built Kennon Road on 16 November. La Tabacalera placed at the missionaries’ disposal a small and modest cottage in Lucban in Baguio. The group bound for Cervantes also left Manila on 14 November. They took the steamer and sailed along the coast until they reached Candon in Ilocos Sur. From Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, the missionaries made their ascent of the mountain towards the Tirad Pass, crossed it and made their descent towards Cervantes which was inhabited by a small community of Christians. Fr. Mauricio Bello, a diocesan parish priest, gave them shelter for two months. Fr. Herman Ramaekers and Fr. Albert Botty from China reached Manila on 7 December 1907 and arrived in Cervantes on 16 December14. On 20 December 1907, Fr. Jurgens, Fr. Ramaekers and Fr. Sepulchre set off for Bontoc15. Upon reaching Bauko, they decided to stay there for a few days and then continued their journey towards Bontoc. One of the pioneers wrote, It was on December 27, 1907 about six o’clock [in the evening] that we arrived in Bontoc. Big boys in very scanty [clothes] exercised themselves by piercing a wayside tree with their sharp lances. The scene lent some local color to the Te Deum that rose to our lips for our safe arrival: a priest who at the time of the revolution had been obliged to pack his belongings has been active here, before us. He is gone since a long time. It is into his almost erased footsteps that we have to walk in all the stark, cold reality and the privations of the apostolic life of which young missionaries fondly dream16.

The following CICM missionaries arrived in 1908: Fr. Omer Cosyn, Fr. Joseph Tahon, Br. Edward Cools, Fr. Felix Bamps, Fr. René De Pauw, Fr. Eligius de Wit, Fr. Jeroom Moerman, Fr. Joseph Portelange, Fr. Leo Quintelier, Fr. Leo Vendelmans, Br. Adriaan van der Laak, Fr. Adrian Esnard, and Fr. Raymond Esquenet. On 13 February 1908, Apostolic Delegate Ambrogio Agius, Bishop Dougherty, Msgr. Carroll, Fr. George Joseph Carauna, the secretary of the Apostolic Delegate, journeyed on horseback towards Nueva Vizcaya. Fr. Dierickx and Fr. Ramaekers joined them the next day. They arrived in Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya on 16 February 1908. The group also visited Solano, Bayombong, Bambang, Dupax and Aritao. During their visitation, 14. Fr. Ramaekers left for China where he became a Trappist monk while Fr. Botty was elected Superior General on 25 May 1908. 15. IntheLandofDreams-TrueDreams:ADream...ComeTrue1907-1957, Quezon City, Provincialate Archives of the Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (AICM), f. II A 6-7. 16. Ibid.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

203

they observed that there were many followers of Gregorio Aglipay17 in the province. The mission in Nueva Vizcaya was entrusted to the CICM. As soon as the CICM missionaries arrived in the Mountain Province, they began to open new mission outposts in the region. Fr. Jules Sepulchre started the mission in Bauko and visited Sabangan in 1908. The CICM missionaries who arrived in 1909 were Fr. Cornelis de Brouwer, Fr. Gerard Martens, Fr. Jozef Schipman, Fr. Albert Van Zuyt, Fr. George Vromant, Br. Valeer Maes, Br. Piet van de Couvering, Fr. Maurits Lefebvre, Fr. Louis Morel, Fr. Albert Seys, Fr. Arthur Surmont, Fr. André Schipman, Fr. Godfried Aldenhuijsen, Fr. Achiel De Gryse, Fr. Jozef De Samber, Fr. George Giebens, Fr. Paul Hubaux, Fr. Maurits Vanoverbergh, Fr. Jozef Van Runckelen, Fr. Remi Verhelst and Fr. Henri Raymakers. Adolf Van Hecke arrived in 1910. Fr. Maurits Vanoverbergh18 arrived in Manila on 24 October 1909. He along with Fr. Achiel De Gryse and Fr. Jozef De Samber trekked to Cervantes and reached the place before Christmas. While his two companions stayed in Cervantes, Fr. Vanoverbergh together with Fr. Omer Cosyn left for Kayan. Fr. Cosyn continued his journey towards Tadian, and Fr. Vanoverbergh proceeded to Bauko where he became the assistant of Fr. Sepulchre. With the death of Fr. Sepulchre in 1912, Fr. Vanoverbergh succeeded him with Fr. Frans Billiet, who arrived on 7 November 1911, as his assistant. Fr. Billiet was assigned to Sabangan for two years19. Fr. Devesse built St. Patrick’s Church along Session Road in Baguio City in 1908. He became the first parish priest of Baguio from 17. Gregorio Aglipay Cruz y Labayan (1860-1940) was born in Batac, Ilocos Norte. He was ordained on 21 December 1889 by Bernabe Garcia, a retired Dominican bishop, in the Santa Cruz Church in Manila. After his ordination, he was assigned to Indang, Cavite; San Antonio, Nueva Ecija; Bocaue, Bulacan and San Pablo, Laguna. Aglipay was transferred to Victoria, Tarlac at the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution. It was in Victoria, Tarlac where he accepted the post of military chaplain from a secular authority and exercised ecclesiastical right by appointing a vicar general, accepting a promotion to military vicar general, issuing pastoral letters, and ordering priests to contribute church funds to the revolution. Cited three times to appear before an ecclesiastical court to answer for his action, he refused to comply with the summons and continued to exercise ecclesiastical powers. On 29 April 1899, a declaratory sentence stated that he had incurred excommunication by his actions, and public denunciation followed on 4 May 1899. He died on 1 September 1940. See also P. RAMIREZ, The Aglipay Story, in Ilocos Review (June-December 1970) 159-170. He was one of the founders of the IglesiaFilipinaIndependiente whose members are also known as Aglipayans. 18. See A. DE BLEEKER, Fr. Morice Vanoverbergh (1885-1982): Illustrious Anthropologist, Linguist and Missionary, in J. SADULLO – A. DE BLEEKER – M.B. TAN (eds.), Christ Is Calling Me, 150 Years of Service in God’s Mission, 1862-2012, Makati City, St. Pauls, 2012, 21-53. 19. J. PAREDES, Brief Mission History of Sabangan, in The Apostle of the Mountain Province 26/9-19 (May-June 1957), p. 4.

204

M.G. LAYUGAN

1911 until 1913. In 1911, he opened the first Catholic mission school in the area. Bishop Dougherty of Nueva Segovia also requested the CICM missionaries to take over the administration of the parish of Tagudin in Ilocos Sur20. He appointed Fr. Florimond Carlu parish priest on 21 April 1909. In May 1910, Fr. Gerard Martens settled among the Bagos of Pugo, La Union. On 10 June 1910, Fr. Jeroom Moerman and Br. Hulsbosch arrived in Kiangan and reopened the old Dominican mission there21. They found, upon their arrival, a ramshackle Spanish convent, “so they took refuge in an Ifugao house until the convent was repaired. While Brother Christiaan repaired the convent, Rev. Fr. Moerman rounded up all the baptized Catholics and won them over once more to Christ by his tact, kindness and generosity. He quickly gained new Christians and friends. He was priest, doctor, nurse, teacher and father all in one”22. In his letter to Fr. Vandewalle on 1 February 1925, Fr. Albert Van Zuyt described the church structure that the missionaries constructed: What strikes first the eyes of the visitor at Bontok is the beautiful church, made of bricks, in the year 1910. It is built in the form of a cross. Two steeples add much to its lovely aspect. Its bricks were made at Bontok by Igorots. These last did even more: out of the mountains they dug enormous blocks of blue rock and cut them into well-shaped stone for the corners of the walls. Those Igorots are fine workers when they are well taught. The plan of the church was made by Father Sepulchre, little thinking that one year later he would be buried in the same church. It was executed under the supervision of our lay brother Rev. [Piet] van de Coevering23.

The newly-built church in Bontoc was inaugurated in 1911. Fr. Leo Quintelier established the Itogon mission in 1912. Fr. Van Hecke was assigned in Paco in Manila as procurator to provide the missions and missionaries with the necessary provisions they needed in their outposts24. Fr. Constant Jurgens, who at that time was the rector of the mission in Bontoc made a journey to Lubuagan in Kalinga together with Lieutenant Governor E.A. Eckman in 1914. Another visit was made together with Fr. Provincial Schipman in January 1916. Fr. Jurgens purchased the grounds where the missionaries would soon build St. Theresita’s School in Lubuagan, Kalinga-Apayao. Governor Samuel Kane notarized the Deed of Sale.

20. IntheLandofDreams (n. 15). 21. ABriefHistoryoftheKianganMission, in TheApostleoftheMountainProvince 26/5 (January 1957), p. 15. 22. Ibid. 23. Van Zuyt to Vandewalle, 1 February 1925, Quezon City, CICM-RP Archives, Various CICM Historical Data. 24. TothePhilippineMissionsfortheFirstTime (n. 13), p. 14.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

205

The missionaries on their missionary journeys would bring along with them medicines and relief goods. They also brought indigent patients who lived in the remote villages of the Cordillera to the hospitals in Baguio City in order to get medical attention. Some missionaries introduced innovative technology that improved the economic conditions of the people. Fr. Jurgens had tried to set up a silk-worm culture in the Bontoc area. Bontoc youths were sent to Japan to learn the techniques and to acquire the necessary skills. A whole mountainside was purchased for this purpose and was planted with mulberry trees on which leaves the silkworms fed. Weaving, lace making, silversmithing and broom making were introduced as other sources of income. From 1910 to 1920, the following CICM missionaries were assigned to the Philippines: 1910 – Fr. Adolf Van Hecke; 1911 – Fr. Frans Billiet, Fr. Victor De Klerck, Fr. Emile Wins, and Fr. Jozef Waffelaert; 1912 – Fr. Karel Beurms, Fr. Jozef Billiet, Fr. Victor Faniel, and Fr. Frans Cools; 1913 – Fr. Paul De Geest, Fr. Carlos Desmet, Fr. Rene Michielsen, Fr. Urbain Timmermans, and Br. Pierre Slangen; 1914 – Fr. Jozef Anseeuw, Fr. Gaston Declercq, and Br. Arnold Houben; and 1919 – Fr. Jozef Ampe, Fr. Maurits De Brabandere, Fr. Frans Desnick, Fr. Chris van Aspert, and Fr. Leon Wins. New mission stations were opened in Benguet – Kapangan (1919), Bokod (1922), Kabayan (1928); in Bontoc – Kayan (1928), Barlig (1930), Sabangan (1930); in Ifugao – Lagawe (1927); Banaue (1930); in Lepanto – Angaki (1928); in Kalinga – Lubuagan (1925), Naneng (1930) and in Apayao – Kabugao (1925). Fr. Jozef De Samber, Secretary to the Apostolic Prefect, gave an account of the status of the Prefecture of the Mountain Province: We do not exaggerate in the least when we say that in 1907 the Mountain Province was still a complete wilderness where it was not always safe to travel around. In the year 1909 when in the company of my 2 confreres I traveled through the Mountain Province, the American Provincial Governor did not allow us to proceed from Bontok to Kiangan without a protecting guard of 10 soldiers. Some days later, an American supervisor of schools, Mr. Wood, passed with his caravan over the same mountain trail, when he was treacherously attacked by the Ifugao Igorots and arrived in Banaue with his right arm stabbed by a lance. Even in 1911 in Bontok, where Fr. Jurgens – now Most Rev. C. Jurgens, Bishop of Tuguegarao – resided already for 4 years, I was a witness to the Igorot town people that rushed to the attack of another Igorot town hunting for human heads; the Constabulary had a hot time to stop them and to drive them back to their town. Yes, the headhunters were still in full sway, and it required the strong arm of the American force to make them desist of their coveted sport of headhunting. Although the Igorots seemed to be tamed by force, nevertheless, they kept

206

M.G. LAYUGAN

hidden in their hearts the savage ideal of merciless bloodshed. Only the true Faith could change their inner feelings, and the true faith was brought to them by the missionaries25.

Bishop Francisco Claver, SJ gave a fitting tribute to the Belgian missionaries: The CICM fathers came without guns and soldiers – on the contrary sometimes those who had the guns were not always too welcoming of them. I believe that fact was the big difference between their preaching and the earlier ones before them. They offered the faith freely to a free people. It was received freely though quite slowly in the beginning but in time received nonetheless. And many of us are heirs of that faith that came to us in freedom26.

2. EncounteringCulturesintheCordillera In an interesting anecdote, Fr. Wilfried Gepts, CICM recounted his encounter with another culture: On my next walking trip, I was accompanied only by one of the student-boys, Rogelio, who would show me the way. We went up to Guinaang then proceeded to Mainit where we intended to stay overnight. In those days, there was a handful of Christians in both barrios. When the town of Mainit was in sight, Rogelio suddenly refused to continue the trip. Why for heaven’s sake could we not proceed, I asked him. He answered with something that sounded like tengaw. What does it mean? Apparently it was difficult to explain. He pointed at some branches on the path. Do you mean we may not enter the town? Rogelio nodded. We had left early morning and it was now late afternoon. I could not see any link between these ordinary branches on the trail and the impossibility of continuing our way. At that moment it crossed my mind that neither Sister Basil nor Fr. Leon Quintelier, a CICM pioneer in the parish, had given me any briefing about Igorot customs and traditions. I decided to go ahead and ask for some explanations in town. If necessary, we could return to Guinaang and stay overnight there. Rogelio had no choice but to follow reluctantly at a distance. As soon as I approached the first house, a lot of shouting was heard. The commotion spread quickly from ato to ato. The catechist came to greet me, looking very sad. His English was not much better than Rogelio’s but he told me that everybody in town was upset because they were having a threeday tengaw – a celebration to obtain the blessings of the gods for a good planting season. During the days of tengaw the native priest performed 25. J. DE SAMBER, TheActualStatusoftheApostolicPrefectureoftheMountainProvince, Philippines Islands, in The Little Apostle of the Mountain Province 10 (1933), F: Various CICM Historical Data, 1260. 26. F. CLAVER, 90YearsofImplantingtheFaith, in D. GANGGANGAN (ed.), AMustard Seed. Souvenir Program, p. 135.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

207

various sacrifices and rituals, and no outsider was allowed to enter the town. If this rule is violated, the celebration could be invalidated and everything would have to be repeated. Villagers were also not allowed to go and work in the fields or collect firewood, among other things. While the catechist was explaining, several men holding spears and machetes approached us, shouting to the catechist and making wild gestures in my direction. They took us to the town chief, who was waiting in one of the open meeting places (ato) that was surrounded by armed men. I really got scared and felt threatened. Serving as interpreter, the catechist told me how seriously the townspeople felt offended about my breaching their religious celebration. For sure the next harvest was going to be a disaster as I had offended Kabunian, the supreme God27.

Fr. Van Zuyt took note of some practices among the peoples of the Cordillera: At the curve of the trail our horses are frightened. In front of us, starting from Talubin moves a peculiar big reptile. It climbs the steep mountain slope. We stop to look. We see an endless procession of Igorots (they must be 200) armed with spear, marching in line, making their way towards the mountain peak. Are they on the warpath? Is their village attacked? No. Once nearer to us we recognize some of them who approach willingly to shake hands with us. They tell us they are on their way to the top of the mountain. The time of tilling their rice paddies is near, they want to know what day will be favorable to start the work. They are going to observe the song and flight of the birds, yonder on the top. The elder people, at the sight of the birds, can tell one when the best time for turning the soil begins28.

3. TheCICMBrothersinAction The contributions of the religious missionary brothers in the mission of a congregation were often unrecognized since the missionary was usually identified with the priest. Without doubt, the brothers served as pillars in every enterprise of a congregation. The CICM brothers also played a major role in the success of the evangelization of the Cordillera region. They were in charge of the construction of chapels and churches, looked after the rectories, taught the Christian doctrine and performed the tasks that significantly relieved the burden of the priests in carrying out their pastoral duties. Br. Edward Cools reminisced his missionary journeys: “Now Brother Edward, you will go to Naneng [Kalinga] and construct a chapel with a room for the missionary, where we can pass the night and 27. W. GEPTS, BreakingTaboosandOtherMemoriesofParishLifeintheNorthern Philippines, in PEÑARANDA, CarryingontheMission (n. 12), 37-38. 28. Van Zuyt to Vandewalle, 1 February 1925, Quezon City, CICM-RP Archives, Various CICM Historical Data.

208

M.G. LAYUGAN

take a rest. I have talked to the people of that place and they are most willing to help us in the construction; they promised to become Catholics”. So said the Rev. Father Billiet, Superior of the Kalinga Mission to me one day. Naturally, I asked the Father where I could stay at Naneng, if food could be found, what I had to do to get the lumber, etc. “Brother”, answered the Father, “the people of Naneng understand and practice the words of Christ to His Apostles – Dignus est operarius mercede sua: The worker deserves his reward. They are willing to serve God, you will see how they will help you for the sake of God and their souls”. I did not have to prepare much for the journey and the enterprise: my instruments of carpentry are always packed together and ready for action; to these I added a few tins of emergencies and off I was on horseback in the company of Father [Jozef] Poot, who had to go to another village29.

He immediately started the work: On the first day, I am out before sun[rise] for a stroll in the village. After breakfast I am again with the neighbors, for I need lumber for the chapel. I find Banason, the chief of the [village]. He calls for some other chieftains. We talk, measure, we make signs in the air and in the sand, I play with money and fingers, I draw signs on paper, describing the different pieces of lumber I am in need of: to be short, at noon the number of boards, rafters, posts is figured out, prices are fixed, a contract made and a time set when all materials are to be on the spot, the first needed having to be there the next day. I was really enchanted with the good inclination of the Kalingas of Naneng. They are simple and well disposed: they desire a chapel in their town “that they may become Christians” they say. Once the contract was signed by a firm shaking of all the hands present, I turned heels to go to Limagon’s [house]30.

Br. Cools related how the village took care of his accommodations: “Banason called me back and with some signs and the help of some young interpreters who never failed to attend our meetings, I understood that Banason had said the following: ‘There are seven houses in Naneng. There are seven houses around the house that will be the house of all. Today you will take your meals here in my house. Tomorrow you will take them in my neighbor’s and so on, and you will take them in turn in each one of the seven houses. You will rest in the house of Limagon, for his house is big and ours are small”31. A bigger church was designed and built by Br. Alfons Van Roey, Br. Henri Sleegers and Br. Henri Demoudt. Bishop William Brasseur blessed the church on 10 August 1958. 29. E. COOLS, FourWeeksatNaneng,amongtheKalingas, in TheLittleApostleofthe MountainProvince, 3, Doc. 120, Quezon City, CICM-RP Archives. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

209

III. AS ETHNOGRAPHERS OF THE CORDILLERA REGION 1. Fr.FransBilliet,CICM Fr. Frans Billiet, CICM was born in Zottegem, Belgium in 1886. He was admitted to the CICM in 1905 and was ordained a priest on 16 July 1911. On 15 October 1911, he arrived in the Philippines and was assigned to different mission stations: Pugo (1911-1913) which at that time was a part of Benguet. He was a missionary in Bauko, Mountain Province from 1913-1916. From 1916-1924 he was assigned to Bontoc which was the capital of the Mountain Province. On 23 June 1920, he visited Lubuagan in Kalinga. He followed the mountain trails and reached Naneng in 1921, Pinukpuk in 1922, and Conner in Apayao in 1923. His missionary journeys included Bacari, Calaccad, and Dalnacan near Tabuk. After he received his appointment for Lubuagan in Kalinga from Provincial Superior Albert Van Zuyt, he together with his assistant Fr. Jozef Poot, left for Kalinga from Baguio City via Tagudin and Bontoc in January 1925 and became the resident missionary there from 1924-1955. He established the Little Flower School in Lubuagan. Pastora Andaya was the first teacher of the school. Fr. Billiet became the Rector of St. Francis Xavier Seminary in Baguio City from 1955-1958. He returned to Lubuagan in 1958. Among his writings were a Kalinga translation of the Catechism and the Gospel according to Mark which were published by the Catholic School Press. He also co-authored the Kalinga Ullalim (a Kalinga epic featuring the exploits of a legendary hero called Banna). 2. Fr.FransLambrecht,CICM Fr. Frans Lambrecht, CICM was born on 6 March 1895 in Kortrijk, Belgium. He was ordained a priest on 23 September 1923. After having been appointed for the Philippine mission, he arrived in the Islands on 9 October 1924. He was assigned to Kiangan, Ifugao (1924-1930), Banaue, Ifugao (1930-1941) and Baguio City (1941-1978). He taught at St. Francis Xavier Seminary in Baguio City. He wrote discourses on the Ifugaos and has authored the Ifugao-English Orthography. Among his works were The Mayawyaw Ritual, The Hudhud of Dinulawan and BuganatGonhadan32 – an Ifugao epic, the KalingaUllalim–aKalinga epic and The GenealogicalTreesofKianganandMayawyaw. 32. See F. LAMBRECHT, TheHudhudofDinulawanandBuganatGonhadan, in Saint LouisQuarterly (September-December 1967) 267-713.

210

M.G. LAYUGAN

3. Fr.MauritsVanoverbergh,CICM Fr. Maurits Vanoverbergh was born in Ooigem, Belgium on 20 September 1885 and was ordained a priest on 18 July 1909. He arrived in the Philippines on 24 October 1909 and was assigned to Bauko, Mountain Province. After his stint in Bauko, he was appointed for Sagada. His appointment, however, was revoked, and he was assigned to Pugo, La Union as assistant pastor. After less than a month, he received instructions to go to Tubao, La Union. After the death of Fr. Sepulchre, he was assigned to Bauko where he stayed from 1912-1915. He was transferred to Tagudin as assistant parish priest but only for a short term since he was assigned to Bangar, La Union as parish priest from 1916-1921. In the meanwhile, he began to collect Ilocano words and expressions for his dictionary. After his stint in Bangar, he was assigned as parish priest in Tagudin from 1921-1924. Tagudin was known for lace-making. It was for this reason that Fr. Vanoverbergh went to the United States to sell the lace made by the girls. From 1925-1932, he was charged to start the Apayao mission. His Provincial Superior, who had little knowledge of the area, instructed him to go to Lubuagan every month while he was engaged in missionary work in Apayao: I was assigned to found the Apayao Mission, but I was supposed to reside in Lubuagan. The Provincial told me that I should go to Lubuagan every month. This would have meant six days on horseback to go to Apayao and again six days to return to Lubuagan. I was thus supposed to do practically nothing else but to trail along the road. This was indeed some kind of assignment! But what else could you expect: the Provincial had never been in the mountains, and he probably thought that the distance from Apayao to Lubuagan was more or less the same from Paco to Pasig [Manila]33.

His other assignments were Tubao (1934-1935), Sabangan, Mountain Province (1936-1945), St. Francis Xavier Seminary in Baguio City (1946), Bauko (1946-1964), and Home Sweet Home in Baguio City (1966-1982). Although he had no formal training in anthropology and had not engaged in ethnological studies as a profession, Fr. Vanoverbergh wrote several treatises on the indigenous peoples’ languages, customs and traditions which were published in various journals. He admitted that he never opened any literature on anthropology. Upon the insistence of Fr. Wilhelm Schmidt, SVD, he did studies on the Aetas, the peoples of the Cordillera Region and the Ilocanos: He [Schmidt] wrote me a letter asking me whether I was willing to go to the Negritos – At that time, I was the parish priest of Tagudin, a parish of more 33. DE BLEEKER, Fr.MoriceVanoverbergh(n. 18), p. 29.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

211

than 12,000 Catholics, and I was there all alone – I replied that, as far as I was concerned, I was willing to go, but that my superiors would have to send me. Anyway, I was convinced that this would be out of the question!34.

With the persistence of Fr. Schmidt in convincing the Superior General of the CICM to allow Fr. Vanoverbergh to venture on an expedition to the Aetas for field research, his Provincial Superior informed him in Tagudin that he was given permission to do research work on the Aetas as it was the will of the Holy Father. In Apayao, Fr. Vanoverbergh had the opportunity to live with the Aetas and observe their way of life. 4. OtherCICMScholarsontheCordillera Fr. Godfried Lambrecht was born on 16 November 1892 in Kortrijk, Belgium. He was ordained a priest on 10 August 1921. A year after his ordination, he arrived in the Philippines on 1 November 1922. He completed his doctoral studies on the Gaddangs in 1948. Fr. Jules DeReadt was born in Erwetegem on 26 August 1926 and was ordained a priest on 6 August 1950. He arrived in the Philippines on 17 September 1951 and was assigned to Baguio City (1951-1952), Lubuagan in Kalinga-Apayao (1952-1953), Dupax, Nueva Vizcaya (1954), Baguio City (1954-1957), Salegseg, Kalinga-Apayao (1957-1960), Brugge, Belgium (1960-1961), Chicago (1961-1964), Buwaya, Kalinga-Apayao (1964-1966), Chicago (1967-1969) and Baguio City (1970-1973). He did research on the Kalingas of northern Luzon. Fr. Alfons Claerhoudt collected twenty-three Ibaloi tales of Benguet. Fr. Herman Flameygh established the kinship ties among the inhabitants of Tuba in Benguet. Fr. Henri Geeroms researched on the Spanish missions in the Cordillera Region. IV. AS SHEPHERDS OF THE VICARIATE OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE 1. OktaafVandewalle(1933-1935) Oktaaf Vandewalle was born in Heestert, Belgium on 30 May 1879. After his studies in Tielt, he entered the CICM Novitiate in Scheut in 1899. He was ordained a priest on 16 July 1905. He taught Philosophy in Scheut for two years before he left for the Philippines for his mission assignment. Mountain Province belonged to the vast ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Diocese of Nueva Segovia. On 15 July 1932, the Holy See decreed to make 34. Ibid., p. 37.

212

M.G. LAYUGAN

the Mountain Province an Apostolic Prefecture. Fr. Oktaaf Vandewalle became its first Prefect Apostolic who was installed on 10 September 1933. In his letter to Archbishop Guglielmo Piani, the Apostolic Delegate to the Philippines, Msgr. Vandewalle gave an account of the dismal financial situation of the Apostolic Prefecture35. In the course of events, the new Prefect Apostolic was at odds with the CICM Provincial Superior, Fr. Leo Quintelier (1930-1935) as regards “financial matters, but also about such matters as appointment policies and missionary methods”36. Vandewalle was also not in good terms with the Bishop of Vigan. In view of the prevailing conditions, he was forced to resign after two years of stewardship of the Apostolic Prefecture. He was succeeded by Fr. Jozef Billiet (1935-1947). 2. JozefBilliet(1935-1947) Jozef Billiet was born in Zottegem in Belgium on 24 January 1888. In 1907, he entered the CICM Novitiate in Scheut, Brussels and was ordained a priest on 21 July 1912. In October of that same year he left for the Philippines for his first mission assignment. He was appointed Provincial Superior in August 1935 but only for a short term for he succeeded Msgr. Vandewalle as Prefect Apostolic of the Mountain Province on 15 November 1935. He was installed on 29 January 1936. During the International Eucharistic Congress in Manila in 1937, hundreds of Christians from the Cordillera region together with Msgr. Billiet had an audience with the Papal Legate, Cardinal Dennis Joseph Dougherty of Philadelphia. Cardinal Dougherty “was greatly delighted to meet again his former CICM Missionaries accompanied by hundreds of converted Igorots who had come all the way from all corners of the mountains. He granted them an intimate reception, conversing amiably with these simple people, admiring their native costumes, watching their dances and listening to their songs. They made also a vivid impression on the other congressists and were, in turn, gathering unforgettable remembrances they would pass on to their less fortunate townsmen”37. Msgr. Billiet had to go through the ravages of the Second World War (1941-1945) and bore the weight of the burden of the reconstruction of the 35. Msgr. Vandewalle wrote, “Su Excelencia. Me sea permitido manifestar a Su Excelencia algo del triste estado en que se encuentra la Prefectura Apostolica de la Montañosa y su pobrisimo Prefecto. Cuales son los recursos necesarios para el sosten de las misiones en la Montañosa?”. See Vandewalle to Piani, 23 September 1933, Quezon City, CICM-RP Archives, F: Various CICM Historical Data. 36. DEPRÉ, FromaTinyShoot (n. 6), p. 152. 37. Ibid., p. 157.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

213

mission stations which were razed to the ground. On 10 June 1948, the Holy See elevated the Apostolic Prefecture to an Apostolic Vicariate. Fr. Guillelmus Gerardus Brasseur was appointed its first Vicar Apostolic on 20 June 1948. 3. GuillelmusGerardusVanDorpeBrasseur Guillelmus Gerardus Van Dorpe Brasseur was born in Marke near Kortrijk, Belgium on 12 January 190338. His parents were Charles Baldwin Brasseur (1854-1942) and Sidonie Van Dorpe (1870-1960) who raised a rather large family39. Two of his sisters entered the convent. Brasseur began his primary education at the L’écoledesFrèresVanDale in Marke and later on at the Collège Épiscopal Saint Joseph in Mouscron40. During his studies at the aforementioned school, he showed promising scholastic capabilities. His entry on the history of Belgium in an inter-school competition among the colleges in the Diocese of Bruges on 28 July 1919 won the first prize41. He was an active member of the Pontifical Zouaves of the College of Mouscron and later on became its commander-in-chief in 192042. He graduated from the College in 1922. Guillelmus Gerardus Brasseur entered the Seminary in Scheut, Brussels as a novice on 7 September 192243. After completing his novitiate, 38. In many of the articles written about Bishop Brasseur, his first name is William. His baptismal name, however, is Guillelmus Gerardus. He was called Willy. When he became bishop, he changed his name to William. See Brasseur to Codiam, 17 May 1986, Baguio City, Generalate Archives of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (GASIHM), OfficeoftheSuperiorGeneral, R.B. SIHM Diary. 39. Bishop Brasseur in his letter to his relatives wrote about the death of his mother: “Ik ben in Baguio teruggekomen van mijne rondreis in de bergen rond den 24 Maart en dan was ik blijde ook al het nieuws te vernemen van de dood van Moeder... Alhoewel ik de tranen voelde opkomen... toch voelde ik mij gelukkig als ik vernam hoe alles verlopen was... ja eene gelukkige en heilige dood: beloning voor een hard leven doch alles opgenomen in echt Kristelijke zin”. See Brasseur to Maria, Daniel, Elza, nephews and nieces, 7 April 1960, Lede, Brasseur Van Damme Collection (BVDC). The Brasseur Van Damme Collection is a private collection of documents in the possession of Oscar and An Brasseur Van Damme. An Brasseur is the niece of Bishop Brasseur. His siblings were Michel Jules Joseph, Raphael Pierre, Lia Cecilia Cornelia (Sr. Gabrielle), Estella Maria, Marie Rachelle, Germaine Sabina, Daniel Marcel, Casimir Julien, Elza Aurora, Gerard Joseph, Marie Antoinette (Sr. Antionetta). 40. Figurenvanbijons:Mgr.BrasseuruitMarke, in HetVolk, 27 November 1961, Lede, BVDC. 41. See Certificate, 28 July 1919, Lede, BVDC. 42. The Zouaves evolved out of a unit formed by Christophe Léon Louis Juchault de Lamoricière in 1860, the Franco-Belgian Tirailleurs. On 1 January 1861 the unit was renamed the Papal Zouaves. The Zuavi Pontifici were mainly young men, unmarried and Roman Catholic, who volunteered to assist Pope Pius IX in his struggle against the Italian Risorgimento. See J. POWELL, TwoYearsinthePontificalZouaves, London, R. Washburne, 1871. 43. Figurenvanbijons:Mgr.BrasseuruitMarke (n. 40). See also Eucharistieviering ter Nagedachtenis van Mgr. Willy Brasseur, Marke, 13 February 1993, Lede, BVDC.

214

M.G. LAYUGAN

he professed his first vows on 8 September 1923 and his final vows on 8 September 1926. His superiors sent him to Rome to pursue his studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University where he obtained his licentiate in Philosophy in 1926. On 18 August 1929, he was ordained a priest in Scheut at the age of 26. He rendered one year military service as a priest. Sent to Rome for further studies, he obtained his doctorate in Theology at the aforementioned university on 30 June 1930. Together with Fr. Napoleon Flameygh, CICM and Fr. Oscar Deltour, CICM, he boarded the ship S.S.AthosII bound for Hongkong on 28 August 1931. They left Hongkong for the Philippines on 3 October at 8:00 p.m. and arrived in Manila on a Monday morning on 5 October 193144. a) AsaMissionaryPriest Fr. Brasseur was assigned as a missionary to Kabayan, Benguet on 3 December 1931. Writing from Kabayan to Alois Brasseur about his life in his first mission station, he narrated his experiences: Many from Kabayan have been sick especially this year, and I have to visit them, far and near, to give them the medicines I have and to comfort them. When their condition gets worse, one must convert the sick who do not agree. When I return to my house from a visit to the barrio [village] or the residents of the center, I often find many people who are seated waiting for me so they can ask for medicines or a dress or just to ask for anything. If they have nothing to do or if it rains, they come to pay me a visit. For an Igorot, a visit can sometimes last for hours sitting down without anything special to tell. Children come to ask for anything and when a child gets something, the other children also come but I do not give them without giving them a good lesson. This requires more time than what can be written here on paper45.

While residing in Kabayan, he also served the people in Bokod. He took charge of the Kabayan mission from 1931 until 1935. His missionary work in Kabayan did not last long because he was appointed professor in Sacred Scriptures by his superiors at the CICM theological school in Louvain, Belgium in June 1935. He taught for three years. Fr. Brasseur returned to the Philippines on 6 October 1938. His superiors assigned him as missionary to Kapangan, Benguet which at that time included the mission stations of Atok, Mountain Trail and some barrios of 44. See TravelDiaryofBishopBrasseur, Baguio City, GASIHM, HistoricalArchives (HA). The handwritten travel diary of Bishop Brasseur is a narrative of his voyage to the Philippines on board the ship AthosII. The entry begins on 28 August 1931 and its last entry is on 3 October 1931. The notebook measures 16×20.7 cm with 70 pages. The diary is addressed to his parents. 45. Brasseur to Brasseur, 26 December 1935, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

215

Abatan, Bakun and Kibungan46. He was assigned to Kapangan from 19381945. Fr. Brasseur wrote to Louis Van den Weghe: “I left a home in Marke where I felt great affection, but there is another home here where I feel as much affection”47. He further wrote, “The people here speak the same language as the people in Kabayan (I can quickly remember the language [of the people] in Kabayan which I have not spoken for three years). A greater part [of the population] speaks a different language so that I have to learn a new one. Moreover, the houses are more dispersed than in Kabayan and the roads leading to it are still so muddy especially when it rains”48. His difficulties also included getting the needed rest at night because of the disturbances caused by house rodents. He related this account: To get rid of the rats, I have now a cat which is indeed rare. Although it is already in the house for more than a week, I am still a little bit troubled especially at night by the nocturnal rodents which are hidden under the roof and in the inner wall of the house. I was often awakened by the noisy movements and gnawing of those mortal enemies! I swore to drive them away because nothing is more unpleasant, whether one likes it or not, than after a very tiring journey as one desires for some rest, at least a little bit of slumber for two hours, in order to start the next day again. One has to be in the mission to understand it. A cross among many other ones49!

Fr. Brasseur also experienced the difficulty of converting the young people: “The youth would like to learn to become Catholic but the elders, especially the older women, are often against it and one hears all kinds of issues raised”50. It was during his stay in Kapangan that the Second World War broke out: For more than six years, the correspondence had been interrupted because of the war. You were the first to experience the horrors of the war, and when I learned in the mission some news from the papers about the German occupation, my heart and my prayers were for Marke and for my friends in a very special way. My Christians also prayed for you. Here in the East, we also came to know what hostile occupation meant and probably more than you did. They were long years of unrest, uncertainty for my work and service and not least concerning the events in the homeland and in the family51.

46. Figurenvanbijons:Mgr.BrasseuruitMarke (n. 40). 47. Brasseur to Van den Weghe, 15 December 1938, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text. 48. Ibid. 49. Brasseur to Beloved Family, 1 June 1939, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text. 50. Ibid. 51. Brasseur to Friends and Benefactors, 28 February 1946, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text.

216

M.G. LAYUGAN

He also mentioned in his letter the ravages that the war brought to his mission: You have probably heard about the situation in Kapangan, my mission during the war. For the last five years, none of the six catechists helped me in my mission, a large area with a heathen population of 18,000 souls and 2,000 Christians who are scattered in various barrios (small villages) and it is practically impossible for one priest. My chapel in Kapangan, although still standing, suffered much from cannon balls and other artillery. My house was hit and a part of the roof was destroyed. A portion was destroyed by the Japanese and many other things were stolen. My chapel and a school in the barrio and everything in it were totally burned. In another barrio, everything inside the chapel was destroyed52.

During the Second World War, Fr. Brasseur opted to stay with the community in Kapangan: His stay in the parish of Kapangan was extended. His great leadership was tested here. It was here where he grew even more in love with the people who suffered just like him. He slept with them in their evacuation places; he encouraged them through prayers and was always ready when he was called to attend to the sick. His life was also in danger. On one occasion when he was coming from a barrio, he met some Japanese soldiers. They suspected him as a guerrilla but he explained to them that he was a missionary. They almost killed him. They, however, beat him with the butt of a gun and confiscated all the medicines and food in his bag. There was a time too when the Japanese rounded up all the men they could find and gathered them in one building with the intention of killing them. The brave parish priest upon learning about this incident told the people to pray, and he bravely went to the Japanese army officers to intercede for them. They were all released. From time to time he also met with the guerrillas to encourage them. Fr. Willy also had trust in people. An old man informed me that Fr. Willy entrusted to him a bag of Filipino money in coins and the former turned them over to him after the war. The worst part of the war was during the liberation when the Americans used carpet bombing. At that time Fr. Willy had been staying with the family of Mr. Nadnaran Fianza (the family of Sr. Carmel). Sr. Carmel said that he was very kind, patient and simple. He helped pound rice and even drove away the chickens which made attempts to feed on the grains of rice. They had to evacuate to Sagubo and from there they could see the bombing of the city of Baguio53.

Reminiscing his missionary life, the Bishop wrote, What I discovered to be a great handicap during my early years of missionary life was the ignorance of the native language or dialect. I had to rely on my catechist. Time spent in learning the language of the people is never lost time, and the effort to understand their customs is energy well spent. People 52. Ibid. 53. P. RIMANDO, MyContributiontotheWritingoftheHistoryoftheCongregation.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

217

were always happy to receive me in their homes. Home visits are the best opportunity to learn about the family, about their health, about their work: you become their friend even if they are still pagan or belong to another religion. I always had medicines with me to help the sick. The best time for home visits was during the rainy season. People are at home and they do appreciate your visits. This is when God works in the hearts of these people. Little by little they open up to you, and the grace of God works in them. What made me always happy was a growing spirit of faith in God and their increasing devotion to Jesus in the Eucharist54.

In 1945 he was assigned to Baguio City as parish priest of Our Lady of the Atonement Parish55. He was overcome by the enormous work that had to be done due to the devastation of the war: “When I was appointed for Baguio in the beginning of October, I found the outcome of the war. The big house, where five priests used to stay, went up in flames and nothing could be saved. The huge church is still there but the damage to the building and the church property is very extensive”56. On 1 January 1946, he became the Provincial Superior of the CICM in the Philippines. During his tenure as Provincial Superior, he transferred the residence of the CICM Provincialate to Home Sweet Home in Baguio City. As Provincial Superior, he attended the General Chapter of the CICM in Scheut in 1947. Concerning the positions that he held, Brasseur remarked, I held many positions, and strange as it may now sound, these responsibilities came when least desired. My humble prayer to Jesus in the Eucharist gave me the courage to say “Yes” to my superiors and keep the happiness of heart. Yes, keeping the happiness of heart is so important in missionary life when so many things are changing in the world and even in the church. My experience is that, with an increasing spirit of faith and prayer, a missionary is always ready to accept a new function in the Congregation or a new mission post, even the least desired57.

b) AstheFirstVicarApostolicoftheVicariateoftheMountainProvince Brasseur was consecrated bishop of the Vicariate of the Mountain Province on 24 August 1948 and was installed on 7 November 1948 at the Our 54. W. BRASSEUR, The First Bishop of Baguio Reminisces, in Nova et Vetera: RP ProvinceNewsletter, 1991, p. 53. 55. The Cathedral of the Vicariate of the Mountain Province was called Our Lady of the Atonement because Fr. Paul Wattson, the founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, helped defray the cost of its construction when there was a shortage of funds. 56. Brasseur to Friends and Benefactors, 28 February 1946. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text. 57. BRASSEUR, TheFirstBishopofBaguioReminisces (n. 54).

218

M.G. LAYUGAN

Lady of the Atonement Cathedral58. The Most Reverend Michael O’Doherty, the Archbishop of Manila, was the consecrator with Bishop Santiago Sancho of the Diocese of Nueva Segovia and Bishop Constant Jurgens of the Diocese of Tuguegarao as co-consecrators. Brasseur became bishop at a time when the entire mission of the Mountain Province was devastated during the Second World War. “Eighty percent of the buildings constructed by the missionaries to carry on their work were destroyed during the war. School buildings, dispensaries, dormitories, churches, chapels and residences were for the largest part nothing else than a heap of ruins”59. On his coat of arms there are five peaks representing the five sub-provinces of the Mountain Province. On top of them is the cross indicating the aim of all missionary undertakings. The heart of ermine ground is taken from the coat of arms of his religious affiliation, the Missionary Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It indicates his desire to see through the spiritual union of all. His motto anima una [one spirit] embodies the realization of Mary’s words, “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph”. Writing to his family after becoming a bishop, he had this to say: “I, however, did not want to accept it because I knew who I was and therefore I, in my opinion, was not for such great dignity and so great a responsibility. I must confess that if I had my own opinion, I would have refused, but one is bound by the bonds of religious life and thus it is a sacrifice. But I will not go on speculating on possibilities that should not have occurred”60. After his installation as bishop, he spearheaded the construction of the Bishop’s Residence, PatriadeBaguiobuilding and the second storey of the Bishop’s Residence which housed St. Francis Seminary61. Fr. Frans Lambrecht, CICM was the founder of the seminary. It was in this seminary 58. TheApostleoftheMountainProvince 24/3 (November 1954), p. 25. 59. Ibid., p. 25. See also Silver Jubilee of His Excellency Msgr. Brasseur, TheBaguio MountainSentinel, 20 November 1954, p. 7. 60. Brasseur to Family, 11 September 1948, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text. 61. On the formation of Filipino priests, the Bishop wrote: “Toen ik twee maand geleden, het geluk had met de H. Vader te spreken, tijdens een privaat verhoor, steunde Hij vooral op de noodzakelijkheid, meer en meer priesterroepingen te verwekken onder de Igorotse jongens. Dit hebben we in de Bergprovincie in de Philippijnen niet verwaarloosd.... Nu sta ik voor een ernstig probleem: ofwel kandidaten weigeren, vermits in het huidige gebouw maar een dertig kunnen logeren en dit niet kan uitgebreid worden, ofwel een nieuw seminarie bouwen dat minstens 80 studenten de kans zou bieden hun priester-studies voort te zetten. Jongens weigeren mag ik niet volgens het uitdrukkelijk, sterk aandringen van de H. Vader. Hij beloofde, naast een financiële steun van Rome, Zijn Zegen aan al diegenen die edelmoedig steun zouden verlenen voor dit groot en allernoodzakelijk werk van de missie en van de Kerk”. See Brasseur to Mission Friend, 8 December 1961, Lede, BVDC. During the ordination of Bishop Brasseur as bishop, Paz Rimando, who was then a second year high school student at St. Louis High School, attended the celebration. She recalled that it was a stormy day.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

219

where Salvador Mabalot and Pedro Rulloda, who started their formation in San Jose Seminary in Manila, continued their studies. Various ecclesiastical structures like churches and chapels were constructed. New mission stations were opened in Tabuk (1949), in Pudtol (1949), in Natonin (1950), in Atok (1950), in Tinglayan (1950), in Mayoyao (1951), in Pinukpuk (1952), in Dalupirip (1952), in Tuding (1952), in Lamut (1957), in Luna (1958), in Pacdal (1958), in Rizal-Babalag (1959), in Abatan (1961), in Virac-Balatoc (1962), in Aurora Hill (1965), in Sayangan (1965), in Lourdes-Baguio (1967), in Bulanao (1968), in Flora (1968), in Philex (1968), in Sablan (1968), in Potia (1969), in Daclan (1971), in Tuba (1976), and in Tanudan (1979)62. On 7 June 1952, he founded the Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary63. The Tuding Catholic mission began on 8 December 1952. He applied for a declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen on 1 October 1956 and filed a petition on 3 January 1958. Judge Jesus de Veyra decided on the bishop’s petition on 12 January 1959. He received the order granting him honorary Filipino citizenship on 17 February 196164. Bishop Brasseur put up a radio station, the Mountain Province Broadcasting Company (MPBC) in 1965 which broadcast religious and educational programs to the different provinces of the Cordillera region with the transmission of its first program in 1966. During the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Brasseur attended all the sessions. He also distinguished himself in one of its sessions by an intervention and a speech in connection with the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church65. He remarked, I am again in Rome, and you have certainly learned that 2200 fathers of the council are preoccupied with their work. One of the main topics is certainly THE CHURCH which is now in full discussion. There are still some points which are vague, and therefore there is a longer discussion to obtain clarity. It is a fact that during that session of the FATHERS, those who spoke better were those who were prepared. There are really beautiful and instructive speeches of those who really are experts... One can have one’s thought out of it... But this also requires us to study and reflect66. 62. Curriculum Vitae of Bishop Brasseur, Baguio City, GASIHM, HA, Box 01 Foundation, f.01.1 Founder/Co-Foundress. See also GoldenYears–GoldenHarvest (n. 13). 63. The Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are known today as Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The abbreviation SIHM also refers to this congregation. 64. Certificate of Naturalization, 17 February 1961 and Registration of Naturalization, 23 February 1961, Quezon City, CICM-RP Archives, Box 90.3, f. Brasseur. 65. Pars I Sessio Publica II Congregationes Generales XXXVII-XXXIX, ActaSynodaliaSacrosanctiConciliiOecumeniciVaticaniII, vol. II, Vatican, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971, pp. 449-452. 66. Brasseur to Brother and Family, 13 October 1963, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text. Bishop Brasseur once again returned to Europe to attend the

220

M.G. LAYUGAN

On the occasion of the celebration of Bishop Brasseur’s silver jubilee as bishop, he narrated the events of the day: First there was a solemn concelebration with three bishops and some forty priests. I was of course the main celebrant and twenty-five priests together with four bishops wore the same design of the chasubles with Igorot colors. A delightful choir sang some songs and the other ones were sung by the fully-packed congregation. The church was decorated beautifully. It was really impressive not just for me but also for the people who were present. Everything went smoothly. The auxiliary bishop gave the homily ... One of course was then fortunate. There was a program after the concelebrated Mass. The hall was once again full. There were musicians and dances of the five different tribes: Benguet, Ifugao, Bontoc, Kalinga and Apayao. All were different according to their tribes67.

As a bishop, he earned the admiration of his flock: “For all these peoples he has been a real spiritual father, visiting all of them yearly and even more frequently: his confirmation trips extended to the remotest barrios in the mountains. On every special occasion he has been among his flock even if this demanded several days of travelling and hiking. It can be safely said that no bishop in the Philippines has ever travelled and hiked as many miles within his territory as our ‘mileage’ bishop did”68. Bishop Brasseur was also a member of the Roman Commission for Unbelievers as a representative of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). He was the vice-president of the CBCP for one term. He served as the Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province until he resigned on 7 November 198169. In his letter to the priests, he wrote, I am happy to let you know that I was informed by His Eminence Agnelo Cardinal Rossi, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (Propagation of the Faith), that the Holy Father has finally accepted my resignation as Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Provinces. This celebration of the 400 years of the Christianization of the Philippines in Spain: “Ik ben den 5de Sept. uit Baguio vertrokken naar Rome, doch ben denzelfden dag van aankomst in Rome voor 8 dagen in Spanje geweest; reis en verblijf door de Spaanse bisschoppen betaald. Altijd dezelfde die chance hebben? Ik verbleef in Madrid, waar er conferenties waren ter gelegenheid van 400 jarig evangelisatie van de Philippijnen door de Spanjaarden.... Ik ging ook naar Toledo en Valladolid en later naar Santiago voor het jubileum van St. Jacobus”. Brasseur to Daniel and Family and Maria, 19 September 1965, Lede, BVDC. 67. Brasseur to Brothers, Sisters, Nephews and Nieces, 30 November 1973, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text. 68. “Biographical Sketch and Achievements of Bishop William Brasseur”, Souvenir Program on the Occasion of the Silver Jubilee of the Episcopal Consecration of Msgr. William Brasseur, CICM, DD, 25. See also SilverJubileeofHisExcellencyMsgr.Brasseur, in TheApostleoftheMountainProvince 24/3 (November 1954), pp. 24-25. 69. Brasseur to Reverend Fathers, 11 November 1981, Baguio City, GASIHM, HA, Box: Foundation, f. Bishop Brasseur Correspondence.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

221

was also officially published in the Osservatore Romano on November 7. Praise and thanks to the Lord! Since the Most Reverend Emiliano Madangeng had been appointed as the Co-adjutor cum iure successionis, he thus became automatically the new Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Provinces as of November 7, 1981. I am confident that you will extend your full cooperation to the new Ordinary of the Vicariate in the exercise of his office. I wish to make use of this opportunity to sincerely thank each and every one of you for your generous and fraternal cooperation with me during the thirty-three years of my vicarship in the Mountain Provinces70.

During his retirement, he served as chaplain at the Notre Dame de Lourdes Hospital in Baguio City until July 1990 when the hospital stopped its operations due to heavy structural damages brought about by an earthquake. Sr. Antonia Anas recounted, The next assignment I got was to take care of our beloved Founder, Msgr. William Brasseur. His health was failing. He was retired as bishop of the Mt. Provinces and was staying as chaplain at Notre Dame de Lourdes Hospital. He was a man of faith and a man of prayer. Even during his ailing moments, he continued his daily schedule – Eucharistic celebration, praying the divine office, spiritual reading. He had a great devotion to our Blessed Mother. The rosary was never missed before bedtime. He would even give a sign when the rosary beads were lacking. He was also a man of service. Even if he struggled to go up and down the stairs, he would do it for the sake of a dying person. He always had others in mind before himself. Of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, he showed special concern for those in distant places. He reserved things for them which he gladly gave them when they came to visit him in the hospital71.

c) AsFounderofaCordilleranCongregation Besides his interest in the formation of seminarians from the Cordillera, Bishop Brasseur also saw the potential of young women from the region as evangelizers among their own people72. He exhorted the sisters: I thank our Lord that you truly behave as children of Mary. I have heard of your wonderful apostolate in the different missions and tasks assigned to you. I pray much for each of you. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary remind you always of her lively spirit of faith and her sincere devotion [to] Jesus. Remember always that you are the instruments of Jesus in bringing the good news and therefore that it is the grace of Jesus that works in you 70. Brasseur to the Priests, 11 November 1981, Baguio City, GASIHM, HA, B. Foundation, f. Bishop Brasseur Correspondence. 71. A. ANAS, IamCalled, Baguio City, GASIHM, HA, f. Vocation Stories. 72. For further reading on the SIHM Congregation, see M. LAYUGAN, Ecce Ancilla Domini:ANarrativeHistoryoftheCongregationoftheSistersoftheImmaculateHeart ofMary, Manila, Logos Publications, 2014.

222

M.G. LAYUGAN

and through you. Be faithful [to] your prayer life, your daily meditation especially when you are alone, your daily mass or its substitute, your daily rosary as much as possible with the people, your daily recreation especially in the evening. Always remember that you belong first to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and not to your family. Accept always with joy your assignments in a spirit of love to Jesus. Love one another as true sisters. Be ready to accept any work from your Apostolic Vicar of the Montañosa. Pray often for his intentions. But pray also for the intentions of your cosisters73.

Bishop Brasseur, in his letter to his mission friends, divulged his plan to establish a religious congregation of sisters from the Mountain Province. Quoted extensively, the bishop wrote, A bishop should certainly be concerned only with spiritual things, the well-being of souls and the conversion of heathens and sinners. Yes but he must also ensure that honorable service can be given [to them]. He must also have collaborators for the task of conversion; therefore, it is my plan to establish a congregation of indigenous sisters, sisters who come from the Igorots. Many of these Igorots have been educated by the sisters in our schools. They have seen how the mission sisters have worked for the welfare of souls. Without the mission sisters, one would never fully understand the heart of a woman. Girls are usually segregated by the sisters to prepare them to become good housewives in order to raise upright children. But it is not possible for the mission sisters to go far into the barrios. You will probably ask: But why can’t the Belgian sisters accept the Igorot girls to become members of their congregation. I am sure that you will easily understand how at this moment, that is, for another one hundred years, it is not possible. The way of life of the Igorot girls cannot immediately change as they live in the convent. It takes generations. The girls feel obviously inferior … and they feel that they cannot make it … To live together in a small community with Belgian sisters from day to day, from year to year is psychologically impossible … and therefore it is necessary that they should have a congregation of their own. After a good education, they will become vigorous collaborators in the task of conversion because they must finish High School first; some of them can become educators … and with that knowledge they can go to the remotest village and live with the Igorots for a few weeks to teach them how to live Catholic lives. They will be able to teach in their own language, much better than we do. They understand the gestures which we do not, and they know their own people so well that we are sometimes dumbfounded by the way they settle things. We have the best evidence in the case of our first native priest who understands the problems very differently than we do. Where we find no solution, he can easily find one74. 73. Brasseur to Sisters, 11 February 1991, Baguio City, GASIHM, HA, B. Foundation, f. Bishop Brasseur Correspondence. 74. Brasseur to Mission Friends, 9 October 1951, Lede, BVDC. The quotation is a translation of the Dutch text.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

223

Having reflected on the matter, Bishop Brasseur presented his plan to the Missionary Canonesses of St. Augustine, who through Dame Marie Donatiana (Maria Dechievre), the Provincial Superior of the Philippine Province and Dame Marie Clement (Suzanne Hanselin), showed interest in the bishop’s proposal. In a letter of the Sacred Congregation of the PropagandaFide on 22 March 1952, the Congregation allowed two sisters of the Missionary Canonesses of St. Augustine to assist in the formation of young girls from the Cordillera region at the request of Bishop Brasseur75. Bishop Brasseur died on 1 February 1993 at Home Sweet Home in Baguio City at 3:00 p.m. Sr. Josefa Belandres, SIHM, Fr. Jerome Dobbels, CICM, Fr. Herman Gadeyne, CICM with a doctor and a nurse were present during the dying moments of the Bishop76. The funeral Mass was attended by Cardinal Jaime Sin, the Archbishop of Manila, with thirteen bishops and one hundred fifty priests who concelebrated77. He was buried inside the Baguio Cathedral on 9 February 1993. V. PREPARING THE MONTAÑOSA CLERGY 1. Fr.AlbertoDuggom:TheFirstMontañosaPriest The first ordained priest of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Mountain Province was Fr. Alberto Duggom who was born on 8 August 1913 in Pantikian, Balbalan, Kalinga. During that time the Americans established the public school system in Kalinga. Fr. Duggom finished his primary education in Balbalan in 1927. Mr. Juan Puyao, the first municipal president and Mangayam, an elder of the village encouraged him to pursue his secondary education at the La Trinidad Agricultural Farm School in La Trinidad, Benguet as a government scholar. 75. Rev. Mo. Marie Donatiana, Provincial Superior of the Philippine Mission, 2 April 1952, Quezon City, Archives of the ICM (AICM). 76. Sr. Josefa Belandres described the last moments of the Bishop: “At 2:30 P.M. Father Jerome Dobbels came, just on time to pray the prayers of the dying, and the renewal of vows with Msgr. Exactly when the prayers [were] over, Msgr. gave up his last breath at 3:00 P.M. Our beloved Founder, Father, Bishop had a beautiful, calm, peaceful death”. See Sr. Josefa BELANDRES, “The last months, days and hours of our beloved Bishop, Father and Founder”, 18 February 1993, Baguio City, GASIHM, HA, B. Foundation. Sr. Belandres was assigned to take care of the Bishop at Home Sweet Home in Baguio City. 77. See Ballegeer to Dulay, 8 February 1993, Quezon City, Archives of the CICM-RP (ACICM-RP), Box 90.3, f. Brasseur. See also Spanhove to Brasseur Van Damme, 8 February 1993 and Dobbels to Brasseur Family, 9 February 1993, Lede, BVDC.

224

M.G. LAYUGAN

An unfortunate incident happened at the school when he was in second year. An American teacher, Mr. Wayne Wright, mistreated the government scholars which prompted them to take action. A group of students hogtied Mr. Wright. As a result, the school authorities ordered the students to go home. Fr. Duggom started the long trek to his village in Kalinga and stopped by the Lubuagan Catholic Mission where he met Fr. Frans Billiet. After listening to the plight of the boy, Fr. Billiet advised him to pursue his studies in Tagudin in Ilocos Sur where the CICM missionaries administered the St. Augustine High School. After high school Fr. Billiet encouraged him to enter the Seminary in Vigan. Under the tutelage of the missionaries of the Society of the Divine Word, Fr. Duggom finished Philosophy and Theology. Having finished his studies, he was ordained a priest at the St. Paul Cathedral in Vigan on 19 March 1940. He celebrated his first Mass in Pantikian, Balbalan on 3 May 1940. His solemn First Mass was celebrated in his native community with an unparalleled confluence of Christians and pagans from the surrounding areas. Twelve priests, the governor of the sub-province, almost all the mayors and many other important people of Kalinga participated in these grandiose rites. A 7 km. parade starting from Salegseg accompanied the [neo-presbyter] to Pantikian [which was] decorated with flags and garlands. In front of the chapel, he imparted his first blessing on the crowds and intoned the Te Deum. The next morning, an even larger [crowd] of people gathered for his First Mass. His old father, a catechumen until then, was baptized by his own son78.

2. St.FrancisXavierSeminary Two seminarians from the Vicariate were sent to study at San Jose Seminary in Manila. On account of the outbreak of the Second World War, Salvador Mabalot and Pedro Rulloda returned to Baguio City. The Apostolic Prefect, Msgr. Jozef Billiet, provided a place for the two seminarians in his residence so they could continue their formation. St. Francis Xavier Seminary opened its doors for the formation of candidates to the priesthood on 5 June 1942. Thereafter new seminarians were admitted. They were Mauricio Lidwino, Sebastian Dalis, Francisco Claver and Emiliano Madangeng. With the exception of Fr. Lidwino, the rest of the batch became bishops. When the American forces bombarded the City, the Seminary had to close down in March 1945. The series of bombings left Baguio City in ruins including the Bishop’s Residence which was 78. DEPRÉ, FromaTinyShoot (n. 6), p. 159.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

225

razed to the ground. After the war was over, the seminarians returned to continue their studies. They studied at St. Louis Boys’ High School while Latin and other activities were done at the Seminary. Since there was an increase in the number of candidates, a new building was built near Crystal Cave in the outskirts of Baguio City in 1961. St. Francis Xavier Seminary became a complete high school with its own teachers and facilities in 1962. Fr. Frans Lambrecht was the first Rector of the Seminary. Besides his responsibility as Rector, he was also the editor of the LittleApostleoftheMountainProvince, vicar general, secretary to the bishop, and treasurer of the Vicariate. Fr. Jozef de Samber was the Spiritual Director. Three sisters of the Missionary Canonesses of St. Augustine taught at the Seminary. Since Fr. Lambrecht had to attend to his responsibilities at the Bishop’s House, Fr. Henri (Kamiel) Declercq took over as Rector in 1965. When Fr. Declercq left for Belgium in 1970, Fr. Lambrecht became Rector of the Seminary. In 1972 Fr. Pablo Filog, a diocesan priest of the Vicariate was appointed Rector. VI. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CICM SCHOOLS IN THE CORDILLERA REGION79 As soon as the CICM missionaries settled in the village, they gathered the boys and taught them the Catechism. Writing in 1909, Fr. Sepulchre gave this report: In our residence in Bauco, we gather some 20 young men of whose apostolic formation we take special care. There was a time that we had up to 170 children in our school in Bauco but this caused a lot of inconvenience, particularly to our budget. So I thought of the principle “divide et impera”. I decided to spread our numerous pupils over four different schools located in the most important barrios of our mission. This allowed most of the children to go home for meals and sleep. This measure brought also along an increase of pupils so that our total school population now amounts to between 250 and 300. We visit these schools at least weekly and provide further explanation of the catechism which is taught daily by the teachers. Our efforts are well rewarded since of the 150 baptisms administered in one year, 60 come from our young people in the schools. We will soon do something similar for the girls, with the help of a lady teacher-catechist80. 79. CICM schools administered by the CICM include the following: Saint Louis University in Baguio City (1911), Saint Louis College, San Fernando City in La Union (1964), University of Saint Louis in Tuguegarao City (1965), Saint Mary’s University in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (1928), Saint Louis School College in Cebu (1969), and Saint Louis College of Bulanao in Tabuk City, Kalinga. 80. DEPRÉ, FromaTinyShoot (n. 6), p. 97.

226

M.G. LAYUGAN

Schools were established in the different parts of the Cordillera: Diocese of Baguio-Benguet – St. Louis University (1911), St. Louis in Campo Filipino (1912/1915), St. Louis Trade School (1915), St. Louis Boys High School (1921), St. Louis in Pacdal (1967), St. Louis in Aurora (1968), St. Louis in Lucban (1952), Immaculate Conception School in Bokod (1950), Sacred Heart in Itogon (1952), St. Theresita’s School in Kapangan (1953), St. Louis in Balatoc (1961), St. Louis in Antamok (1962), San Jose in La Trinidad (1963), San Isidro in Abatan (1963), St. Paul in Sayangan (1966), St. Louis in Sablan (1968), and St. Louis in Philex (1975); Vicariate of Bontoc-Lagawe – St. Vincent School in Bontoc (1930), Immaculate Heart High School in Natonin (1949), Holy Rosary High School in Kayan (1954), San Alfonso High School in Sabangan (1959), Bauko Catholic School in Bauko (1965), St. Joseph School in Kiangan (1949), Don Bosco High School in Lagawe (1949), St. Louis College in Lagawe (1968), Immaculate Conception School in Banaue (1949), Assumption Academy in Mayoyao (1951), and San Francisco High School in Lamut (1965); Vicariate of Tabuk – St. Theresita’s School in Lubuagan (1923), St. Theresita’s College in Lubuagan (1953), St. Theresita’s School in Dagupan (1953), St. Theresita’s School in Salegseg (1955), St. Theresita’s School in Pinukpuk (1960), St. Michael’s Academy in Rizal (1965), St. William’s Academy in Bulanao (1968), St. Louis College in Bulanao (1968), St. Theresita’s School in Tinglayan (1976), Lourdes High School in Kabugao (1951), Santo Rosario High School in Pudtol (1950), and St. Joseph High School in Flora (1969). The establishment of the mission schools in the Cordillera region was a collaborative work between the CICM missionaries and the Missionary Canonesses of St. Augustine. 1. TheSaintLouisUniversity Fr. Séraphin Devesse, CICM started a one-room elementary school for ten boys in Baguio City in 1911. Through the initiative of Fr. Florimond Carlu, CICM, the intermediate grades were added and the Saint Louis Trade School was opened in 1915 which eventually became the Saint Louis College Vocational-Technical Department which was located at the Antipolo Building along Session Road in 1957. In 1921 the Saint Louis High School accepted first year high school students. From a small Catholic mission school in Baguio City in 1911 emerged a revered educational institution which after World War II became Saint Louis College in 1952 with an enrolment of around 75 students. College level courses in the Liberal Arts and Commerce were offered. Bishop Brasseur, Fr.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

227

Rafael Desmedt and Fr. Karel Pieters were instrumental in the growth and development of Saint Louis University as an institution of higher education for the peoples in the Cordillera. The first Rector of Saint Louis College was Fr. Gerard Decaestecker, CICM who held the position from 1952 to 1954. The graduate programs of Saint Louis College were granted government recognition in 1955. Saint Louis College became Saint Louis University on 13 May 1963. Among the Rectors/Presidents were Fr. Gerard Decaestecker (19521954), Fr. Albert Van Overbeke (1954-1962), Fr. Gerard Linssen (19621964), Fr. Paul Zwaenepoel (1964-1976), Fr. Ghisleen De Vos (19761983), Fr. Joseph Van den Daelen (1983-1996), Fr. Paul Van Parijs (1996-2005), Fr. Jessie Hechanova (2005-2015), and Fr. Gilbert Sales (2015-present). Saint Louis University is “the largest university north of Manila. It has around 28,000 students (23,000 in college and 5,000 in elementary and high school) in its three campuses, right in the heart of the city. Its reputation for excellence attracts students and scholars not only from the Philippines but from other countries as well. About 800 foreign students are enrolled in its different colleges and institutes, including the College of Medicine”81. 2. Fr.SéraphinDevesse,CICM Fr. Séraphin Devesse, CICM, the founder of St. Louis University, was the one who built the first Catholic mission church in Baguio City and the one who founded the first Catholic mission school. Born on 28 April 1883 in Rebecq-Rognon, Belgium, he entered the Novitiate in Mechelen, a city between Brussels and Antwerp in Belgium, on 6 September 1902 and was ordained a priest on 14 October 1906. At a very young age of 24, he left for his mission assignment in the Cordillera region the following year after his ordination to the priesthood. Together with Oktaaf Vandewalle and Henri Verbeeck, he arrived in Baguio City on 16 November 1907 to commence a pioneering work among the peoples of Baguio City and La Trinidad. Fr. Devesse built St. Patrick’s Church along Session Road on 24 September 1908. In 1911, the church was transferred to the present Cathedral Hill. In 1919 St. Patrick’s Church was renamed Our Lady of the Atonement82. He became the first parish 81. “Saint Louis University”, PEÑARANDA, CarryingontheMission (n. 12), p. 67. 82. Fr. Leo Vendelmans, CICM designed and supervised the construction of the church which was dedicated to Our Lady of the Atonement. The construction began in 1920, and the church was consecrated in 1936.

228

M.G. LAYUGAN

priest of St. Patrick Church from 1908-1913. In order to instruct the inhabitants of the place, he also opened a Catholic primary school. He also put up another church in Campo Filipino along Naguilian Road and started the first Catholic mission school in the area where he taught the rudiments of the Catholic faith among the children within the vicinity of the church. After his assignment in Baguio City, he was transferred to Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya as pastor until 1924. Fr. Florimond Carlu, CICM, who was assigned to Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, succeeded Fr. Devesse as parish priest in Baguio City in 1913. Fr. Devesse was assigned to Abra from 1918-1919 when some of the SVDs were deported to the United States in view of the outbreak of World War I. He returned to Bambang and left for Belgium in 1923 for his vacation. After his return from Belgium, he became the parish priest in Santiago, Isabela on 24 May 1924. In recognition of his missionary work in the Philippines, he was conferred by the Belgian government with the medal of Knight in the Order of Leopold II in 1931. During the Second World War, he was executed by the Japanese along with Fr. Laurent Decaestecker, CICM on 21 March 1945. VII. THE CICMS IN ABRA On account of the deportation of the SVD missionaries during World War I, Bishop Peter Joseph Hurth of Vigan requested the superior of the Scheut missionaries to take over the mission stations in Abra. Fr. Vandewalle was sent to Abra to check the conditions there. After visiting the main stations together with Fr. Michael Hergesheimer, SVD, he sent a report to his superior, who assigned three Scheut missionaries: Fr. Séraphin Devesse, Fr. George Giebens and Fr. Gaston Declercq. Fr. Devesse was the superior of the Abra mission while Fr. Alejo Umel, a Filipino diocesan priest, assisted him. The first baptism celebrated by Fr. Devesse in Tayum took place on 25 November 191883. Fr. Giebens was assigned to La Paz and San Gregorio, then he was succeeded by Fr. Montano Domingo who was also succeeded by Fr. Jacinto Garcia. Fr. Declercq was in charge of the station in Lagangilang, and he also looked after Lacub, Licuan and Bangilo. They left Abra when the SVDs returned to continue their mission there. 83. See Baptismal Book I-B, Tayum, St. Catherine of Alexandria Parish, Baptismal Book I-B, reg. no. 1/2, p. 96. His last baptism was on 19 July 1919. See Baptismal Book I-B, Tayum, St. Catherine of Alexandria Parish, Baptismal Book I-B, reg. no. 6, p. 104.

ENGAGEMENTS OF THE CICM MISSIONARIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

229

VIII. CONCLUSIONS The establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in the Mountain Province of the Cordillera Region came about through the efforts of the CICM missionaries who dedicated their lives for the evangelization of the peoples of the Cordillera. They were engaged in the Catholic evangelization of the different ethno-linguistic tribes of the uncharted Cordillera territory and founded Catholic missions in the region. The missionaries were instrumental in the establishment of parishes and the formation of the basic Christian communities. Besides the evangelization of the peoples of the Cordillera, the CICMs also preserved in perpetuity the folktales, the epics, the languages and other cultural practices and traditions of the various tribes in their written form through scholarly treatises. With the founding of educational institutions, the people of the Cordillera Region had access to higher learning. Many of the graduates of these schools were distinguished in their professions. The CICMs also prepared the local Church through the formation of the indigenous clergy with the setting up of seminaries and the foundation of a congregation of indigenous sisters known as the Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, whose main task was the evangelization of the Mountain Province through catechetical work. Divine Word Seminary Tagaytay Tagaytay City Philippines [email protected]

Michael G. LAYUGAN, SVD

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT “DONATISM” IN THE BELGIAN CAPUCHIN PROVINCE (1925-1945)

The Belgian Capuchins’ chapter of 1925 witnessed a change of government that would strongly determine the aspect of this province of the Order during the decades that followed. The new government was warmly welcomed by some Capuchins, but others described the election as a “spiritual coup d’état”. A tendency came to power that advocated stricter observance and placed greater emphasis on the contemplative aspect of Capuchin life. Given the marked diversity of opinion among the Capuchins about this change of government, my purpose in this contribution is to establish how it can most accurately be interpreted. In order to do this, I will discuss evolutions in the government of the Belgian Capuchin province between the 1925 chapter and the Second World War. The Capuchins themselves refer to these years as the era of “Donatism”, not a reference to the schismatic movement of that name in fourth-century North Africa, but to Donatus Wynant, provincial superior from 1928 to 1932 and a pivotal figure in the observant movement. To provide some context, I will first sketch the state of the Belgian Capuchin province up to and including the interwar period. Then I will discuss the spiritual background of the issue, whose roots reach back to the early Franciscan movement. Finally, I will outline the short- and long-term consequences of Donatism for the Belgian Capuchins and for their role in church and society. I. THE BELGIAN CAPUCHIN PROVINCE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE INTERWAR YEARS The French Revolution, which hit the Capuchins in the Low Countries very hard, was followed by a revival in the mid-1830s, as the Capuchin monasteries of Bruges and Velp (in the Netherlands) strengthened their mutual ties. Their cooperation resulted in the erection of the Dutch-Belgian Custody of the Most Holy Trinity in 1845, which became a province in 18571. However, the Belgians and the Dutch went separate ways again 1. See H. GERARD – J.-P. TYTGAT – S. TEUNS, Oudeenloflijckemanierevanlevenin de seraphike religie der paters capucinen van de vlaemsche provincie 1585-1993: Beknoptehistoriek, Antwerpen, Provincialaat minderbroeders-kapucijnen, 1993, pp. 42-47

232

A. MILH

in 18822. The new Belgian province, dedicated to the Stigmata of Saint Francis, had nearly a hundred members and monasteries in Antwerp, Brussels, Mons, Enghien, and two in Bruges. In the decades following the split, the Belgian province witnessed impressive growth. Membership figures had already grown to 380 by 1914 and 499 by 1940, and they reached their peak of 510 in 1944. This naturally led to several foundations of new monasteries: in Verviers (1894), Herentals (1897), Leuven (1898), Izegem (1900), Ciney (1905), Aalst (1908), Tournai (1920), Ypres (1923), and Lommel (1927). In addition, the monastery in Meersel, hitherto part of the Dutch province, was transferred to the Belgian province in 18843. The rapid increase in membership was no doubt partly caused by the establishment of a Seraphic Seminary in Bruges in 1885. A Seraphic Seminary can be likened to a diocesan minor seminary: boys were educated there in a strongly religious atmosphere which actively fostered vocations. Many pupils joined the Capuchin Order after completing their studies. In addition, the quality of the province’s own philosophate and theologate was stepped up. A number of Capuchins went to university to pursue higher studies4. The knowledge they acquired there helped strengthen the intellectual clout of the province. Publications in various Franciscan journals (such as NeerlandiaFranciscana and ÉtudesFranciscaines) provided testimony to this. In addition to traditional forms of apostolate and pastoral care (parish ministry, preaching, supporting popular devotion, Third Order apostolate etc.) the Capuchins were also engaged in various other “works”: forms of apostolate that combined pastoral care and social support. The target audience consisted of groups that lived on the margins of society, such as Flemish workers in Wallonia, showmen and other itinerant groups, bargemen and dockers. In addition, Belgian Capuchins worked as missionaries in the Punjab in Pakistan (since 1889), in Ubangi in northwest and H. RAES, DekapucijnenindeNederlandenenhetprinsbisdomLuik. Vol. 10: Einde en nieuw begin, Antwerpen, Archief der kapucijnen, 1956, pt. 3 and 4. All translations from Dutch quotations by Dr. Brian Heffernan. 2. There are a number of (diverging) accounts of this split. The most reliable in my view can be found in J. JACOBS, IndeschaduwvanFranciscus:DeNederlandseMinderbroeders-Kapucijnen, Nijmegen, Valkhof Pers, 2016, pp. 64-73. 3. The Capuchins also founded two hospitia(houses not intended for formation and consisting of at most six friars) in Beernem (1930) and Pepinster (1943); cf. LexiconCapuccinum: Promptuariumhistorico-bibliographicumOrdinisFratrumMinorumCapuccinorum(15251950), Roma, Bibliotheca Collegii S. Laurentii Brundusini, 1951, c. 773. 4. See C.E.M. STRUYKER-BOUDIER, WijsgerigleveninNederlandenBelgië1880-1980. Vol. 3: InGodsnaam:Deaugustijnen,carmelietenenminderbroeders, Nijmegen, Katholiek Documentatiecentrum; Baarn, Ambo, 1987, pp. 41-43, 71-74, 175-177 and 229-230.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

233

Congo (since 1910) and in the Great Lakes region of Canada (since 1927)5. The First World War brought the dispersal and separation of the Belgian Capuchins. All of the Belgian province’s monasteries were located in German-occupied territory. Two groups of Capuchins evaded German occupation, however: forty mainly young friars who had been conscripted into the Belgian army, which was positioned on the other side of the Yser river, and the friars who were in formation, who had been evacuated on time to neutral Holland. Father Ildefons Peeters also succeeded in crossing the Yser together with the mobilised Capuchins. Behind the lines, he discovered that Flemish soldiers – unlike the French poilus or the British Tommies – had no magazine in their own native language for news and the presenting of patriotic, military, moral, and religious ideals. In order to fill the gap, he founded De Belgische Standaard (“The Belgian Standard”), a weekly that was published from January 1915 to December 1919 and which at its peak sold 15,000 copies. Various Capuchins cooperated in this journal, as well as a number of Flemish politicians and cultural figures. But De Belgische Standaard soon ran into trouble. Its contributors were not blind to the discrimination of the Flemish soldiers and their native language in the Belgian army, although the tone of their articles always remained patriotic. The periodical’s moderate pro-Flemish attitude was fiercely attacked by the Francophone press, as well as by the Belgian military and civil authorities, resulting in censorship and boycott. Any criticism was regarded as an attack on Belgian unity and thus as detrimental to the nation’s war effort. Chief editor Father Ildefons attempted to avoid conflict by sailing a middle course, but the polarised context made this impossible. On the other hand, DeBelgischeStandaard was criticised for being too moderate in newspapers that espoused a more radical Flemish nationalism. The beginnings of the “Belgian split” – “de barst in België”, as the Belgian historian Lode Wils once called it – were also evident among the mobilised Capuchins, as Ildefons soon discovered. As superior of the Capuchins in free Belgium, he heard the linguistic and political complaints of his young Flemish confreres, some of whom became radicalised. But there were also dissenting voices: thus a Walloon friar labelled DeBelgischeStandaard’s headquarters “un bureau

5. A good historical overview of the province’s formation, traditional forms of apostolate, various activities, and missions can be found in GERARD – TYTGAT – TEUNS, Oude enloflijckemaniere (n. 1), pp. 53-73.

234

A. MILH

flamingant”, and denounced the hostile attitude of some Flemish Capuchins towards their Walloon confreres6. The Flemish-Walloon question would resurface a number of times during the interwar years. Although after the war the Belgian Capuchins expressed the desire to split the province, the general curia of the Order refused this. Instead, it insisted on perseverance in fraternal communal life. A lengthy circular letter on this issue entitled Iterumvobis appeared in February 1926, in which the provincial superior, Chrysostomus Van Gool, wrote that fraternal communal life could only succeed if certain principles of justice were respected, and in which he announced that greater scope would be given to the Dutch language within the Belgian Capuchin province7. This letter caused a great deal of controversy, and Chrysostomus was called to account by Rome. In his written response, he emphasised that the demand for a split came primarily from the Walloons, but that he believed they lacked the manpower to maintain their own province8. Eventually it was decided in 1943 that the Walloon Capuchins would form a commissariat within the Belgian province, which resulted in 1958 in a separate Walloon province9. Thus the Flemish-Walloon question ran like a central thread through the history of the Belgian Capuchin province until after the Second World War. It proved impossible to isolate Capuchin life from contemporary political currents in Belgium. More generally, the cautiously open attitude to the world (in the fields of politics, society, culture etc.) that the Capuchins had fostered even before the war had been strengthened due to the exceptional circumstances in which a section of the province found itself during the war10. This attitude of openness was one of a 6. D. Reumont to I. Peeters, 24 August 1917, Leuven, KADOC, Archivum CapucinorumBelgii (ACB), VI. 95. The sections on the Capuchins during the First World War and on DeBelgischeStandaard are based on A. MILH, Metkapenkoord:Eenonderzoek naar de rol van de kapucijnen in de Vlaamse beweging tot ca. 1950 (Master’s thesis Theology, KU Leuven), Leuven, 2015, pp. 39-63. See also H. RAES, HetVlaamsgezinde dagbladDeBelgischeStandaardvandeKapucijnIldefonsPeeters, Antwerpen, Archief der kapucijnen, 1957. 7. Letter dated 1 February 1926, ACB, II. B47 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Chrysostomus Van Gool. 8. Letter dated 12 March 1926, ACB, II. B25 Briefwisseling provinciaals: Chrysostomus Van Gool, 964. See also the letters from Rome to C. Van Gool, 26 September 1925 and 4 March 1926, in the same archival file, under nos. 932 and 964 respectively. 9. G. Michiels to D. Wynant, 10 June 1943, ACB, II. B31 Briefwisseling provinciaals: Gommarus Michiels, 2775 and letter to G. Michiels, 1 July 1943, ACB, II. B16 Acta provincialia: Gommarus Michiels, 2781. 10. See F. BOEVE, Het franciskaans ideaal in de branding: Het sociologisch groeiproces der Vlaams-Belgische kapucijnenprovincie sinds haar heroprichting in 1845, in Voxminorum 21 (1967) 111-120, p. 112.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

235

number of factors that caused a sharp backlash during the decades following the First World War in the form of Donatism. II. THE SPIRITUAL BACKGROUND OF DONATISM Immediately after his death, Francis of Assisi’s special way of life and spirituality led to debates about how the Friars Minor should imitate him. This climate of diverging interpretations was further fuelled by the fact that Francis did not leave any detailed consuetudinary, and that he had only written a rule for his followers at the Pope’s explicit request. Moreover, the Order evolved very rapidly in a changing context, as houses were founded in cities across Europe, chairs were filled at universities, and pastoral tasks assumed. During the 1270s and 1280s, a first great conflict arose between Conventuals and zealots or “Spirituals”. The Conventuals admitted a more liberal interpretation of the rule, accepted additional papal regulation and dispensations, and lived together in larger monasteries (hence their name). The Spirituals were a more fluid group of friars who adopted more extreme positions on poverty and obedience (they talked about whether they should obey the Pope if he were to force them to accept possessions). The status of the Testament of Saint Francis was another bone of contention between these two strands: for the Conventuals, this document was not binding, for the Spirituals, it was strictly binding. It is no surprise that the Spirituals’ views on obedience in particular caused problems with their superiors within the Order and with the Pope, especially because they frequently used apocalyptic visions to afford legitimacy to their views. Roman condemnation ultimately caused the demise of the Spiritual strand, but its ideas remained influential in the Order11. From the fifteenth century onwards, relations with the Observant movement formed a second great source of tension within the Order. Like the conflict with the Spirituals, tensions with the Observants can also be characterised as “a struggle between a ‘legalistic’ [to the letter] and ‘spiritual’ [more liberal] reading of the rule”12. Their spiritual atti11. My source for this section is D. BURR, TheSpiritualFranciscans:FromProtest toPersecutionintheCenturyafterSaintFrancis, University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001, pp. 305-313. 12. H. GERARD, Initiatie en Self-Image in de Belgische Kapucijnenprovincie sinds 1845. Vol. 1: Inleidingenvoorstudie (Licentiate thesis Political and Social Sciences, KU Leuven), Leuven, 1968, p. 188. Also Lothar HARDICK has pointed at the impossibility and undesirability of articulating the imitation of Christ and evangelical ideals in legal terms

236

A. MILH

tude caused the Observants to advocate a return to the “original Franciscan ideal”. They espoused the view that this ideal had actually existed in the thirteenth century, only to be snowed under in the subsequent period. However, the Observants’ tendency to adhere to the letter of the rule quickly threatened their original spiritual motivation. In addition, they emphasised poverty, asceticism, and penance, believing as they did that these things closely approximated Francis’s own style of life13. They were officially recognised in 1432, so that the Order of Friars Minor then consisted of two movements, both still subject to the same minister general. In 1517, the Order was effectively split in two14. As has been seen, the spiritual attitude of the Observant movement soon became superficial, and in fact the Observants also began to accept mitigations of the rule. Discontent with these developments among Italian Observants led in 1525 to the rise of a new movement, whose distinguishing feature was an emphasis on the contemplative life. Moreover, the adherents of this new movement not only wanted to follow the strict observance, but they also wanted to take Francis himself as the model for their lives. In 1528, in the bull Religionis zelus, they received papal approval as the third branch of the Friars Minor. This bull also authorised them to wear a habit with a pointed hood, an external feature which gave the new order its name: the Friars Minor Capuchin. A number of common traits can be identified if we look at these three groups – Spirituals, Observants, and Capuchins – (their original aim at least): radical asceticism, radical penance, radical poverty … (radicalism is meant here in its literal sense: they believed that these practices were rooted in the historical figure of Francis), strict observance of the rule, and much attention for the contemplative-mystical element of religious life.

(see his DieEntwicklungdesArmutsverständnissesimOrdenderMinderenBrüdernach demTodedesHl.Franziskus, in D. BERG [ed.], SpiritualitätundGeschichte.Festgabefür LotharHardickzuseinem80.Geburtstag [Saxonia Franciscana, 2], Werl, Dietrich Coelde Verlag, 1993, 73-83, pp. 82-83). 13. Even though N. ŞENOCAK for instance has demonstrated that the virtue of poverty derived its prominence in the Franciscan tradition more from later Franciscan theologians than from Francis himself (see his TheMakingofFranciscanPoverty, in RevueMabillon 24 [2013] 5-26). 14. My sources for this section are L. VIALLET, Héritagesdel’Observanceetaspirations réformatrices chez les franciscains au début du XVIe siècle, in C. GALLAND – F. GUILLOUX – P. MORACCHINI (eds.), LesRécollets:Enquêted’uneidentitéfranciscaine (Perspectives historiques), Tours, Presses universitaires François-Rabelais de Tours, 2014, 29-37 and C.M. DE LA RONCIÈRE, IdentitésfranciscainesauXVesiècle:Laréformedes communautésmasculines, in F. MEYER – L. VIALLET (eds.), Identitésfranciscainesàl’âge desréformes (Histoires croisées), Clermont-Ferrand, Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal, 2005, 33-53.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

237

These characteristics were once again to the fore in the reform process intended to make the Capuchins fit for the twentieth century. Bernard of Andermatt must be mentioned here, the Order’s minister general from 1884 to 1908. His motto for the reform of Capuchin life was actio et contemplatio, or, as the Belgian Capuchin Hugo Gerard phrased it: “it is through rejection of the ‘world’, strict religious discipline, a spirit of prayer, and fervour for the apostolate that the order must rise again and engage itself with modern times”15. The contemplative life and strict asceticism provided a good basis for full commitment to pastoral ministry. In view of the tension between contemplation and action, Bernard warned against an old deficiency in the Order, namely a tendency to spiritualism: “[Wir müssen] in uns die Liebe zur Arbeit nach der Absicht des hl. Franziskus pflegen. Unser Orden ist nicht ein beschaulicher, aber auch nicht ein rein tätiger Orden, wir müssen beten und arbeiten. […] Im seraphischen Orden sind alle zur Arbeit verpflichtet”16. In the context of the reform of the Capuchin life, at the general chapter of 1898 Bernard attempted to gain approval for a revision of the constitutions of the Order. The constitutions as they existed at the time dated from 1643 and were therefore no longer applicable in many respects to a changed context, nor were they compatible with subsequent texts from the Magisterium. But the way in which Bernard initiated the process of revision alienated many capitulars. The minister general had single-handedly prepared a first draft to serve as a basis for further discussion. This demarche caused a split in the chapter between a faction that was prepared to accept Bernard’s text as a revision, and a faction that wanted to use the existing constitutions as the point of departure. The latter faction ultimately won the day, with the backing of the Holy See17. A new minister general was elected at the 1908 general chapter, Pacificus of Seggiano, and a commission was established to oversee the revision of the constitutions. In a letter to the Pope, Pacificus described the value of the constitutions: they had regulated and governed the life of the Order from the moment of its foundation to the present, they had formed many saints, preserved the spirit of Francis and the first Friars Minor, and 15. GERARD, Initiatie (n. 12), p. 211. 16. H. FELDER, P.BernardChristenvonAndermatt(1837-1909)unddieErneuerung desKapuzinerordens, Schwyz, Drittordens-Zentrale, 1943, p. 322. 17. On the 1898 general chapter, see V. CRISCUOLO, BernardoChristendaAndermatt e la revisione delle costituzioni dell’Ordine dei Capuccini, in B. VADAKKEKARA (ed.), BernardoChristendaAndermattacent’annidallamorte.AttidelConvegnoInternazionaleaRoma11-13marzo2010 (Bibliotheca Seraphico-Capuccina, 96), Roma, Istituto Storico dei Cappuccini, 2012, 271-337.

238

A. MILH

they proved the legitimacy of the Capuchin claims to be the successors of these first Friars Minor. For these reasons, all Capuchins regarded the constitutions as “sacred”. This very “supposedly mystical atmosphere surrounding the constitutions” can also explain the fierce resistance that Bernard encountered when he proposed to revise the constitutions by replacing them with a wholly new text. His successor was more tactical, and emphasised that the revision was an adaptation of the existing text, and not therefore a substantial change. Pius X approved the revised Capuchin constitutions in 1909, taking the opportunity to confirm that he too thought that they reflected the authentic, “integral” spirit of Francis, proving that the Capuchins were indeed among his legitimate sons18. In addition to the characteristics that I have distilled above from the history of Spirituals, Observants, and Capuchins, two further elements deriving from the period around the turn of the century must be mentioned here: the presence of a spiritualist tendency, and an internationally legitimised strict approach to the letter of foundational Capuchin documents on account of the sacred character that these texts had for many friars. III. DONATISM

IN THE

BELGIAN CAPUCHIN PROVINCE

1. UnderChrysostomusVanGool’sGovernment(1925-1928) When Chrysostomus Van Gool was elected provincial superior on 6 August 1925, this was a return to a position he had had to relinquish three years previously (he had already been provincial superior between 1919 and 1922). Within a month after his election, on 1 September, he presented the outlines of what was to be his policy for the following three years. He did this by simultaneously issuing four documents: a general circular entitled Bestuurrichtingen (“Directions of government”) and three directives (one for the bargemen’s and dockers’ apostolate, one for friars serving in the army, and one for friars in parish ministry). At the very start of Bestuurrichtingen, Van Gool stressed that the consuetudinary should be observed “without any gloss”, and that the local superiors should be vigilant against infractions or abuses. They were also reminded of their duty to protect their charges against dangers in the “world”, and were instructed to frequently “insist on the practice of self-control and mortification”. In addition, they should always be aware 18. On the revision of the constitutions under Pacificus, see B. VADAKKEKARA, CapuchinGeneralMinisterPacificusCarlettiofSeggiano:OnProgrammedMandate(19081914), in Collectaneafranciscana 84 (2014) 503-546, pp. 529-533.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

239

of the whereabouts of the friars, who in turn should always seek the superior’s blessing before leaving. Capuchin life was described as a vita mixta (prayer and work), but in the practical execution of this principle, Van Gool warned only that work must not overshadow prayer. Furthermore, he specified that religious should not become involved in politics, and that they were banned from attending evening meetings of any nature. The directives contained similar stipulations: religious who worked in parishes should always observe the rule and the constitutions and obey their superiors in everything; the bargemen’s and dockers’ chaplains should limit their activities to exclusively sacerdotal duties and should not shirk communal prayer; Capuchins serving in the army, finally, should strictly maintain their religious identity19. A specific appointments policy was implemented to support this tightening of discipline. Friars active in all kinds of activities were changed to other monasteries, thus limiting or terminating their involvement in that form of apostolate. Hilonius (Tillo) Werbrouck, the head of a school for bargemen’s children in Bruges, was for example sent to Antwerp in 1925. Of the Antwerp community, no fewer than twelve members were sent elsewhere20, including Valerius Claes21. Valerius, who held a doctorate in social and political sciences, was an assistant to Frans Van Cauwelaert – an important Flemish nationalist politician in the Catholic Party and the mayor of Antwerp – and secretary of the KatholiekeVlaamsche Landsbond (KVL, “Catholic Flemish National Union”), an umbrella organisation for associations that had “strong sympathies for the connection between Flemish and social action, between the Flemish Movement and Christian Democracy”22. The previous provincial superior (and Valerius’s good friend) Rafaël Andrianne had dispensed Valerius from religious obligations in the afternoon and the evening so as to allow him to focus fully on his position as secretary. Valerius’s strong political views made him the recipient of attacks both from the Francophone, proBelgian side and from the Flemish nationalist side (which considered him 19. Bestuurrichtingen (“Directions of government”), Statutum pro Religiosis nostris servitioparoecialiaddictis, Reglement voor het werk van schippers-dokkers (“Directive for the bargemen’s-dockers’ apostolate”) and Reglement voor kloosterlingen-soldaten (“Directive for religious soldiers”), 1 September 1925, ACB, VI. 116. 20. G. TIRELIREN, Antwerpen en de kapucijnen, Antwerpen, Vlaamse Kapucijnen, 2006, p. 117. 21. The sections on Valerius Claes are based on G. TIRELIREN, Rechtdoor: Valeer Claes1884-1958, Antwerpen, Vlaamse Kapucijnen, 2000, pp. 73-91. 22. E. GERARD, KatholiekeVlaamscheLandsbond, in R. DE SCHRYVER – B. DE WEVER – G. DURNEZ (eds.), NieuweEncyclopedievandeVlaamseBeweging, Tielt, Lannoo, 1998, vol. 2, 1638-1646, p. 1639.

240

A. MILH

too moderate). The Belgian bishops also viewed the issue with increasing concern, as disunity among Catholics over the Flemish question was imperilling the strength of the Catholic Party. Although after his transfer from Antwerp to Brussels in 1925, Valerius was appointed a curate in his new city of residence, he was permitted to continue as secretary of KVL (and indeed to bring the entire secretariat with him). Tensions had mounted to a dangerous degree by 1928. The provincial had received numerous complaints about Valerius, all of them related to his “political” position as secretary of KVL. At the same time, Valerius had fallen foul of the superior of the Brussels monastery, Ephrem Facon, a supporter of the new provincial government. Valerius attempted to defend himself against the complaints, but was ignored both by the provincial government and by the general curia. The issue came to a head in 1929, under the newly-elected provincial Donatus Wynant. In a letter read out by Father Ephrem, Valerius was told that the provincial superior had decided that his position as secretary of KVL was “incompatible” with his task as a curate in Brussels, and that he consequently had to resign the former position by 1 January 1930. In the fallout from the announcement of his dismissal, Valerius wrote to his friend Rafaël Andrianne to express his aversion to the provincial government as well as his personal sense of hurt: his forced dismissal was a “masterpiece of cowardliness and sanctimony […] Father, I’ve been broken and I can’t stand straight anymore”23. In May 1930, Valerius was transferred to the monastery of Meersel, and in 1932 to Herentals. In both postings he was occupied exclusively with religious duties. The archive of the Flemish Capuchin province contains a number of letters and notes by Valerius, in which he looked analytically at the government of the province. These show that he regarded the chapter of 1925 as the turning point. He described it as “a spiritual coup d’état [, which] had long been prepared through secret manoeuvres and intrigue”24. This coup d’état had led in the following years to a “regime” that hid behind words like “observance, constitutions, directives by the superior, and spirit of the order”, but which was actually a disfigurement of Capuchin life. He quoted four elements in particular: (1) the directives focused especially on the divine office and on externals; (2) the life of Capuchins in formation was characterised by strict asceticism and “eccentric exaggerations that cannot be observed by any normal ordinary person”; (3) a climate of discord, spying, and informing had been created, and religious 23. V. Claes to R. Andrianne, 25 October 1929, ACB, VI. 2. 24. Quoted in TIRELIREN, Rechtdoor (n. 21), p. 73.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

241

who did not agree with the government were despised; and (4) a neglect of the active apostolate and of preaching, which weakened Capuchin influence in public life25. Valerius also described the method used: a dual role played by the provincial superior, partisanship at the elections, the occupying of all key posts in the province through appointments, and the “duplicitous role” played by Fredegandus Callaey, a Belgian historian and archivist who worked in the general curia in Rome26. Callaey was said to have supported the new provincial policy and therefore to have systematically suppressed every complaint that reached Rome. “Poor Province, where so much work carried out by the best is smashed under the pretext of observance”, Valerius concluded in a letter to Rafaël27. Valerius’s letter also reveals that although this policy had commenced under the “pretext of ‘spiritualism’ and ‘reform’” during Chrysostomus’s second term as provincial superior, the latter was only “the slave of a disastrous policy”, and not its prime mover28. This brings us to the figure of Donatus Wynant and his term of office. 2. UnderDonatusWynant’sGovernment(1928-1932) In August 1919, just before his thirtieth birthday, Donatus was appointed novice master for the Belgian Capuchin province. He carried out his new task zealously, intending to “provide the province with a new generation of ardent and inspired religious”, according to Hugo Gerard, who succeeded in interviewing him on a number of occasions in the 1960s. These interviews show that Donatus’s approach was based on the Compendiumtheologiaeasceticaeadvitamsacerdotalemetreligiosam rite instituendam (1921), a two-volume work which he had compiled together with his predecessor Adolfus Kestens. Their approach of spirituality emphasised contemplation, asceticism, and “absolute docility towards the spiritual leader” (i.e. the novice master)29. Donatus’s archival papers contain many letters to his spiritual “children” which highlight these aspects. His focus on an “integral” 25. Memorandum dated 1 August 1932, ACB, VI. 2. 26. Ibid. On Callaey, see A. MILH, Callaey (Jan, short for Joannes Baptist), FredegandusvanAntwerpen,BelgianCapuchinFriar,ArchivistandHistorian(1885-1967), in DHGE 188-189a (2017) 569-572. On the role he supposedly played in this issue, see also V. Claes to R. Andrianne, 17 May 1926 and 25 October 1929 and V. Claes to J.A. of San Giovanni in Persiceto, [1926?], ACB, VI. 2. 27. V. Claes to R. Andrianne, 25 October 1929, ACB, VI. 2. 28. V. Claes to R. Andrianne, 17 May 1926, ACB, VI. 2. 29. See footnote 423 on p. 214 in GERARD, Initiatie (n. 12).

242

A. MILH

experience or preservation of the Franciscan ideal in the twentieth century is striking30. Minister General Venantius of Lisle-en-Rigault was so impressed by Donatus’s vision of the noviciate that he personally promoted his appointment as novice master. He is said to have addressed the following line to Donatus: “Père Donat, faites-en tous de bons Donatistes!”31. A visitation of the houses of study in early 1926 gave rise to extensive letters of congratulation on account of the qualities which he was inspiring in the young friars: “quel zèle, aussi ardent qu’éclairé […] un grand attachement à l’observance régulière, un vif amour de la très sainte Pauvreté, enfin le goût d’une vie intérieure intense, jointe aux saints labeurs d’un apostolat qui ne peut être que fécond”32. But the response to Donatus’s work was not all positive. In an undated letter drafted for a chapter (in the summer of 1925 or 1928), a group of Capuchins from various monasteries protested against recent trends in the noviciate: Under the pretext of zeal for communicating the monastic spirit to the novices, and of working against so-called increased laxness, a mind-set has arisen which has the most disastrous consequences. […] A spirit of hostility is being fostered among the young against others, because according to the opinion of Donatus’s pupils these no longer possess the spirit of the Order33.

The letter referred to mounting tensions in the monastery of Izegem, which at the time housed the theologate. The authors did not hesitate to identify Donatus as the instigator of the difficulties. They opined that he acted only from “all too human ambition”, and concluded by expressing the wish and the appeal that fraternal charity should take precedence in Capuchin life above strictness of observance. The letter of a missionary who claimed to speak for the missionaries and for many other religious, contained a similar cry of despair. This letter too was addressed to a chapter, this time certainly that of 1928. The missionary bluntly contended: “Nous nous trouvons devant l’abîme! On a changé, on a reformé, on réforme, mais on n’améliore pas! La province belge autrefois une des plus belles de l’Ordre, est devenue un terrain […] d’exploitation de l’esprit franciscain, d’après l’Évangile de quelques30. See for instance D. Wynant to his “children”, New Year 1928-1929, ACB, VI. 553, 100. 31. Memorandum P. De Cleer, 27 May 1945, ACB, VI. 553, 112. 32. J.A. of San Giovanni in Persiceto to D. Wynant, 2 January 1926, ACB, VI. 553, 44. 33. Discreti of various monasteries to the provincial superior and definitors [summer of 1925 or 1928], ACB, VI. 2. As this copy of the letter is unsigned, the identity of the authors is unknown.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

243

uns”. This complaint was followed by a series of specific examples of what was wrong in the province: novices were keeping files on their confreres’ behaviour; a story was doing the rounds unchecked in the noviciate that one friar, a former provincial superior, knew nothing of the life of Francis; several friars had fled to the missions because they could no longer thrive in the monastic climate that had arisen. According to the prevailing logic, someone who had spent only a few months in the Order could be a Franciscan reformer, while older religious laboured under the constant suspicion of being weaklings and cowards. Donatus was the sole exception: “Un seul est saint; le P. Maître, et le P. Maître encense les novices et les novices encensent le P. Maître. […] L’esprit franciscain est monopolisé par un seul”34. The chapter of 1928 brought to light just how deeply the divisions within the Belgian Capuchin province ran. Despite the appointments policy that Chrysostomus had carried out over the previous years, the vote was extremely hard-fought. Chrysostomus himself was not a candidate to succeed himself and even abstained from exercising his own vote so that he would be free to leave for the newly established Canadian mission. His expected successor Donatus was eventually elected provincial superior on the fourth ballot, winning from Rafaël Andrianne by only two votes35. Donatus’s circulars and directives as provincial superior clearly reflect the theological-spiritual programme that he had initiated among the novices as their master. It viewed Capuchin life as a way of sanctification through contemplation, asceticism, and the strict observance of the Order’s legislative-normative corpus, which was presented as sacred. Thus he wrote, God certainly desires to give to each of us the full measure of happiness and the full degree of glory to which our souls are susceptible; but this is only realised through our generous cooperation: through our general fidelity to our vows, to our rule, to our constitutions, and to the customs of the Order. Let each of us receive the measure of happiness and the degree of glory that he will have earned through strict and loving fidelity to all prescriptions. […] We will accept these directives in a supernatural spirit, without inquiring into the reasons why they were issued, or daring to contest their suitability36. 34. Letter from a missionary (in Canada?) to C. Van Gool, 4 August 1928, ACB, II. B26 Briefwisseling provinciaals: Chrysostomus Van Gool, 1265. 35. ScrutiniumCapituliProvincialisP.P.CapucinorumProvinciaeBelgicae, 7 August 1928, ACB, VI. 116. 36. D. Wynant to the guardians, 9 November 1929, II. B47 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Donatus Wynant. See also his circular letter of 20 December 1931 in the same archival file.

244

A. MILH

The importance that was given to rules increased the demand for them: if it was possible to be saved as a Capuchin by following the rules, it was necessary that there should be rules for everything in the Capuchin life. Rules imposed themselves as an Ersatz spirituality. It comes as no surprise therefore that many new directives were issued during Donatus’s term of office, most of them tending towards the concept that Capuchins were above all religious who had left the world, were expected at the divine office, participated in community life, and owed absolute obedience to their superiors37. This focus on the internal aspects of the Capuchin life and the reserved attitude towards anything of the world – certainly towards anything that was related to politics – was the cause of the sharp confrontation between Valerius Claes and the provincial government, as we have seen. Donatus’s vision of the Capuchin life was expressed most clearly in a circular letter addressed to the local superiors in October 1929. He wrote that “it […] is becoming ever clearer that the supernatural spirit has sharply receded among our religious. The standard of the religious life in the Province is not as high as it should be”. This crisis should inspire the superiors to take action, and motivate them to “make better use of the medicines that we have at our disposal”. These medicines, consisting of instruction, fatherly admonition, strict application of the rules, attentiveness to the general good, and awareness that they were responsible for the eternal fate of the religious, needed to be applied “FOR THE HEALING OF SOULS AND THE FORMATION of the true, integral, monastic and Franciscan spirit”38. The use of the word “integral” is striking. On the one hand this corresponds to what Pius X wrote about how the spirit of Francis was reflected by the Capuchin constitutions; on the other it is also reminiscent of the integralist tendency during the modernist crisis. Donatus experienced the period in which he lived as a time of crisis, in which the religious life had to be preserved “integrally”, in its purity. This could be done if the Order were to fall back upon itself (retreat from the world and focus more on contemplation), and through emphasis on formalism and control, but this resulted in an unpleasant climate within the Order39. 37. In ACB II. B27 Briefwisseling provinciaals: Donatus Wynant: Schippers-parochiewerk (“Bargemen’s-parochial work”), 18 April 1929, 1346; Reglement voor het bureel van de tijdschriften (“Directive for the journals’ office”), 18 April 1929, 1344; Reglement voor kloosterlingen-soldaten (“Directive for religious soldiers”), 23 August 1929, 1394 and Reglement voor het noviciaat (“Directive for the noviciate”), 30 January 1930, 1448. Cf. Overlijdens:P.ClementWynant, in Voxminorum 26 (1972) 116-128, pp. 119-120. 38. Circular letter by D. Wynant to the guardians, 20 October 1929, ACB II. B46 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Donatus Wynant. 39. For one example of this unpleasant climate, see the comment on the circular letter of 4 May 1931, signed only with the initials “P.M.D.”, ACB, II. B46.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

245

Despite resistance, Donatus was re-elected provincial superior at the 1931 provincial chapter. He would not complete his three-year term, however, as he was elected definitorgeneralis (assistant and counsellor of the Order’s minister general) at the general chapter in May 1932. Theobaldus Delaere, first definitorprovincialis, was then appointed vicar provincial by Minister General Vigilius of Valstagna. The fact that Donatus was elected to a post at the general level of the Order shows that his vision of the Capuchin life enjoyed a measure of international support. Jan Jacobs’s historiographical work permits us to draw an interesting parallel with the Dutch Capuchin province. Between 1924 and 1927 this province was governed by Vitus Kaarsgaren, a follower of Pancratius Brans and Silverius Vissers, who can both be characterised as advocates of Donatism. Vitus in fact corresponded extensively with Donatus during the 1920s40. But his strict policy as provincial superior resulted in serious tensions in the Dutch province which thwarted his re-election in 192741. Theobaldus Delaere’s term of office appears to have been somewhat of a transitory period until the next chapter which would elect a new provincial superior. In the autumn of 1932, he visited the various Capuchin communities in Belgium, an inspection tour of which he sent a report to the minister general. His general impression was positive, but he complained about two tendencies that he had observed, both linked to the apostolate. On the one hand there were friars who were fully engaged in their activities, at the expense of their interior life. On the other, there were friars with an “oisivité condamnable”. The former group criticised the latter because they had to work twice as hard as the others did nothing; the latter criticised the former, because they were totally absorbed in the apostolate42. In his Christmas letter to the Belgian Capuchins, Theobaldus therefore mainly called for unity and fraternal charity. In addition he pointed out that the turbulent times in which they were living, with so many people in need, compelled the Capuchins to engage in the apostolate and in social work: “Our higher life must lead to social action”. 40. Kept in ACB, VI. 553, 1-29. 41. JACOBS, IndeschaduwvanFranciscus (n. 2), pp. 206-207 and 236-237. Silverius was once described as a “tremendously strict Capuchin” and described himself as a “literalist” (letters of 17 January 1964 and 14 November 1958, in SINT-AGATHA, Erfgoedcentrum Nederlands Kloosterleven, ArchiefvandeNederlandseKapucijnen[ANK], C00180). Vitus was seen as a “sympathiser” of Donatus (cf. VitaViti, in ANK, C00174). Both Vitus and Silverius wrote on Franciscan and Capuchin spirituality; Vitus’s work was even published: Despiritualitatefranciscana:Aliquacapitafundamentalia, Roma, Administratio Analectorum Ordinis, 1949. 42. T. Delaere to Vigilius of Valstagna, 15 March 1933, ACB, II. B28 Briefwisseling provinciaals: Theobaldus Delaere, 1872.

246

A. MILH

This should not, however, be interpreted as an exhortation to the unfettered development of activity, as “true social action […] is co-redeemership with Christ, with Him, in Him, and under Him, and its infallible mark: the disinterested, unflagging zeal for souls, humble prayer, sacrifice, and penance”. Without this interior aspect, external activities were doomed to remain fruitless43. 3. UnderRafaëlAndrianne’sGovernment(1934-1940) On the occasion of the provincial chapter held in August 1934 a number of Capuchins who were not content with the course steered by Chrysostomus and Donatus seized the initiative. Thus Valerius Claes sent the definitors’ council a memorandum in late July in which he asked them to reflect thoroughly on a number of points in view of the upcoming chapter. These points were all related to the necessary “adaptation of Capuchin activity to the desperate needs of Catholicism in our country and the immense dangers that threaten it. […] These new demands and menacing dangers urgently and radically require new forms of apostolate, and particularly a new, deeply evangelical spirit”44. The memorandum is a clear indictment of the Donatists’ view of the apostolate. Theobaldus had already criticised this in his Christmas letter, and wrote to Valerius that his memorandum was “perfectly” according with his own views45. The chapter entrusted the position of provincial superior to Rafaël Andrianne, who had already held this post from 1922 to 1925. He was re-elected again in 1937, and stayed in office until 1940. During the six years of his term, Rafaël succeeded in largely neutralising internal tensions through a policy of moderation. In a letter to the local superiors in 1937, he stressed that “it is not our intention to issue new directives; we desire merely […] to point your attention to the existing prescriptions”46. This formed a marked contrast with the barrage of directives that had followed both Chrysostomus’s and Donatus’s accession. Rafaël further encouraged a spirit of industriousness and emphasised the formation of the religious47. 43. Circular letter by T. Delaere, 25 December 1932, II. B47 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Theobaldus Delaere. 44. Memorandum by V. Claes for the provincial definitory, 23 July 1934, ACB, II. B28, 1920. 45. T. Delaere to V. Claes, ACB, II. B28, 3 August 1934, 2020. 46. Verordeningsbrief aan de EE. PP. Gardianen (“Decree to the Rev. Fathers Guardians”), 20 December 1937, ACB, II. B16 Acta provincialia: Rafaël Andrianne. 47. See the decree of 20 December 1937 and the Raadgevingen en richtlijnen voor onze EE. PP. Gardiaans (“Recommendations and guidelines for our Rev. Fathers Guardians”), 25 July 1938, ACB, II. B46 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Rafaël Andrianne.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

247

The fact that Donatus was no longer living in the Belgian province did not mean that his influence or authority disappeared, as he was elected minister general at the general chapter of June 1938. In this capacity he was entitled to address the capitulars at the end of the chapter to give a brief summary of his programme for the coming six years. This was to focus on preserving the “treasure” which Francis and his successors had handed down to the Capuchins of their time: Thesaurusilleestvitanostracapuccina,quamintegreviveredebemusiuxta Regulam,ConstitutionesettraditionesOrdinis.Ineaconservanda,fovenda, in nobis evolvenda, et fructibus uberrimis ditanda, Deo adiuvante, totas viresnostrasimpenderedebemus48.

Donatus remained convinced even as minister general of the necessity of living the Capuchin life in an “integral” way. He expressed the Donatist idea in a letter addressed to the entire Order, published in the Analecta in November 1938. The purpose of this letter was to remind the Order of the true spirit of the Capuchin vocation, to further deepen this, and to point to a number of dangers that might threaten this vocation. According to Donatus, Providence had maintained and confirmed the Franciscan ideal and its expressions up to the contemporary time, which proved that little or no adaptation to the current context was required. He also discussed formation and the observantia disciplinae, pointing out that the Capuchin life was a vitamixtaevangelica that should be lived in silence, fraternal charity, humility, and penance49. The war made it impossible to convene a general chapter, so that Donatus remained in function until 1946 (although a term was normally for six years). On the occasion of the golden anniversary of his profession in 1957, the then Minister General Benignus of Sant’Ilario Milanese sent him a letter of congratulation. He described two important aspects of Donatus’s term as general: severity and strictness in the observance and the formation of the young friars, and a serious and thorough approach to the religious life, for instance through the publication of a new CaeremonialeRomano-Seraphicum (1944). According to Benignus, Donatus had made Rigideestote, the call which Pius XI had addressed to the 1938 chapter, his own motto50.

48. AllocutioR.miP.GeneralisetCapitulidimissio, in AnalectaOFMCap. 54 (1938) 149-151, p. 150. 49. Letter from D. Wynant to the Capuchin Order, 15 November 1938, in Analecta OFMCap. 54 (1938) 229-241. 50. B. of Sant’Ilario Milanese to D. Wynant, 23 August 1957, ACB, VI. 553.

248

A. MILH

As minister general, Donatus regularly intervened in the government of the Belgian province, even though his powers were limited51. In one of his letters containing policy directives addressed to Gommarus Michiels, provincial superior from 1940 to 1943, he shed some light on the way in which he himself governed the province: For today I would like to point your attention to the necessity […] of regularly vigorously verifying and demanding that the prescriptions are observed. The majority will accept them properly. A minority will be opposed. They will look far ahead for a successor who is broad or weak. In the meantime they will exploit the weakness of the local superiors as much as possible. […] Cooperation between the provincial and local superiors can prevent this52.

This quotation reveals Donatus’s deep distrust of a number of his confreres, as well as his emphasis on the observance and the necessity of appointing like-minded friars to all posts. 4. TheWarYears(1940-1945) At the outbreak of the Second World War Donatus addressed a letter to the Order, which called on them to StateinDomino!, be steadfast in the Lord. This steadfastness could be proved by keeping one’s vocation intact, by strict observance to the rule and the vows, and by bringing many sacrifices, in a spirit of penance for the crimes and sins that would be committed in this war53. Rafaël also addressed a letter to his province at the outbreak of war. He told his confreres that the circumstances of the war must not divert them from their life in the Lord. The Franciscan ideal must not be affected by the war. He also reminded them that it was strictly forbidden for any Capuchin to become involved in politics in any way, to endanger no one and to safeguard serenity within the monastery walls54. After a first opening up under Rafaël’s provincialate, the Donatist regime was increasingly discarded under his successor, Gommarus Michiels. According to Hugo Gerard, a circular letter which Michiels 51. See for instance his speech at the 1946 provincial chapter in Verslag over het provinciaal kapittel der Minderbroeders – Capucijnen te Aalst (“Report of the provincial chapter of the Friars Minor Capuchin in Aalst”), 25-26 August 1946, ACB, II. B31 Briefwisseling provinciaals: Matthias Vermang, 3156. 52. D. Wynant to G. Michiels, 7 March 1941, ACB, VI. 553. 53. Letter from D. Wynant to the Capuchin Order, 15 October 1939, in AnalectaOFMCap. 55 (1939) 225-226. 54. Circular letter from R. Andrianne, 9 August 1940, ACB, II. B47 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Rafaël Andrianne.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

249

wrote in February 1941 was the turning point: “This letter was still somewhat in the style of the previous period, but contained many fine adaptations which were intended to make it possible to approach the world in a more contemporary shape”55. In this letter, Gommarus complained about the Capuchins’ limited involvement in activities, and of the idleness that characterised the lives of a number of friars. He recalled that according to the ideal of the vita mixta, both contemplation and action contributed to personal sanctification, so that neither of these two elements could be neglected56. But this lack of industriousness and zeal for the apostolate which Theobaldus Delaere had also observed can be seen as a direct consequence of Donatism. In another letter from 1941, Gommarus insisted that the friars observe not just “external religious discipline”, but particularly the “inner spirit of our Order”57. Gommarus’s successor Matthias Vermang continued in the same vein. Although the style of his texts was harsh, Matthias nonetheless emphasised Franciscan spirituality and the higher spiritual values more than strict observance of the rules58. In addition, he established a working group of Capuchin preachers in 1945, an organism for the permanent formation of preachers within the province59. Valerius Claes was appointed secretary, an expression of his superiors’ appreciation after many difficult years. IV. CONCLUSION Starting with the accession of Chrysostomus Van Gool as provincial superior in 1925, the ideal and reality of Donatism developed in the Belgian Capuchin province particularly under the government of its greatest protagonist, Donatus Wynant (1928-1932). After Donatus’s 55. GERARD, Initiatie (n. 12), p. 217. 56. Circular letter from G. Michiels, 24 February 1941, ACB II. B47 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Gommarus Michiels; see also TIRELIREN, Antwerpen en de kapucijnen (n. 20), p. 118. 57. Circular letter from G. Michiels, 23 December 1941, ACB II. B47. 58. Matthias’s strictness is evident from his circular letter dated 6 March 1946 (in ACB, II. B47 Omzendbrieven provinciaals: Matthias Vermang), in which he stated that rules that had been mitigated during the war should once again be observed fully. In later circular letters, he emphasised the spiritual values of the Franciscan life, and de-emphasised the strict observance of the prescriptions (see for instance the circular letters of 30 December 1946 and 2 October 1947 in the same archival file). 59. Circular letter from M. Vermang, 21 March 1945, ACB II. B17 Acta provincialia: Matthias Vermang. See also his circular letter of 29 December 1945 (in the same archival file), where he stressed the importance of a “rejuvenated preaching”.

250

A. MILH

departure for Rome, Donatist ideology slowly declined in importance. To summarise, it can be said that the ideals of Donatism were asceticism, contemplation, obedience, and strict observance. In reality, however, asceticism became rigorism, the emphasis on contemplation led to neglect of the apostolate, obedience thwarted any form of participation, and strict observance degenerated into obsessive adherence to the rules and formalism. The consequences were very great: an atmosphere of informing and cliquishness soured fraternal unity, various activities were downsized or terminated altogether, good workers left for the missions. The openness to the world that had arisen during and after the First World War was destroyed. Donatus’s election as definitorgeneralis in 1932 and as minister general in 1938 meant that his ideas received an international platform. At the same time, however, his influence over the Belgian province lessened. Yet it cannot be said that Donatism had fully disappeared by the end of the Second World War. First, the difference between the provincialates of Gommarus Michiels (1940-1943) and Matthias Vermang (1943-1949) on the one hand and those of Chrysostomus and Donatus on the other lay in the formers’ more moderate underlying principles rather than in any specific style of governance. Second, the demise of Donatism had left the Belgian Capuchins without a new ideology. A new Gebruikenboek or consuetudinary published in 1958 did endeavour to meet “the needs and requirements of our time”, but in fact limited itself mainly to giving rules about all kinds of details instead of providing a new perspective on the outline of Capuchin life60. In 1967, the Capuchin Feliciaan Boeve critically averred that the tension between openness and seclusion had “[given rise] to indifference concerning the meaning of religious life in general and Capuchin life in particular. The attempt to stifle the community’s growth slowed down and hampered its evolution”. According to him, the Belgian Capuchin province was therefore still not a “mature community”, characterised by openness, and personal and communal reflection on ideals and structures61. A year later, his fellow friar Hugo Gerard added that the Order had entered a “new crisis of adaptation”, even though the previous one 60. GebruikenboekvandeBelgischeProvinciederMinderbroeders-Kapucijnen, s.l., 1958, p. 1. This incidentally contradicted the spirit which such documents were supposed to reflect, as indicated in respect of the constitutions in PourquoidesConstitutions?, in T. RICCI (ed.), Le patrimoine spirituel des Constitutions des Frères Mineurs Capucins: Contribution à l’étude des Constitutions (Cahiers de Spiritualité Capucine, 10), Paris, APEF, 1997, 7-22, pp. 10-13. 61. BOEVE, Hetfranciskaansideaal (n. 10), pp. 112-113.

REFORM WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT

251

had hardly been digested. Most Capuchins agreed that the Donatist approach was powerless to provide a suitable adaptation of Capuchin life to modern times, but they had few communal ideas on any desirable alternative. This resulted “in the fading of a clear self-image and, correspondingly, in uncertainty”62. Donatism – with its “stiff observantism under the pretext of spiritualism and mysticism” – had caused the Order to lag behind on the level of action, apostolate63. What was transpiring, however, was that the Capuchins were now also losing sight of their spirituality and identity, the polar opposite of what Donatism had wanted with its emphasis on interiorisation and a strong monastic identity. As one Capuchin a few decades previously had also experienced, for Gerard, Boeve and many others, Donatism and its short-term and long-term consequences had proven to be “une réforme sans amélioration”, reform without improvement. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven St.-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Anton MILH

62. GERARD, Initiatie (n. 12), p. 218. The crisis mentioned here applied to the entire religious life in Northwestern Europe in the 1960s, but the Belgian Capuchins’ specific history gave their crisis a colour of its own. 63. H. GERARD, De Vlaamse minderbroeders-kapucijnen nà de Franse Revolutie, in A. DESPLENTERE etal. (eds.), Minderbroeders-kapucijneninVlaanderen:Levenalsbroedersmetenvoordemensen (Religieuzen, 7), Amstelveen, Luyten, 1985, 61-69, p. 62.

VATICAN II: PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET LA DÉCLARATION NOSTRAAETATE CONTRIBUTION À L’HISTOIRE DES ORIGINES LOINTAINES DU CONCILE VATICAN II

I. INTRODUCTION Avant le concile Vatican II, l’Église catholique considérait le peuple juif comme déicide, réprouvé et maudit par Dieu; après cet événement, elle renonça à ce qui fut appelé la «théologie de la substitution», s’engagea dans la voie du dialogue, affirma la permanence de l’élection d’Israël et considéra les juifs comme des «frères aînés». Pour comprendre ce renversement, il faut remonter en amont du Concile, car l’expliquer en partant de cet événement serait se priver d’une clé de compréhension fondamentale. En effet, les principes de Vatican II ne sont pas nés spontanément; ils furent progressivement introduits dans l’Église par des précurseurs. Pour bien comprendre Vatican II, qui est un aboutissement avant d’être un point de départ, il faut donc se situer dans le temps long. Ainsi, le nouveau regard porté sur le judaïsme à partir du Concile n’est pas né du jour au lendemain; il est le fruit d’une lente gestation. Pour appréhender l’éclosion du nouveau regard porté par l’Église sur le judaïsme, il faut partir du début du XIXe siècle, après l’émancipation politique des juifs prônée par l’Assemblée Constituante de 1791 et la fusion de la nationalité juive dans la nationalité française réalisée par Napoléon. Il faut également considérer, à cette même époque, la conversion au catholicisme de quelques juifs qui consacrèrent leur vie à la conversion de leurs congénères, et qui provoquèrent dans la chrétienté un élan missionnaire en faveur d’Israël ainsi qu’un intérêt pour «la question juive», intérêt qui se mua, après leur mort, en un mouvement de sympathie. Parmi les juifs qui œuvrèrent à la conversion de leurs anciens coreligionnaires au XIXe siècle, il faut considérer, par exemple, des personnages comme l’ex-rabbin David-Paul Drach1, ou comme François Libermann, mais surtout les frères Joseph et Augustin Lémann, ainsi que les 1. P. CATRICE, PaulDrach:AncienRabbinetOrientalistechrétien1791-1865, thèse sous la direction du chanoine Henri RENARD pour l’obtention d’un doctorat en théologie, Faculté de théologie de Lille, 1978.

256

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

frères Théodore et Alphonse Ratisbonne, fondateurs de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion. Après être devenus catholiques, ces deux couples de frères travaillèrent avec beaucoup d’énergie à la conversion des israélites et tâchèrent de créer un mouvement de prosélytisme à leur égard au sein de l’Église. Dans ce chapitre, nous allons considérer le rôle de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion dans l’évolution du regard porté par l’Église catholique sur les juifs et le judaïsme, rôle qui a conduit à une remise en cause théologique et à un changement des mentalités qui ont eux-mêmes mené, plus ou moins directement, à la déclaration Nostra Aetate du concile Vatican II. Pour ce faire, nous allons étudier les principes qui ont été à la base de la fondation de cette Congrégation, son évolution après la mort des fondateurs et son impact dans l’Église. Il sera donc successivement question des frères Théodore et Alphonse Ratisbonne et de la fondation de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion, de l’Association de Prières pour Israël, ainsi que de l’évolution de la Congrégation après le choc de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale jusqu’au concile Vatican II. II. LES FRÈRES RATISBONNE ET LA FONDATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION

DE LA

CONGRÉGATION

Théodore et Alphonse Ratisbonne2 naquirent à Strasbourg dans une ancienne et riche famille juive, respectivement le 28 décembre 1802 et le 1er mai 1814. Sous l’influence du philosophe Louis Bautain (1796-1867)3 et de Mlle Louise Humann (1766-1836)4, Théodore se convertit au catholicisme et fut baptisé le 14 avril 1827. Entré au séminaire, il fut ordonné prêtre le 18 décembre 1830. Après avoir travaillé dans le diocèse de Strasbourg jusqu’en 1840, il partit pour Juilly avec l’abbé Bautain et les Prêtres de Saint-Louis. Il devint auxiliaire de l’abbé Dufriche-Desgenettes, 2. C. MONDÉSERT, ThéodoreetMarie-AlphonseRatisbonne, 3 vols, Paris, 1903-1904; ANONYME, LeT.R.PèreMarie-ThéodoreRatisbonne:FondateurdelaSociétédesPrêtres etdelaCongrégationdesReligieusesdeNotre-DamedeSiond’aprèssacorrespondance etlesdocumentscontemporains, 2 tomes, Paris, Poussielgue, deuxième édition, 1905. 3. P. POUPARD, UnessaidephilosophiechrétienneauXIXesiècle:L’abbéLouisBautain, Paris, Desclée et Cie, 1961; J.-L. HIEBEL – L. PERRIN (éds), Louis Bautain: L’abbé-philosophedeStrasbourg(1796-1867), Strasbourg, ERCAL, 1999. 4. P. FLICHE, Mademoiselle Louise Humann (1766-1836): Une Française d’Alsace, Paris, Téqui, 1921; M.L. DE NOTRE-DAME DE SION (É. HUMANN DE CHAZELLE), Unemilitantelaïque,LouiseHumann1766-1836, Paris, Éditions Alsatia, 1957; J.-M. MAYEUR – B. VOGLER – Y.-M. HILAIRE, DictionnairedumondereligieuxdanslaFrancecontemporaine. Vol. 2: L’Alsace, Paris, Beauchesne, 1987.

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

257

fondateur de la confrérie du Très-Saint et Immaculé Cœur de Marie, et aumônier d’un orphelinat. Quelques années plus tard, en 1843, il fonda un néophytat pour les fillettes juives. Il se fit aider par des collaboratrices, en particulier par Sophie Stouhlen et Louise Weywada, qui formèrent la future Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion dont les membres prononcèrent leurs premiers vœux en 18485. En 1851, une supérieure générale fut élue. La Congrégation fut définitivement approuvée par Pie IX en 1863. Entre temps, en 1855, Théodore avait fondé la Société des Prêtres Missionnaires de Notre-Dame de Sion. Il mourut à Paris le 10 janvier 1884. Alphonse Ratisbonne était un avocat violemment anticatholique. Le 20 janvier 1842, tandis qu’il visitait à Rome l’église Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, il se convertit au catholicisme suite à une apparition de la Vierge Marie6. Il fut baptisé dix jours plus tard, le 30 janvier. La même année, il entra chez les jésuites, ordre dans lequel il fut ordonné prêtre en 1848. En décembre 1852, il quitta la Compagnie de Jésus pour rejoindre son frère. Quelques années plus tard, en 1855, il partit pour Jérusalem. Il y fonda le couvent de l’EcceHomo (1858), auquel furent adjoints une école et un orphelinat pour les filles, le monastère de Saint-Jean-inMontana à Ein Karem (1860), orphelinat et lieu de repos, ainsi qu’une École d’Arts et Métiers, l’école Saint-Pierre-de-Sion (1874). Il mourut à Ein Karem le 6 mai 1884. L’œuvre des frères Ratisbonne avait pour «but principal», comme l’écrivit Théodore aux premières dames qui l’aidèrent, «de travailler à la conversion des Juifs, et de ramener les brebis égarées de l’ancien Peuple de Dieu, au sein de l’Église catholique»7. Cet objectif fut confirmé lors du premier Chapitre Général de la Congrégation en 1865: «Les Pères et les religieuses portent le même nom, à cause du but identique que les uns et les autres 5. À propos de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion, voir: F. DELPECH, SurlesJuifs: Étudesd’histoirecontemporaine, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 1983; C. JARDIN, TheSistersofSion–150Yearson, dans CommonGround 3-4 (1992) 10-11; M.C. BOYS, TheSistersofSion:FromaConversionistStancetoaDialogicalWayofLife, dans JournalofEcumenicalStudies 31/1-2 (1994) 27-48; M. COMTE, Sauvetagesetbaptêmes:Les religieusesdeNotre-DamedeSionfaceàlapersécutiondesJuifsenFrance(1940-1944), Paris, L’Harmattan, 2001; M. COMTE, Delaconversionàlarencontre:Lesreligieusesde Notre-DamedeSion(1843-1986), dans Archivesjuives 35/1 (2002) 102-119; M.-D. GROS, La Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion en France, avant et après le concile Vatican II, dans Sens 271/9-10 (2002) 488-504. 6. À ce sujet, voir: ConversiondeM.Marie-AlphonseRatisbonne:Relationauthentique,parM.lebaronTh.DeBussières;suiviedelalettredeM.Marie-AlphonseRatisbonne à M. Dufriche-Desgenettes, Fondateur et Directeur de l’Archiconfrérie du TrèsSaintetImmaculéCœurdeMarie, Paris, Amboise Bray, 1859. 7. Exposé rédigé pour les premières dames qui aidèrent Théodore Ratisbonne, cité dans Le T. R. Père Marie-Théodore Ratisbonne (n. 2), I, p. 318. Il s’agit vraisemblablement d’un document écrit en 1844.

258

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

poursuivent: la conversion des Juifs, œuvre qui a essentiellement besoin du ministère sacerdotal pour se compléter. Il y a donc identité de but et de nom»8. Selon les Constitutions, la Congrégation fut «fondée pour témoigner, dans l’Église et dans le monde, de la fidélité de Dieu à son amour pour le peuple juif et pour travailler à l’accomplissement des promesses bibliques, révélées aux patriarches et aux prophètes d’Israël pour toute l’humanité»9. En outre, ces Constitutions «tendent à unir les conditions de la vie active et de la vie contemplative, afin de reproduire autant que possible dans une même famille religieuse l’esprit de Marthe et l’esprit de Marie. Cette famille religieuse a pour but… la sanctification du prochain, principalement des enfants dispersés de la maison d’Israël»10. III. L’ASSOCIATION DE PRIÈRES POUR ISRAËL En 1905, vingt-et-un ans après la mort de Théodore et Alphonse Ratisbonne, la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion fonda l’Association de Prières pour Israël (A.P.I.)11, qui eut immédiatement un immense succès dans le monde entier. Selon les AnnalesdelaMissiondeN.-D.deSion enTerreSainte, l’A.P.I. était constituée de 16 000 membres en décembre 1906, de 27 000 en mars 1907 et de 33 600 à la fin de la même année12. Dix ans plus tard, en 1917, elle comptait plus de 100 000 membres «appartenant surtout aux nations les plus catholiques, l’Irlande, le Tyrol, le Canada, la Pologne»13. En 1927, 26 confréries lui étaient affiliées14. Trois ans plus tard, en 1930, elle comportait plusieurs centaines de milliers d’associés sur tous les continents; la Hollande en comprenait 200 000 à elle seule15.

8. Extrait des Procès-Verbaux du premier Chapitre Général (1965). Cité dans Le T.R.PèreMarie-ThéodoreRatisbonne (n. 2), II, p. 238. 9. Article 2 des Constitutions de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion. 10. Qu’afaitSionpourIsraëldurantcesquatre-vingtsannéesdesilencieuxlabeur?, dans ArchiconfrériedePrièrespourleRetourd’Israël 15 (mai 1926) 7. 11. À ce sujet, voir O. ROTA, L’AssociationdePrièrespourIsraël(1903-1966):Une associationrévélatricedesorientationsorthodoxesdel’ÉglisefaceauxJuifs, dans BulletinduCentrederecherchefrançaisàJérusalem 13 (2003) 6-21, article mis en ligne le 12 octobre 2007, , [page consultée le 31 mars 2012]. 12. AnnalesdelaMissiondeN.-D.deSionenTerreSainte. Cité par ROTA, L’AssociationdePrièrespourIsraël(1903-1966) (n. 11), p. 8. 13. Qu’afaitSionpourIsraël? (n. 10), p. 6. 14. LeRetourd’Israël:Bulletintrimestrieldel’ArchiconfrériedePrières 18 (15 février 1927) 1-2. 15. G. BICHLMAIR, Notrecoopérationàl’œuvredelaconversiond’Israël, dans BulletincatholiquedeLaQuestiond’Israël 31 (15 mai 1930) 1-9, p. 4.

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

259

Entre temps, le 17 avril 1908, l’Association de Prières pour Israël avait été érigée en confrérie par Mgr Filippo Camassei (1848-1921), patriarche de Jérusalem (1906-1919), qui se joignit lui-même à l’Association16. Le 4 juillet 1908, le pape Pie X adhéra lui aussi à l’A.P.I.17 qu’il érigea en Archiconfrérie par un décret du 24 août 190918. Le premier article des statuts de l’Archiconfrérie de Prières pour la Conversion d’Israël en énonçait la finalité: «Le but de cette association est une union de prières pour la conversion d’Israël, afin qu’illuminés par cette lumière de vérité, qui est le Christ, les restes d’Israël arrivent à la foi catholique»19. Le siège de l’Archiconfrérie était la basilique de l’Ecce Homo, située à Jérusalem (art. 2). Tout catholique pouvait en faire partie; pour cela, il devait «faire inscrire ses nom et prénom sur les registres d’une des confréries régulièrement affiliée au centre»20 (art. 3). L’article 4 des statuts stipule que les membres de l’A.P.I. s’engageaient à réciter chaque jour la prière «Dieu de bonté», dont les paroles sont les suivantes: Dieu de bonté, Père des miséricordes, nous vous supplions par le Cœur Immaculé de Marie et par l’intercession des patriarches et des saints apôtres, de jeter un regard de compassion sur les restes d’Israël, afin qu’ils arrivent à la connaissance de notre unique Sauveur Jésus-Christ, et qu’ils aient part aux grâces précieuses de la Rédemption. Père, pardonnez-leur, car ils ne savent pas ce qu’ils font21.

En outre, «les fidèles qui s’engagent à offrir une communion par mois et les prêtres qui s’engagent à offrir une messe par an pour la conversion d’Israël participent à tous les avantages de l’Archiconfrérie»22. Par ailleurs, sans que ce soit obligatoire, il était recommandé aux associés d’assister à la messe mensuelle célébrée dans chaque confrérie. Il était également conseillé «aux fidèles de dire après l’élévation de la messe, chaque fois qu’ils y assistent, trois fois la prière de Notre Seigneur: Pater,dimitteillis,nonenimsciuntquidfaciunt»23. 16. AnnalesdelaMissiondeN.-D.deSionenTerreSainte 120 (1908). Cité par ROTA, L’AssociationdePrièrespourIsraël(1903-1966) (n. 11), p. 9. 17. AnnalesdelaMissiondeN.-D.deSionenTerreSainte 121 (1908). Cité par ROTA, L’AssociationdePrièrespourIsraël(1903-1966) (n. 11), p. 9. 18. Statuts de l’Archiconfrérie de Prières pour la Conversion d’Israël érigée par décretdeS.S.PieX,du24Août1909, dans LeRetourd’Israël:Bulletintrimestrielde l’ArchiconfrériedePrières 19 (15 mai 1927) 1-4. 19. Ibid., p. 1. 20. Ibid. 21. Prière pour la conversion du peuple d’Israël, dans Le Retour d’Israël: Bulletin trimestrieldel’ArchiconfrériedePrières 19 (15 mai 1927) 3. 22. Statutsdel’Archiconfrérie (n. 18), pp. 1-2. 23. Ibid., p. 2.

260

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

Dans le sixième article, il est stipulé que dans chaque confrérie «la sainte messe doit être offerte une fois par mois pour la conversion d’Israël». Cette messe pouvait être célébrée à un jour fixé par le directeur local ou à certaines fêtes indiquées par les statuts24. Elle devait être «suivie des recommandations et actions de grâces pour la conversion à obtenir ou obtenues», de la prière «Dieu de bonté» et du chant du Parce Domine. Enfin, dans le septième et dernier article, il est mentionné qu’il était souhaitable «que les jours de messe mensuelle, une adoration réparatrice, devant le Très Saint Sacrement exposé, puisse avoir lieu au centre des Confréries»25. En 1917, sur la suggestion du père John Mary (ofm cap)26, la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion développa des «croisades de messes», qui se propagèrent dans le monde entier27. La première année, 48 messes furent célébrées pour la conversion d’Israël. En 1929, il y en eut 24 00028. Ce nombre baissa vraisemblablement par la suite, car il est indiqué dans le bulletin de l’Archiconfrérie que pour l’année 1931, le nombre de messes «a dépassé 4 991»29. En 1922, des «journées mensuelles d’adoration réparatrice» furent inaugurées. Elles furent «faites d’abord à Paris au nom d’Israël par les néophytes, puis étendues par un Chapitre Général de la Congrégation à toutes les maisons de Sion»30. En novembre 1922, l’A.P.I. commença à publier un bulletin intitulé Compte-rendutrimestriel–ArchiconfrériedePrièrespourlaconversion d’Israël31, qui deviendra Le Retour d’Israël: Bulletin trimestriel de l’ArchiconfrériedePrières en 192632, puis le BulletincatholiquedeLa Questiond’Israël33 de 1928 à 1940. Ces publications constituent une très 24. Ibid. Les fêtes suggérées sont les suivantes: 25 janvier (conversion de saint Paul), 24 février (saint Mathias), 25 mars (Annonciation), 25 avril (saint Marc), 24 mai (NotreDame Auxiliatrice), 24 juin (saint Jean-Baptiste), 22 juillet (sainte Marie-Madeleine), 24 août (saint Barthélemy), 29 septembre (saint Michel), 24 octobre (saint Raphaël), 27 novembre (médaille Miraculeuse), 26 décembre (saint Étienne). 25. Ibid. 26. ActivitéapostoliquedeBayswater, dans BulletincatholiquedeLaQuestiond’Israël 34 (15 février 1931), deuxième partie, 38-40, p. 38. 27. Qu’afaitSionpourIsraël? (n. 10), p. 9. 28. BICHLMAIR, Notrecoopérationàl’œuvredelaconversiond’Israël (n. 15), pp. 4-5. 29. CroisadedeMesses, dans BulletincatholiquedeLaQuestiond’Israël 39 (15 mai 1932), deuxième partie, 33-36, p. 36. 30. Qu’afaitSionpourIsraël? (n. 10), p. 6. 31. Compte-rendutrimestriel:ArchiconfrériedePrièrespourlaConversiond’Israël 1 (novembre 1922). 32. Le Retour d’Israël: Bulletin trimestriel de l’Archiconfrérie de Prières 16 (août 1926). Le numéro précédent s’intitulait ArchiconfrériedePrièrespourleRetourd’Israël: Bulletintrimestriel 15 (mai 1926). 33. BulletincatholiquedeLaQuestiond’Israël 24 (15 août 1928).

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

261

bonne source pour appréhender les fondements, l’histoire, et l’évolution de la pensée de la famille sionienne. Avec le temps, on le voit dans les écrits, la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion et l’A.P.I. prirent des accents de plus en plus philosémites et diffusèrent auprès des chrétiens une vision toujours plus positive du judaïsme. Cette nouvelle orientation fut justifiée par la charité et l’amour que les chrétiens devaient avoir à l’égard des juifs en raison de la judaïté de Jésus, de ceux qui l’entouraient (en premier lieu la Vierge Marie) et des premiers apôtres. Pour donner un exemple, voici une prière qui fut distribuée sur une carte par la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion aux enfants des écoles catholiques de Londres en 1923: Jesus King of the Jews Why should I be kind to the Jewish Children and to the Jews. 1. Because Jesus was a little Jewish Child. 2. Because Mary, His Blessed Mother, was a Jewess. 3. Because His Foster-father, St. Joseph, was a Jew. 4. Because the Shepherds, who came to adore Him at Bethlehem were Jews. 5. Because the little Innocents, the first Martyrs, were Jews. 6. Because the Apostles, and all the Friends he had on Earth, were Jews. 7. Because the little child He called to Himself saying, «Suffer little Children to come unto Me», was a Jewish Child. 8. Because for all these reasons, Jesus loves the Jews, and does not like people to be unkind to them, and blesses those who show them kindness. Another reason. If I am kind to the Jews, and to Jewish children, I may make them love Catholics, and love our holy Church, and make them wish one day to belong to it34.

Plus le temps passait, plus la Congrégation prônait un rapprochement des catholiques à l’égard du judaïsme. Pour cela, elle préconisa d’éviter les sujets de discorde et de mettre l’accent sur les points d’entente, comme cela est explicitement écrit dans un article intitulé «Comment nous rapprocher d’Israël» du bulletin LeRetourd’Israël d’août 1926: […] ce qu’il faut, c’est nous rapprocher d’Israël. Il faut un rapprochement de part et d’autre, il faut des concessions de part et d’autre. Concessions de doctrine? Pas précisément. Il faut plutôt montrer l’identité des doctrines en vue du rapprochement. 34. CatholicGuildofIsrael, 25 janvier 1923, London, p. 15. Cité par ROTA, L’AssociationdePrièrespourIsraël(1903-1966) (n. 11), p. 11.

262

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

Il faut que les catholiques cessent d’avoir la phobie, l’horreur du Juif et de ce qui est juif. Il faut que les théologiens et les exégètes catholiques ne possèdent pas le mépris de la théologie et de l’exégèse juive. Il faut cesser de nous moquer du Talmud et des commentaires de l’Ancien Testament. […] ce qu’il faut, ce n’est pas chercher et ressasser les sujets de discorde et de désunion, mais au contraire chercher et trouver les points de rapprochements, les terrains d’entente35.

Dans le même sens, dans une conférence «aux convertis réunis à Notre-Dame de Sion à Vienne, le 31 janvier 1930»36, le père Bichlmair, sj, disait: «Il est évident qu’il ne saurait être question ici d’une pression arbitraire ou d’un prosélytisme inconsidéré et imprudent. Mais prier, nous sacrifier, travailler à créer entre les Juifs et nous une atmosphère de charité et de paix, instruire quand les occasions s’en présentent, écrire de temps en temps un article conciliant dans les revues et les journaux, tels devraient être nos premiers efforts»37. Quelques jours plus tôt, le 25 janvier 1930, à l’occasion du vingt-cinquième anniversaire de la première messe célébrée dans la chapelle de Notre-Dame de Sion à Paris pour l’Association de Prières pour Israël – qui devint l’Archiconfrérie de Prières pour la Conversion d’Israël –, une messe fut célébrée au même endroit. Après la cérémonie, le père Ferrand (NDS) prit la parole. Après avoir rappelé les origines de l’Archiconfrérie, il se félicita des rapprochements avec le judaïsme: Est-il téméraire de penser que, parmi les causes diverses qui ont contribué à diminuer l’antisémitisme farouche d’il y a quarante ans, se trouvent les prières et les sacrifices de l’archiconfrérie? Si nous avons vu les premiers contacts s’établir entre juifs et chrétiens, n’est-ce pas, en partie, grâce à notre archiconfrérie? Qui aurait pensé à un tel rapprochement il y a trente ans? N’eût-on pas traité d’utopiste celui qui eût rêvé d’établir des contacts, des courants de sympathie? Ils existent pourtant maintenant en beaucoup de pays: les barrières ont été, sinon démolies, du moins ébranlées; les juifs et les catholiques se rapprochent; les premiers interrogent les seconds pour savoir ce qu’ils veulent d’eux, ce qu’ils leur proposent, ce qu’ils sont. Ces déblaiements préparent des constructions38.

La finalité que poursuivait la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion en œuvrant au rapprochement des chrétiens et des juifs restait la conversion de ces derniers. Ainsi, dans son intervention, le père Ferrand se félicitait 35. J.-B. NARBONNE, Comment nous rapprocher d’Israël, dans Le Retour d’Israël: Bulletintrimestrieldel’ArchiconfrériedePrières 16 (août 1926) 19-22, pp. 19-20. 36. BICHLMAIR, Notrecoopérationàl’œuvredelaconversiond’Israël (n. 15), pp. 1-9. 37. Ibid., p. 8. 38. Un jubilé, in Bulletin catholique de La Question d’Israël 30 (15 février 1930) 33-39, p. 36.

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

263

des résultats obtenus à ce niveau, de même que des «premiers essais d’un apostolat public»39. Cependant, pour opérer ce rapprochement, NotreDame de Sion tut progressivement certains aspects de l’enseignement de l’Église sur le judaïsme. Il semble qu’il y ait ici une première rupture. Avant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, l’A.P.I. continuait à souhaiter la conversion des juifs au catholicisme et à faire prier à cette intention, mais pour parvenir à créer le courant de sympathie qu’elle espérait, elle passa sous silence certains points de la doctrine catholique. S’agissait-il uniquement d’un moyen tactique? Au regard du bulletin de l’A.P.I, il semble que ce fut le cas au départ. Cependant, petit à petit, ce fut un véritable changement de mentalité qui s’opéra au sein de la Congrégation; le silence progressivement fait par Notre-Dame de Sion sur la doctrine de l’Église fut peu à peu remplacé par une contestation plus ou moins explicite de celle-ci. En 1926, il était écrit dans le bulletin de l’Archiconfrérie que le but de la Congrégation était d’«apaiser la justice divine irritée par le déicide, obtenir aux enfants d’Israël les grâces de repentir annoncées par le prophète Zacharie»40. Treize ans plus tard, en 1939, le père Leroux écrivait dans le bulletin: «D’abord, il n’y a pas de peuple maudit. C’est l’évidence même! […] N’est-il pas évident que Jésus est mort pour tous les peuples; qu’Il n’a voulu exclure aucun peuple, moins encore le peuple dont Il est issu? […] N’est-il pas évident que l’idée même d’une malédiction contre le peuple juif est une injure odieuse contre Jésus, la Vierge Marie et les Apôtres? […] Et aujourd’hui l’Église ne continue-t-elle pas à acclamer son divin Fondateur comme le Fils de David, et Marie comme la joie d’Israël. Est-ce ainsi qu’elle parlerait si Israël était un peuple maudit?»41. Pour donner un autre exemple du changement de mentalité opéré dans la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion, et qui pourrait être confirmé par de nombreuses citations, voici ce qu’un auteur écrivit dans une recension parue en 1938: «qu’on cesse […] d’accuser Torah et Talmud de corrompre l’âme juive. Ils ne font pas plus de tort à l’âme des bons Israélites que notre Code et nos manuels de théologie morale n’en font aux chrétiens»42. Ces mots n’auraient certainement pas été écrits dans les premiers numéros du bulletin. Ils montrent la transformation profonde du regard porté par la Congrégation sur les juifs et le judaïsme, et dont 39. Ibid., pp. 36-37. 40. Qu’afaitSionpourIsraël? (n. 10), p. 7. 41. M. LEROUX (NDS), «L’Antisémitismeestinadmissible»(PieXI), dans LaQuestion d’Israël 68 (1er mai 1939) 496-502, p. 499. 42. ANONYME, Lesidéesetlesfaits, dans LaQuestiond’Israël 65 (1er novembre 1938) 324-335, p. 335.

264

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

témoigne par ailleurs son soutien au sionisme, plus ou moins explicite pendant un temps43, mais tout à fait clair plus tard44. À travers le bulletin de l’Archiconfrérie de Prières pour Israël, on peut donc voir un véritable changement d’état d’esprit au sein de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion, changement qui ne fut certainement pas sans conséquences sur l’évolution des mentalités d’un grand nombre de catholiques, et qui prépara la voie à la déclaration NostraAetate. Il est intéressant de noter qu’en juillet 1940, quelques temps après l’arrivée des Allemands à Paris, la Gestapo se rendit au siège du bulletin de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion pour y confisquer les documents, les archives, la correspondance et les livres qui s’y trouvaient. La raison était, selon les témoignages, que la maison de la Congrégation «était considérée par le gouvernement allemand comme le centre principal des relations entre les chrétiens et les juifs»45. IV. L’ÉVOLUTION DE LA CONGRÉGATION

APRÈS LA

DEUXIÈME GUERRE

MONDIALE

Les persécutions subies par les juifs pendant la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale, qui sont capitales pour expliquer la réalisation de la déclaration NostraAetate46, ont eu des conséquences immédiates sur le regard porté sur le judaïsme par bon nombre de catholiques. Elles ont notamment déterminé une nouvelle inflexion de l’opinnion portée sur le judaïsme par la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion. Depuis 1922, comme cela a été mentionné, l’Association de Prières pour Israël publia un bulletin qui s’est intitulé successivement, avant la guerre, Compte-rendu trimestriel – Archiconfrérie de Prières pour la Conversion d’Israël (1922-1926), LeRetourd’Israël:Bulletintrimestrieldel’Archiconfrérie de Prières (1926-1928), Bulletin catholique de La Question d’Israël (1928-1940). Après la guerre, les Pères de Notre-Dame de Sion reprirent la publication de leur revue. Le premier numéro parut en mai 1947, avec un nouveau titre qui en dit beaucoup sur l’évolution de la Congrégation. La revue avait pris le nom de CahiersSioniens, titre qu’elle garda jusqu’à ce que le bulletin cesse de paraître en 1955. Dans l’éditorial du premier numéro, les 43. Par exemple: Th. DEVAUX, Revuedesidéesetdesfaits, dans LeRetourd’Israël: Bulletintrimestrieldel’ArchiconfrériedePrières 20 (15 août 1927) 24-31, pp. 29-31. 44. Par exemple: J. BONSIRVEN, À la lumière de Sion, dans La Question d’Israël 69 (1er juillet 1939) 573-591. 45. LA RÉDACTION, Ànoslecteurs, dans CahiersSioniens 1 (1er mai 1947) 1-4, p. 2. 46. A. BEA, L’Égliseetlepeuplejuif, Paris, Cerf, 1967, p. 7.

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

265

Pères de Sion affirmaient que la question juive devait être conditionnée par ce qui s’était passé durant la guerre: «Depuis 1940, la condition des juifs dans le monde s’est modifiée considérablement. Six millions de juifs ont été anéantis, victimes d’une barbarie que l’on croyait disparue pour toujours. Ici, nous ne voulons jamais oublier l’affreux holocauste de tout un peuple. Nous estimons que le souvenir de ces millions de victimes juives conditionne désormais les réflexions, les jugements de ceux qui étudient les problèmes que soulève sur notre planète la condition des juifs»47. Dans cette perspective, la revue se donna pour objectif de travailler à l’établissement d’un climat d’estime et de confiance entre chrétiens et juifs: Hélas! il faut le constater, il y a encore dans les cœurs de noires réserves d’antipathie et de haine. L’antisémitisme dont nous savons maintenant à quels déchaînements il peut se porter, n’est pas éteint. Il faut donc continuer la difficile tâche d’aider chrétiens et juifs à vivre pacifiquement, en bonne entente. Pour atteindre ce but, il faut avec patience expliquer aux chrétiens les juifs, aux juifs les chrétiens. On ne peut pas supprimer d’inévitables oppositions, on peut empêcher qu’elles ne dégénèrent en discordes, en hostilités. Nous travaillerons donc à établir et à maintenir un climat d’estime et de confiance mutuelles, estime et confiance que chaque groupe doit s’efforcer de mériter48.

Par ailleurs, la revue proclama le soutien de la Congrégation au sionisme, ce qui est exprimé par les mots suivants: «nous suivrons dans un esprit de compréhension l’effort gigantesque que fait le peuple juif depuis trente ans pour trouver la sécurité à l’abri d’un foyer national»49. En outre, les responsables du périodique se proposaient d’éclairer la «condition juive», qu’ils considéraient ainsi: Condition très particulière, d’essence religieuse. Ni les théories raciales ou sociologiques ne l’expliquent, ni les solutions politiques ne la résolvent. En effet, le peuple d’Israël a une histoire dont la Révélation divine fait connaître les origines, la direction, le sens. Cette histoire est liée étroitement à de mystérieux desseins de la Providence. Israël, et c’est sa grandeur, fait partie intégrante d’un mystère sacré. En le méditant longuement, sans orgueil, on a chance de voir la destinée d’Israël s’éclairer de quelques lueurs50.

Enfin, la revue déclarait que son grand espoir était l’unité des «enfants de Dieu» au sein de l’Église et qu’elle allait y travailler: […] la foi chrétienne nous fait entrevoir que tous les enfants de Dieu doivent se rejoindre un jour dans l’unité. La réalisation de cette unité est notre grand espoir, espoir aujourd’hui soutenu par une prière, commune à 47. 48. 49. 50.

LA RÉDACTION, Ànoslecteurs (n. 45). Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

266

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

des frères séparés. Nombreux, en effet, sont ceux qui, à l’heure présente, éprouvent une nostalgie de l’unité spirituelle. Parmi eux, il y a des juifs. Or, nous croyons de toutes nos forces que le lien de cette unité est l’Église fondée par le Christ Jésus. C’est pourquoi nous travaillerons à abattre les obstacles, qu’ils viennent des chrétiens ou des juifs, qui encombrent la route vers l’Unité. Cette route, la prend qui veut. Si un juif s’y engage, nous voulons qu’il la trouve débarrassée et pavée de charité. Nous voulons qu’il sache qu’en marchant vers le Christ, il ne renie pas Moïse, mais qu’au contraire, il achève en lui-même une entreprise d’amour et de miséricorde […] entrée avec Jésus, Messie divin, dans la voie d’une réalisation lente et progressive qui n’exclut personne, qui se continue et se continuera jusqu’à ce que, avec tous les autres peuples, Israël entre tout entier dans la Terre promise, c’està-dire, dans l’Église du Christ, Messie et Fils de Dieu51.

Dans cet éditorial, on peut voir que si l’adhésion des juifs au catholicisme était toujours le but ultime poursuivi par Notre-Dame de Sion, les moyens que se proposait la Congrégation pour y parvenir n’étaient plus tout à fait les mêmes qu’auparavant. Désormais, ce n’étaient plus essentiellement des moyens surnaturels qui étaient privilégiés, comme l’étaient la prière pour la conversion des juifs ou les croisades de messe, mais des moyens plus humains. L’objectif immédiat que se donnait la Congrégation était de préparer le terrain en écartant les obstacles culturels, religieux et psychologiques. Pour cela, il fallait rendre l’Église sympathique aux juifs et les catholiques bien disposés à leur égard. Une lecture attentive des articles des CahiersSioniensde 1947 à 1955 montre que c’est ce à quoi s’employa la revue et que, petit à petit, l’interprétation théologique traditionnelle de certains passages bibliques et de certains faits fut relativisée par Notre-Dame de Sion avant d’être franchement contestée. Voici quelques exemples. Dans le numéro 2 de la revue (octobre 1947), dans un article intitulé «Responsabilités dans le procès du Christ»52, le père Leroux affirmait: «[…] nulle part, le Nouveau Testament ne rend l’ensemble du peuple juif responsable de la mort du Christ, et quand il parle des responsabilités morales et théologiques, il les étend à tous les hommes»53. Dans le numéro 3 (janvier 1948), dans une étude intitulée «Antisémitisme et conscience chrétienne»54, le père Démann écrivait: «En raison

51. Ibid., p. 4. 52. M. LEROUX, Responsabilités dans le procès du Christ, dans Cahiers Sioniens 2 (1er octobre 1947) 102-121. 53. Ibid., p. 120. 54. P. DÉMANN, Antisémitisme et conscience chrétienne, dans Cahiers Sioniens 3 (1er janvier 1948) 194-211.

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

267

du rôle unique et irrévocable du peuple juif dans les desseins divins, en raison du rôle éminemment représentatif du peuple juif dans l’humanité, nous croyons pouvoir lui attribuer un rôle de pierre de touche, et nous pensons qu’on peut juger de l’humanité d’un homme et du christianisme d’un chrétien par leur attitude à l’égard des Juifs»55. Louis Bouyer, dans un texte paru en 1950 et intitulé «La tradition juive et le christianisme», écrivait que les juifs «sont peut-être les seuls à garder certains traits de lumière dont nous avons le plus besoin pour comprendre la lumière même de la Gloire céleste que nous avons reçue dans la parole de Vérité»56. Dans un article intitulé «Les Juifs sont-ils maudits?»57, paru dans le numéro 4 des CahiersSioniens (juillet 1948), le père Démann nia l’idée selon laquelle le peuple juif aurait été maudit par Dieu pour avoir rejeté le Christ: «L’interprétation théologique véritable de l’histoire juive et la seule inspiration d’une attitude vraiment chrétienne envers les Juifs ne peuvent pas être basées sur l’invention blasphématoire d’une malédictiondivine, mais uniquement sur une bénédictiondivine, qu’aucune infidélité humaine ne peut anéantir, une bénédiction dont le bénéfice, nous dit saint Paul, est désormais étendu à tous les hommes, mais qui ne sera jamais retiré d’Israël: l’Élection». Dans une étude parue en 1951, intitulée «Le premier évangile est-il antijuif?»58, le père Démann affirma que, dans l’interprétation des Écritures, il fallait tenir compte du contexte et des conditions dans lesquelles elles avaient été écrites: «Ce qui serait étonnant, c’est qu’il n’y ait aucune trace dans nos Évangiles du conflit avec le Judaïsme, des résistances rencontrées, des persécutions subies. Les auteurs inspirés décrivant la mission de Jésus à la lumière du fait accompli, c’est-à-dire de ‘l’incrédulité judaìque [sic]’, soulignent et accusent inévitablement les traits qui annoncent ou expliquent cet endurcissement de la masse du peuple juif, son refus à la prédication de l’évangile»59. Il terminait son article en appelant à une réinterprétation de l’évangile de saint Matthieu: L’attention une fois attirée sur le point de vue ici adopté, il serait facile de débarrasser certains textes du premier évangile des interprétations routinières dont l’inspiration est étrangère à l’évangile lui-même, et de retrouver l’attitude véritable de l’évangéliste scribe. Le plus juif des quatre, et seul évangéliste des 55. Ibid., p. 196. 56. L. BOUYER, La tradition juive et le christianisme, dans Cahiers Sioniens 12 (décembre 1950) 286-292, p. 292. 57. P. DÉMANN, LesJuifssont-ilsmaudits?, dans CahiersSioniens 4 (1er juillet 1948) 277-295. 58. P. DÉMANN, Lepremierévangileest-ilantijuif?, dans CahiersSioniens5/3 (septembre 1951) 240-257. 59. Ibid., p. 240.

268

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

Juifs, par le fait même il est, plus que les autres, marqué par l’expérience de la rupture, confronté douloureusement avec la résistance des siens, violemment opposé aux castes dirigeantes responsables de la mort de Jésus et hostiles à la communauté naissante. Cette attitude est certes loin de celle de Luc, de sa courtoisie d’étranger, de son respect de prosélyte. Mais est-elle pour autant antijuive? Ne confondons pas le texte de l’évangile avec certaines manières défectueuses de le lire, la Parole de Dieu avec des paroles d’hommes60.

Dans le numéro de décembre 195161, Paul Démann s’en prit à la prière pour la conversion des juifs («Père, pardonnez-leur, car ils ne savent pas ce qu’ils font») en usage dans la Congrégation. Selon lui, il y aurait «un contre-sens impardonnable à entendre la prière de Jésus comme faite spécialement pour le peuple juif dans sa totalité, en sous-entendant inévitablement que tout ce peuple a spécialement besoin de pardon pour un péché qui l’affecterait dans son ensemble, comme peuple, et ne pourrait être que la crucifixion de Jésus»62. Cette critique marque une évolution et une rupture dans la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion qui, par l’Archiconfrérie de Prières et comme cela fut mentionné, conseillait «aux fidèles de dire après l’élévation de la messe, chaque fois qu’ils y assistent, trois fois la prière de Notre Seigneur: Pater,dimitteillis,nonenimsciuntquidfaciunt»63. En 1952, Paul Démann publia, dans un numéro spécial des Cahiers Sioniens, une étude sur LacatéchèsechrétienneetlepeupledelaBible64. Son travail fut encouragé par le cardinal Saliège, qui préfaça l’ouvrage65, mais aussi par d’autres, dont le cardinal Liénart66 et Mgr Charue67. Dans ce volume, le père Démann s’est donné pour objectif «de repérer et d’étudier en profondeur les problèmes véritables que pose, par rapport à 60. Ibid., p. 257. 61. P. DÉMANN, «Père,pardonnez-leur», dans CahiersSioniens 5/4 (décembre 1951) 321-336. 62. Ibid., p. 335. 63. Statutsdel’Archiconfrérie (n. 18), p. 2. 64. P. DÉMANN, LacatéchèsechrétienneetlepeupledelaBible– CahiersSioniens numéro spécial 3-4 (1952) 220 p. 65. Ibid., p. 5. 66. Voici ce qu’il écrivit au père Démann: «Je veux d’abord vous remercier de m’avoir offert l’excellent livre que vous venez de publier sur ‘La Catéchèse chrétienne et le Peuple de la Bible’. La consciencieuse enquête que vous avez faite sur les catéchismes et les manuels d’histoire sainte montre bien que nous n’avons pas su arrêter sur le peuple juif un regard chrétien suffisamment pur et que notre enseignement catéchistique n’a pas révélé dans toute son ampleur le plan de Dieu aux âmes chrétiennes. Mais l’effort est commencé et les manuels les plus récents, profitant d’une meilleure connaissance de la Sainte Écriture, sont en progrès très net. Votre livre contribuera beaucoup à accélérer le mouvement et à rendre plus équitable et plus compréhensif notre enseignement religieux. Je vous en félicite très sincèrement», P. DÉMANN, Àproposdenotreeffortcatéchétique, dans CahiersSioniens 7/2-3 (juin-sept. 1953) 219-222, pp. 220-221. 67. Ibid.

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

269

Israël, l’enseignement religieux catholique tel qu’il se donne de notre temps; de relever les déficiences et de rechercher leurs causes pour pouvoir y porter remède, surtout sur les points où des déficiences particulièrement graves apparaîtraient; mais autant, et plus encore, de discerner les courants et les efforts les plus heureux, pour y puiser des directives positives et pour favoriser ainsi une mise au point et un approfondissement plus généralisés de notre catéchèse en ce qui concerne Israël»68. Dans sa conclusion, il présentait les trois fondements sur lesquels devait reposer, selon lui, la catéchèse chrétienne à propos du «peuple de la Bible»: 1° L’attitude chrétienne envers Israël doit avoir pour fondement une intelligence chrétienne d’Israël, c’est-à-dire une vision chrétienne du monde et de l’histoire dans laquelle Israël puisse prendre sa place, la place que la Révélation, – «l’Histoire sainte», – lui assigne. Cela suppose une catéchèse qui respecte la dimension historique de la Révélation. Dans une catéchèse qui ne serait que le résidu de constructions théologiques abstraites, exposé suivant un ordre rationnel mais artificiel, il ne resterait aucune place pour la réalité essentiellement concrète et historique qu’est le peuple d’Israël. Or on ne peut nier que depuis le Moyen âge et la Contre-Réforme, notre catéchèse se trouvait constamment exposée à de tels appauvrissements. Nous tenons là, sans aucun doute, une des causes majeures du fait qu’Israël soit resté, à l’époque moderne, si longtemps en dehors des préoccupations des chrétiens et de leur vision du monde. […] 2° Pour poser sur Israël un regard chrétien, il faut avoir compris la relation essentielle entre Israël et l’Église. Or cela suppose une intelligence précise du drame de la séparation entre l’Église et Israël, du drame de l’Histoire évangélique. Une catéchèse dans laquelle le Nouveau Testament ne serait qu’utilisé, d’une manière fragmentaire, pour illustrer des «vérités éternelles», ou dans laquelle l’évangile serait traité d’une manière trop anecdotique, comme une histoire particulière et contingente, ne saurait évidemment pas donner cette intelligence du drame du Peuple de Dieu. […] 3° Israël ne peut enfin trouver sa place normale que dans la vision chrétienne authentique qui est essentiellement eschatologique, tendue vers le triomphe de Dieu, l’achèvement de l’œuvre du Christ, la plénitude de son Église. Cette perspective est celle de l’espérance, d’une espérance qui se traduira dans la prière et dans une attitude et un effort accordés aux exigences de son objet, le Rassemblement complet du Peuple de Dieu. Dans une telle perspective d’espérance, la réintégration d’Israël, la réunion des deux parties séparées du peuple de Dieu, pourra prendre, et prendra nécessairement, sa place. L’opposition Église-Israël, chrétien-juif, cesse alors d’être un antagonisme irrémédiable, pour être éprouvée comme un échec dû au péché, une rupture d’unité, anormale et inacceptable, douloureuse mais provisoire, qu’on considère dans la lumière de l’espérance et dans la conscience humble et lucide de ses propres responsabilités69. 68. DÉMANN, LacatéchèsechrétienneetlepeupledelaBible (n. 64), p. 9. 69. Ibid., pp. 209-211.

270

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

Dans cet article, le père Démann rejetait la catéchèse traditionnelle et il en appelait à un renouveau catéchétique en général. Selon lui, «le problème de notre catéchèse concernant le Peuple de la Bible rejoint le problème de la catéchèse tout court»70. La même année, dans un article intitulé «Israël et l’Unité de l’Église»71, le père Démann rejeta explicitement la «théologie de la substitution». Évoquant la littérature catéchétique, il déplora «l’habitude fâcheuse de placer comme une rupture complète entre Israël et l’Église et d’imaginer une succession, une substitution pure et simple entre deux peuples de Dieu, un ancien et un nouveau»72. Selon lui, ce n’était «que l’expression vulgarisée d’idées et de formules inexactes qui restent encore monnaie courante même dans des ouvrages exégétiques et théologiques, et qu’il appartiendra aux progrès de l’exégèse et de la théologie d’éliminer»73. Il ajoutait: «On comprend sans peine que là où règnent de telles conceptions, Israël et l’Église restant étrangers l’un à l’autre, la question d’une relation entre Israël et l’Unité de l’Église ne vienne même pas à l’esprit»74. Dans cet article, il écrivait également: «Tant que le rassemblement des Juifs et des Gentils dans l’Unité n’est pas accompli, ‘faisant des deux peuples un seul’, la Rédemption reste inachevée et l’Église brisée à la base»75. Selon lui, Israël appartenait à l’économie du salut: «Bien que n’acceptant pas le Christ, Israël appartient tout entier à l’économie dont le Christ est le centre et la clef. Sa foi et son espérance à lui et celles de l’Église ne sont pas autres, elles appartiennent seulement à deux stades différents de l’économie du salut, deux stades que sépare et relie en même temps l’avènement du Christ»76. Ultimement, le père Démann estimait qu’il fallait considérer la question juive dans la même perspective que celle de l’unité chrétienne: Le lien intime et l’analogie étroite que nous constatons entre le problème d’Israël et le problème de l’Unité chrétienne permettront à nos efforts de rapprochement vis-à-vis d’Israël de bénéficier des progrès si manifestes et si prometteurs qui se dessinent aujourd’hui, de plus en plus nettement, dans le domaine de l’Unité chrétienne. De part et d’autre, en effet, nous nous trouvons devant le même besoin d’approfondissement et d’élargissement catholique, de ressourcement et de réenracinement dans l’Histoire sainte; devant 70. 71. 1-24. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

Ibid., p. 211. P. DÉMANN, Israëletl’Unitédel’Église, dans CahiersSioniens 7/1 (mars 1953) Ibid., p. 9. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 14. Ibid., p. 22.

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

271

la même exigence de vérité et de charité, mais ici encore plus nécessaire et plus impérieuse, celle de poser sur le visage de notre frère, et notamment de ce frère aîné séparé de nous, un regard pur, humble et fraternel, purifié des déformations du mépris et de la haine et ouvert sur ses propres responsabilités dans le déchirement persistant du peuple de Dieu. Il s’agit là du mêmeesprit que celui qui, depuis quelques dizaines d’années, commence à renverser un mouvement séculaire d’éloignement croissant entre chrétiens séparés77.

Il faut souligner ici que le père Démann se permettait des libertés avec l’histoire et la réalité des faits. Ainsi, par exemple, dans son article intitulé «Israël et l’Unité de l’Église», évoquant les juifs qui n’ont pas suivi le Christ, il écrivait: «Les autres, restés à l’écart de l’Église, poursuivront simplement leur chemin, gardant inchangée et perpétuant à travers les siècles l’identité historique palpable du peuple de l’Alliance du Sinaï et conservant fidèlement son ancien patrimoine»78. Cette affirmation est subjective et historiquement contestable ou du moins discutable. Le père Démann ne tient pas compte de la complexité de l’évolution du judaïsme après la destruction du deuxième temple (développement du judaïsme rabbinique, sans temple ni sacrifice), après la seconde guerre judéoromaine (révolte de Bar Kokhba, 132-135) et l’écriture du Talmud. En 1954, à l’occasion du huitième anniversaire de la revue, Paul Démann présenta l’orientation des Cahiers Sioniens telle qu’elle s’est progressivement précisée et le but poursuivi par la revue: L’objectif direct qui détermine cette orientation est de créer, du côté catholique, les conditions d’une compréhension réelle, d’un rapprochement profond, d’un dialogue fécond entre Chrétiens et Juifs, entre l’Église et Israël, et d’éliminer les obstacles qui s’y opposent. Cet objectif se ramène au problème de l’attitude chrétienne envers le Judaïsme, entendue dans son sens le plus large: attitude de foi et de pensée, attitude dans la vie et dans l’action. Cette attitude, surtout en tant qu’elle est spécifiquement chrétienne, s’inspire, à son tour, d’une part de l’intelligence qu’on a – ou qu’on n’a pas – de la destinée du peuple juif et de ses rapports avec l’Église, et d’autre part de la connaissance qu’on a – ou qu’on n’a pas – du Judaïsme, de son histoire, de ses traditions, de ses valeurs religieuses, de sa situation dans le monde79.

Ce paragraphe montre bien qu’à cette époque l’objectif des pères de Notre-Dame de Sion était davantage de mettre en place les conditions d’une compréhension, d’un rapprochement et d’un dialogue avec les juifs que d’essayer de les convertir au christianisme. Il semble que les religieuses de la Congrégation aient évolué de la même manière que la 77. Ibid., p. 23. 78. Ibid., p. 8. 79. P. DÉMANN, Orientations, dans CahiersSioniens 8/1 (mars 1954) 1-8, p. 3.

272

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

branche masculine. Il faudrait faire un travail très poussé dans les archives pour mesurer les choses de façon précise, mais il faut noter – et c’est significatif – qu’en 1957 les prières de règle pour la conversion des juifs furent supprimées chez les religieuses80. Après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, il y a donc une évolution évidente et très claire de la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion. La doctrine de l’Église sur les juifs et le judaïsme fut relativisée par elle, puis progressivement remise en cause et remplacée par une nouvelle conception influencée, entre autres, par le mouvement œcuménique. Les prises de position de certains membres de la Congrégation, comme celles du père Démann, vont plus loin que la déclaration conciliaire NostraAetate promulguée le 28 octobre 1965. V. CONCLUSION Jusqu’à la fin du pontificat de Pie XII, mort le 9 octobre 1958, le pape et la Curie romaine restèrent imperméables au changement de regard sur le judaïsme prôné par un nombre croissant de théologiens et de catholiques. À partir du pontificat de Jean XXIII, élu le 28 octobre 1958, les choses changèrent et des propositions comme celles de l’OpusSacerdotaleAmiciIsrael, qui avaient été condamnées en 1928 par le Saint-Office comme s’éloignant de la doctrine de l’Église81, furent graduellement 80. COMTE, Delaconversionàlarencontre (n. 5), p.112. 81. Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (ACDF), Archivum Sancti Officii Romani, Res Doctrinales, Dubia, Materiae Diversae (dal 1882 Rerum Variarum), Rerum Variarum 1928, fasc. 2, «S. Congr. dei Riti. Roma et alibi. Il Comitato Centrale degli ‘Amici d’Israel’ domanda che sia riformata la preghiera per gli ebrei che si legge nella liturgia del Vernerdì Santo». À ce sujet, voir G. PASSELECQ – B. SUCHECKY, L’Encyclique cachée de Pie XI: Une occasion manquée de l’Église face à l’antisémitisme, Paris, La Découverte, 1995, pp. 140-144; P. CHENAUX, Du judaïsme au catholicisme: Réseauxdeconversiondansl’entre-deux-guerres», dans N.-J. CHALINE – J.-D. DURAND (éds), La conversion aux XIXe et XXe siècles, Artois, Artois presses Université, 1996, 95-106; P. CHENAUX, EntreMaurrasetMaritain:Unegénérationintellectuellecatholique (1920-1930), Paris, Cerf, 1999, pp. 174-185; M.R. MACINA, Essai d’élucidation des causes et circonstances de l’abolition, par le Saint-Office, de l’Opus sacerdotale Amici Israel(1926-1928), dans A. BECKER – D. DELMAIRE – F. GUGELOT (éds), Juifsetchrétiens: Entreignorance,hostilitéetrapprochement(1898-1998), Villeneuve d’Ascq, Édition du Conseil Scientifique de l’Université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 2002, 87-110; H. WOLF, «ProperfidisJudaeis»:Die«AmiciIsrael»undihrAntragaufeineReformderKarfreitagsfürbittefürdieJuden(1928).Oder:BemerkungenzumThemakatholischeKircheund Antisemitismus, dans Historische Zeitschrift 279 (2004) 611-658; L. DEFFAYET, «Amici Israel»: Les raisons d’un échec. Des éléments nouveaux apportés par l’ouverture des archivesduSaint-Office, dans Mélangesdel’ÉcolefrançaisedeRome–ItalieetMéditerranéemodernesetcontemporaines 117 (2005) 831-851; T. SALEMINK, CardinalWillem

LA CONGRÉGATION NOTRE-DAME DE SION ET NOSTRAAETATE

273

admises et officiellement enseignées par la hiérarchie ecclésiastique. L’événement à l’origine de cette mutation doctrinale profonde, qui va en même temps lui fournir son fondement théologique, est le concile Vatican II. En effet, le numéro 4 de la déclaration NostraAetate, promulguée en 1965, traite des relations de l’Église avec le judaïsme dans une perspective qui se rapproche de celle qui a pris naissance et qui s’est développée dans les milieux philosémites chrétiens après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, parmi lesquels se trouve la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion. Au niveau de cette Congrégation, il est intéressant de relever une conséquence immédiate et très révélatrice du Concile sur l’Archiconfrérie de Prières pour Israël. Dans une circulaire du 21 mars 1964 – donc avant la promulgation de NostraAetate – mère Marie-Laurice écrivait: Le développement du Mouvement œcuménique dans l’Église et les orientations du Concile nous amènent à réviser nos attitudes apostoliques, en particulier celle qui est propre à Sion. […] L’Église prend une nouvelle conscience des valeurs religieuses qui existent chez tous nos frères croyants, non-catholiques et même non-chrétiens. [Par] conséquent, nous n’aurons plus de prières pour la ‘conversion’ des Juifs. […] Ceci exige la SUPPRESSION TOTALE des feuillets, brochures, tracts, dépliants, etc… concernant l’A.P.I. […] Les documents sur la vie de nos Pères et de nos premières mères, […] seront désormais considérés comme archives privées, à l’usage strict des Sœurs, ainsi que le Directoire82.

Quelques mois plus tard, le 2 février 1966, mère Dominique écrivit dans une circulaire: C’est la lumière du Concile qui oriente maintenant notre prière et la prière de tous ceux qui demandent la réconciliation des juifs et des chrétiens et l’accomplissement des promesses concernant Israël. […] Cette année nous ne chercherons pas à recueillir d’une manière organisée de nouvelles adhésions. […] De même quand une messe mensuelle pour l’A.P.I. est instituée dans des paroisses, ou quand des communautés religieuses ou des laïcs prient pour Israël, nous avons à aider, surtout par des informations, à ce que les mentalités évoluent dans un sens œcuménique et que l’expression de la prière soit en accord avec l’attitude exprimée par l’Église dans sa Déclaration83.

Ce qu’il faut considérer ici, c’est que Notre-Dame de Sion, dont la lente évolution a été analysée dans les pages précédentes, va immédiatement van Rossum and Amici Israel (1926-1928). The Conversion of Jews and the Debate on Zionism, dans Trajecta.Religie,cultuurensamenlevingindeNederlanden 19-20 (20102011) 173-187. 82. Mère MARIE-LAURICE, Circulaire du 21 mars 1964. Cité par ROTA, L’Association dePrièrespourIsraël(1903-1966) (n. 11), p. 18. 83. Mère DOMINIQUE, Circulaire du 2 février 1966. Cité par ROTA, L’Association de PrièrespourIsraël(1903-1966) (n. 11), p. 20.

274

P. ROY-LYSENCOURT

s’appuyer sur NostraAetate pour mettre fin à son apostolat en faveur des juifs. Pour la Congrégation fondée par Théodore Ratisbonne en vue de la conversion des juifs, il s’agit désormais de dialoguer avec eux, et non plus de les amener à devenir catholiques. Or, cette finalité ne fut pas propre à la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Sion; après le Concile, elle devint progressivement l’orientation officielle du Vatican. Durant une vingtaine d’années, la question du «dialogue» fut au centre des rapports du Saint-Siège avec les juifs. Plus tard, sans le délaisser ni l’abandonner, bien au contraire, le Vatican voulut le dépasser. Pour cela, il appela à la collaboration, avant d’entrer, toujours dans le but de resserrer ses liens avec les israélites, dans un processus de repentance. Pavillon Félix-Antoine-Savard, bureau 736 2325, rue des Bibliothèques Université Laval G1V 0A6 Québec Canada [email protected]

Philippe ROY-LYSENCOURT

J.H. NEWMAN ET L’ŒCUMÉNISME CATHOLIQUE AVANT VATICAN II I. INTRODUCTION Commençons cette contribution par une brève anecdote. Il y a environ dix ans, j’ai assisté à une des multiples conférences de l’époque sur le concile Vatican II. L’un des orateurs passa un temps considérable à souligner l’influence de la théologie de John Henry Newman sur le Concile, sans pour autant donner beaucoup d’informations historiques sur le théologien victorien. Puis, quand la discussion commença, un jeune étudiant se leva et demanda quel évêque avait invité «ce Newman» à devenir son peritus conciliaire? On peut, aujourd’hui encore, facilement imaginer les rires qui suivirent cette question naïve, mais la question est peut-être plus intéressante qu’on ne le pense de prime abord. En effet, il est souvent affirmé que la pensée newmanienne a largement influencé les réformes ecclésiologiques de Vatican II. Ce faisant, on pense surtout aux décrets conciliaires sur la révélation, au rôle des laïcs dans l’Église, à la notion du sensusfidelium, etc. Ce pauvre étudiant était bien comique, ignorant que le théologien victorien était décédé plus d’un demi-siècle avant le Concile1, cependant la pertinence de la question demeure: qui a fait entrer Newman au Concile? Car, si sa pensée a su s’introduire à Vatican II, il y a forcément eu un, ou même plusieurs médiateurs. Cet article n’est pas centré sur Newman, pas plus qu’il n’étudie Vatican II. Par contre, l’intention est de focaliser sur la génération intermédiaire de ceux qui ont préparé l’entrée de la pensée de Newman au Concile, avec un intérêt particulier pour le développement d’un œcuménisme catholique préconciliaire2.

1. Par ailleurs, la confusion fut agrandie, quand l’on considère le titre même d’un ouvrage tel que celui de I. KER, NewmanonVaticanII, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014, livre dans lequel l’auteur parlait de Newman comme du «père de Vatican II». Pour un bref bilan de la question, voir N. LASH, NewmanandVaticanII, dans NewBlackfriars 92 (2011) 243-246. 2. Pour une bonne esquisse de l’horizon général de l’œcuménisme catholique de l’avant Concile, voir les études quasi classiques d’É. FOUILLOUX, Lescatholiquesetl’unité chrétienneduXIXeauXXesiècle,Paris, Centurion, 1982, et de M. VELATI, Unadifficile transizione:Ilcattolicesimotraunionismoedecumenismo(1952-1964)(Testi e ricerche di scienze religiose. Nuova serie, 16), Bologna, Il Mulino, 1996.

276

K. SCHELKENS

On ne peut appréhender la réforme ecclésiale et œcuménique de Vatican II sans comprendre comment les œcuménistes catholiques se sont organisés dans les décennies précédant le Concile. C’est ce qui rend cette génération des médiateurs intéressante. À cet égard, l’une des initiatives les plus importantes pour l’œcuménisme catholique vit le jour en 1951: la fondation d’une Conférence catholique pour les questions œcuméniques (CCQO)3. C’est de là que nous commencerons cette histoire, en donnant d’abord quelques informations générales sur le contexte de cette initiative. Dans un deuxième temps, notre attention portera sur trois figures clés de la conférence: Johannes Willebrands, Yves Congar et Louis Bouyer. Et entre les deux j’essayerai d’expliquer comment ceux-ci étaient liés non seulement par leur passion pour l’unité chrétienne, mais aussi par leur intérêt pour la réforme, et cela en suivant l’orientation donnée par Newman. II. LA CONFÉRENCE CATHOLIQUE SUR LES

QUESTIONS ŒCUMÉNIQUES

COMME HORIZON

En 1948, comme on le sait, un pas important a été franchi dans l’histoire de l’œcuménisme lorsque le Conseil œcuménique des Églises a été fondé à Amsterdam4. Cet événement était dominé par les églises protestantes, il a néanmoins suscité l’intérêt des catholiques. Avant l’assemblée, quelques théologiens catholiques, entre autres Johannes Willebrands et Yves Congar, qui pourtant ne se connaissaient pas à l’époque, demandèrent à l’ordinaire catholique-romain local, le cardinal-archevêque d’Utrecht, Johannes de Jong, la permission d’être présent en tant qu’observateur. Ils essuyèrent un refus du cardinal, qui se référa à la fameuse encyclique de Pie XI de 1928, Mortalium Animos, et qui déclara qu’il 3. La première étude sur ce groupe fut celle de l’historien néerlandais J. JACOBS, De Katholieke Conferentie voor oecumenische vragen: Een leerschool en gids 1951-1965, Tilburg, Tilburg University Press, 1991. Récemment, elle a été corrigée sur plusieurs points dans des contributions de Peter De Mey. Voir entre autres P. DE MEY, Johannes Willebrands and the Catholic Conference for Ecumenical Questions (1952-1963), dans A. DENAUX – P. DE MEY (éds), TheEcumenicalLegacyofJohannesCardinalWillebrands (1909-2006)(BETL, 253),Leuven, Peeters, 2012, 49-77 et ID., PrécurseurduSecrétariat pour l’Unité: Le travail œcuménique de la ‘Conférence catholique pour les questions œcuméniques’(1952-1963), dans G. ROUTHIER – P. ROY – K. SCHELKENS (éds), Lathéologiecatholiqueentreintransigeanceetrenouveau:LaréceptiondesmouvementspréconciliairesàVaticanII(Bibliothèque de la RHE, 95), Louvain-la-Neuve, Collège Érasme; Leuven, Universiteitsbibliotheek, 2011, 271-308. 4. Voir W.A. VISSER ’T HOOFT, Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches, dans R. ROUSE – C. NEILL (éds), AHistoryoftheEcumenicalMovement15171948,London, SPCK, 1967, 695-724.

J.H. NEWMAN ET L’ŒCUMÉNISME CATHOLIQUE AVANT VATICAN II

277

était interdit aux catholiques de s’engager dans des cercles œcuméniques5. De Jong n’était pas seul. En 1948, Pie XII publia un monitum, Cum copertum, qui répéta le point de vue officiel. Ce bref document réfuta toutes les tentatives d’un soi-disant faux irénisme. Toutefois, cette rigueur s’est rapidement atténuée. Déjà en 1949 arriva une instruction du Saint-Office – le pape en fut le préfet, mais le leader effectif était le pro-secrétaire, le cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. Cette nouvelle instruction sur le mouvement œcuménique, intitulée EcclesiaCatholica, avec comme sous-titre Demotioneoecumenica tenait toujours, comme l’a précisé un commentaire de Charles Boyer sur ce document, que «la seule union possible, la seule union légitime est celle du retour des dissidents à l’Église romaine»6. De plus, les catholiques étaient mis en garde: lorsqu’ils étudiaient l’histoire des réformes chrétiennes, ils ne devaient pas se concentrer sur les «défauts» des catholiques et encore moins répéter les fautes des réformateurs7. Cependant, malgré cette perspective unioniste, le document voyait le mouvement œcuménique «sous l’inspiration de la grâce du Saint-Esprit». Cela allait dans le sens d’un autre document de cette même année 1949, une lettre du Saint-Office à l’archevêque catholique de Boston, qui mettait fin à la controverse autour du jésuite Leonard Feeney, et dans laquelle Rome prenait ses distances envers une interprétation trop rigide du principe carthaginien extraecclesiamnullasalus8. Cette critique de l’exclusivisme et 5. Archives Centre Istina, Paris: Lettre du cardinal De Jong à Yves Congar, 6 avril 1948. De Jong expliquait que, selon lui «il faudrait que nous ayons, en effet, la certitude que les observateurs (en question) ne soient influencés par certaines théories œcuméniques qui n’auraient pas notre assentiment. Car cela pourrait éveiller des espoirs qui en fait ne se réaliseraient jamais. C’est pourquoi, nous tenons à nous réserver la désignation des personnes qui pourraient assister à la conférence». Quant à Willebrands, prêtre catholique du diocèse de Haarlem, il avait déjà, en 1948, causé un certain «choc» quand il paraissait, en soutane, dans l’aula de la Vrije Universiteit d’Amsterdam, centre reconnu de la théologie réformée aux Pays-Bas, à l’occasion de l’oraison inaugurale du professeur Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer – qui à Vatican II figurera parmi les «observateurs non-catholiques». Voir D. VAN KEULEN, G.C.BerkouwerandtheCouncil, dans Trajecta 22 (2013) 15-28, p. 19. 6. Suprema Sacra Congregatio S. Officii, Ecclesia Catholica: Instructio ad locorum ordinarios«Demotioneoecumenica», dans AAS 42 (1950) 142-147. En 1950, le jésuite français Charles Boyer publia une traduction dans la revue Unitas. 7. Sur ce point, voir P. DE MEY, L’évolutionthéologiqueetœcuméniquedela«Conférence catholique pour les Questions œcuméniques», dans L. DECLERCK, Mgr. J. WillebrandsetlaConférencecatholiquepourlesquestionsœcuméniques.SesarchivesàChevetogne (Instrumenta Theologica, 39), Leuven, Peeters, 2015 (désormais Archives Chevetogne, CCQO), 7-39. 8. Pour la lettre Supremahaecsacracritiquant la position exclusiviste du père Feeney, voir ALetterfromtheHolyOffice [Supremahaecsacra], dans AmericanEcclesiastical Review127 (1952) 307-315. Des études sur cette affaire sont à retrouver dans G.B. PEPPER, TheBostonHeresyCaseinViewoftheSecularizationofReligion:ACaseStudyin

278

K. SCHELKENS

surtout la mention de la présence du Saint-Esprit en dehors des frontières de l’Église catholique romaine créa une certaine ouverture pour les œcuménistes catholiques. En 1951, Willebrands, soutenu par son ami Frans Thijssen, initia la création d’un réseau international d’œcuménistes catholiques: il voyagea à travers l’Europe occidentale et trouva un appui dans des centres importants, tels que le monastère de Chevetogne avec dom Rousseau, le FoyerUnitas avec Boyer et le CentreIstina des dominicains parisiens, où Christophe Dumont et son confrère Yves Congar réagirent positivement. C’est avec ce soutien que l’initiative fut lancée et, à partir de 1952, des réunions annuelles furent organisées par la CCQO sur des thèmes œcuméniques. À partir du milieu des années 1950, lorsque Willebrands rencontra Visser ’t Hooft, l’agenda de la conférence fut accordé avec celui du Conseil Œcuménique de Genève9. La première conférence eut lieu à Fribourg. Ensuite, les membres se rencontrèrent à Utrecht en 1953, à Mayence en 1954, à Paris en 1955, un an plus tard à Chevetogne, en 1959 à Paderborn (avec le Johann-Adam-Möhler-Institut récemment fondé), deux fois à Gazzada en 1960 et 1963, et une fois, en 1961, à Strasbourg. Les rencontres de ce réseau informel jetèrent les bases de la création du Secrétariat pour l’unité des chrétiens, fondé par Jean XXIII en juin 196010. Elles assurèrent également une continuité entre les réformes théologiques catholiques préconciliaires et le renouveau conciliaire. III. GAZZADA ET STRASBOURG: VERS

UN ŒCUMÉNISME DU

«RÉEL»

Essayons d’expliquer comment Newman, dont les idées s’opposent à la pensée dominante de l’époque, est entré dans le champ de la réflexion. Pour ce faire, on ne racontera pas l’histoire de la Conférence catholique, mais on propose plutôt de focaliser sur la réception préconciliaire de Newman. Ceux qui se pencheront sur les réunions de la CCQO11 y trouveront de nombreux theSociologyofReligion,Lewiston, NY, Mellen, 1988, et M. CAROSIO, Extraecclesiam nulla salus: Il caso Feeney, dans Cristianesimo nella storia 25 (2004) 833-876. Plus généralement, voir F.A. SULLIVAN, SalvationOutsidetheChurch?TracingtheHistoryof theCatholicResponse,New York, Paulist, 1992. 9. Cf. K. SCHELKENS, Pioneers at the Crossroads: The Preconciliar Itineraries of W.A. Visser ’t Hooft and J.G.M. Willebrands, dans Catholica. Vierteljahresschrift für ÖkumenischeTheologie 70/1 (2016) 23-39. 10. Sur les premiers pas du secrétariat pour l’unité, voir M. VELATI, Dialogoerinnovamento:Verbalietestidelsegretariatoperl’unitàdeicristianinellapreparazionedel ConcilioVaticanoII(1960-1962) (Testi e ricerche di scienze religiose. Fonti e strumenti di ricerca, 5), Bologna, Il Mulino, 2011. 11. Voir l’excellent inventaire de DECLERCK, Archives Chevetogne, CCQO (n. 7).

J.H. NEWMAN ET L’ŒCUMÉNISME CATHOLIQUE AVANT VATICAN II

279

théologiens familiarisés avec la théologie de Newman: on pense au théologien hollandais Willem-Hendrik van de Pol, au flamand Jan Hendrik Walgrave, et bien sûr, au chef de la Conférence catholique elle-même, Johannes Willebrands. Celui-ci avait fait sa thèse sur l’épistémologie de Newman à l’Angelicum12 et, en 1960, lors de la réunion de la Conférence catholique à Gazzada, il avait rappelé la nécessité d’une «deuxième réforme de l’Église». C’est intéressant, car Willebrands appela à une nouvelle réforme qui, au milieu du XXe siècle, devait passer par une «ouverture notionnelle» des catholiques envers les autres chrétiens et conduire à la prochaine étape: «une ouverture existentielle ou réelle»13. Celui qui a lu Newman reconnaît immédiatement la distinction classique entre le «notionnel» et le «réel» (ou existentiel), une approche qui est la clé de l’essai de Newman intitulé Essay inAidofaGrammarofAssent, et qui joua par après un rôle important au sein du Concile14. Le discours de Willebrands à Gazzada fixa l’ordre du jour de la réunion de la Conférence catholique suivante, qui se tiendra en 1961 à Strasbourg. Ce qui importe, c’est qu’en 1961, on se concentrera sur le thème de «la réforme de l’Église» dans une perspective œcuménique. Du groupe susmentionné, pas moins de trois orateurs offriront leurs réflexions à Strasbourg: Willebrands, Congar et Bouyer. Non seulement ils se réfèrent tous les trois à l’héritage newmanien, mais ils se rendent compte du fait que, lors de l’ouverture de la réunion de Strasbourg, les préparatifs du concile Vatican II ont déjà commencé. Sous la présidence du cardinal Bea, Willebrands dirigeait alors le Secrétariat pour l’Unité au jour le jour, Bouyer y était lié comme consulteur et Congar était consulteur auprès de la Commission théologique préconciliaire. Dans ce contexte particulier, la Conférence catholique fit en quelque sorte une déclaration programmatique lorsqu’elle se concentra sur le thème de la «réforme»15. Dans son discours d’ouverture à la réunion de Strasbourg, Willebrands souligna l’importance de la Conférence catholique pour le Secrétariat pour l’Unité, en stipulant que l’esprit œcuménique qui a inspiré les discussions de Gazzada a pu influencer facilement le travail du Secrétariat par le fait qu’un grand nombre de 12. K. SCHELKENS – H. WITTE (éds), [J.G.M.Willebrands]Dedenkleervankardinaal NewmanenhaartoepassingopdekennisvanGoddoorhetgeweten (Willebrands Studies, 1), Bergambacht, 2VM, 2013. 13. Archives Chevetogne, CCQO, Dossier Gazzada: J. Willebrands, Discours d’ouverture, 1960. 14. Cf. par exemple l’article d’une figure clé de l’événement comme G. PHILIPS, Deux tendancesdanslathéologiecontemporaine:EnmargeduconcileVaticanII, dans NRT 85 (1963) 225-238. 15. Archives Chevetogne, CCQO, Dossier Strasbourg: J. Willebrands, Discoursd’ouverture, 1961. Voir aussi l’analyse de DE MEY, L’évolution(n. 7).

280

K. SCHELKENS

membres et des consulteurs du Secrétariat ont été choisis parmi ceux qui participent aux réunions de la Conférence16.

Plus loin dans le discours du secrétaire, l’importance de l’héritage de Newman est palpable. En effet, il insista sur la position importante de l’Église anglicane pour le travail de la Conférence catholique et du Secrétariat pour l’Unité des Chrétiens. De plus, il se montra (avec Bouyer) très enthousiaste à l’égard du nouvel archevêque de Cantorbéry, Michael Ramsey17. Cette fois, c’est la notion de réforme et de développement héritée de Newman qui apparaît comme mot clé. Ceci demande un peu d’explication, car saisir l’importance de Newman pour les intervenants de Strasbourg, exige une compréhension plus approfondie de la pensée du théologien victorien ainsi que du Wirkungsgeschichte de ses idées dans la théologie française des décennies précédentes. En effet, le contexte dans lequel Newman fut découvert par la génération de Congar, Bouyer et Willebrands fut tourmenté. Quelques mots sur l’importance de la soi-disant Via media et sur la réception de Newman en France sont donc nécessaires avant de revenir à la conférence de Strasbourg de 1961. IV. LA VIA MEDIA ET L’IDÉE DE

RÉFORME ECCLÉSIALE

En 1961, l’année même de la réunion de Strasbourg, une source non européenne et non informée de la réunion qui allait se tenir à Strasbourg, l’historien James Connolly, écrivit: Aujourd’hui, en France, Newman est considéré comme un maître intellectuel. La grandeur de Newman, aux yeux des intellectuels catholiques français, réside dans son opposition implacable au rationalisme, dans sa réflexion approfondie sur les problèmes auxquels sont confrontés les théologiens, son approche consistant à noter les «sens» de l’Écriture et sa volonté de lutter contre les approches contemporaines de la foi chrétienne18.

16. Archives Chevetogne, CCQO, Dossier Strasbourg: J. Willebrands, Discoursd’ouverture, 1961. 17. Archives Chevetogne, CCQO, Dossier Strasbourg: Dans une lettre de Bouyer à Willebrands, du 23 janvier 1961, on lit que Bouyer viendra à Strasbourg et espère pouvoir y accueillir Willebrands dans la nouvelle maison de l’Oratoire. En plus, il indique que la succession de Geoffrey Fisher par Michael Ramsey à Cantorbéry est pour l’œcuménisme catholique un événement inespéré. Bouyer connaît Ramsey personnellement depuis trente ans et le considère comme un théologien «outstanding» en même temps qu’un homme de Dieu. 18. Voir J. CONNOLLY, TheVoicesofFrance:ASurveyofContemporaryTheologyin France, New York, MacMillan, 1961, p. 10: «Today, within France, he [Newman] is

J.H. NEWMAN ET L’ŒCUMÉNISME CATHOLIQUE AVANT VATICAN II

281

Si j’ai ouvert cette contribution avec l’anecdote d’un étudiant demandant qui a introduit ce maître intellectuel à Vatican II, une réponse partielle peut déjà être donnée: c’est le fait de plusieurs théologiens catholiques actifs dans le renouveau de l’ecclésiologie et dans le développement de la théologie œcuménique. Bouyer, Willebrands et Congar appartenaient à cette génération de pionniers œcuméniques. Mais la réponse à la question «qui» n’explique pas encore «comment» ils ont reçu et transmis la pensée de Newman. Pour comprendre la modalité de cette médiation, il est utile de regarder les étapes antérieures de la réception du Victorien dans la théologie continentale. Ce n’est pas une question facile, et on ne peut ici que souligner les éléments les plus importants de l’histoire. Il faut d’abord signaler que lorsque les écrits de Newman ont été découverts hors de l’Angleterre, ce ne fut souvent qu’une réception partielle. L’accent a été mis sur ses deux œuvres les plus connues. D’une part, il s’agit de son traité d’épistémologie, GrammarofAssent. D’autre part, beaucoup plus intéressante, il y a l’œuvre encore plus importante de Newman sur la Révélation et sa manifestation dans le monde. Il s’agit de son étude publiée en 1845, intitulée AnEssayontheDevelopmentofChristianDoctrine. Ce livre, connu sous le titre court de Viamedia, a marqué la transition de Newman de la communion anglicane à la communion catholique romaine. Quelques mots sur la Via media: dans ce livre Newman distinguait essentiellement deux formes de tradition, l’épiscopale et la prophétique19. Il a également souligné l’idée que la vérité chrétienne était toujours, dans un sens très réel ou concret, historiquement déterminée. Pour Newman, toute expression concrète de l’«idée chrétienne» initiale, qu’elle concerne la structure, la discipline ou la doctrine de l’Église, est en quelque sorte contextuelle et non une fin en soi. Cette idée de la «réalisation» contextuelle du christianisme20 dans l’histoire a amené deux autres idées clés. looked upon as an intellectual patron. Newman’s greatness, in the eyes of the French Catholic intellectuals, lies in his implacable opposition to rationalism, in his careful thinking through of the problems that face theologians, his approach to noting the ‘senses’ of Scripture and by his willingness to grapple with contemporary approaches to the Christian faith». Aussi cité dans A. MESZAROS, ThePropheticChurch:HistoricalandDoctrinal Development in John Henry Newman and Yves Congar, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016. 19. Sur ce point, voir l’excellent article de T. MERRIGAN, The Enduring Influence of NewmanonWillebrands’EcumenicalViews, dans DENAUX – DE MEY (éds), TheEcumenical Legacy (n. 3), 31-47, esp. pp. 32-36. Voir J. WILLEBRANDS, De ontwikkeling der idee volgensNewmanvergelekenmetHegel, dans Bijdragen7 (1946) 60-79, pp. 65-66, où Willebrands stipule que «Newman onderscheidt Episcopal Tradition en Prophetical Tradition». 20. Sur la notion de développement chez Newman, voir surtout N. LASH, Newmanon Development:TheSearchforanExplanationinHistory, London, Sheed and Ward, 1975.

282

K. SCHELKENS

Premièrement, la conscience que la nature historique de l’Église implique la nécessité d’une vigilance constante sur ses «défauts». Cette vigilance s’exprime par la volonté de l’Église de se remettre en question, de se demander si certaines traditions et pratiques qu’elle affectionne servent encore l’«idée» originale de l’Église21. Ou plus précisément: ce qui est constamment nécessaire, c’est le questionnement sur soi-même. Puisque le Christ vivant est à l’origine de «l’idée» de chrétienté, l’Église actuelle doit se demander si elle représente encore cela et rester ouverte à une réforme continue: ecclesiasemperreformanda. Newman a souligné que la tradition s’est parfois transformée en légendes et fables et qu’elle peut être obscurcie par des préjugés populaires ou des coutumes locales. Deuxièmement, Newman a insisté sur le fait que même si une partie de la tradition prophétique «était fixée et perpétuée sous forme d’articles ou de doctrines formelles» en réponse aux disputes ecclésiales, et même si elle était préservée dans les écrits des Pères de l’Église, la fragmentation historique de l’Église chrétienne doit être prise au sérieux. La tradition n’inclut pas seulement le développement historique, elle s’est également dissipée dans les pratiques locales. Ici arrive la dite Branch-Theory de Newman, qui était particulièrement précieuse pour les œcuménistes catholiques. L’Église, dans ses diverses branches historiques, a développé des parties de l’idée originelle de l’Église pour elle-même, à partir de la masse existante, et selon les influences accidentelles qui prévalaient à l’époque. À la fin, Newman affirma qu’il avait trouvé la réalisation la plus complète de l’idée de l’Église dans le catholicisme, mais il ne cessa jamais de reconnaître la valeur ecclésiale des autres réalisations. V. NEWMAN EN FRANCE Ces idées n’ont pas été reçues au même moment. L’accueil de Newman en France varie au cours des phases suivantes22. La première phase, très précoce, eut lieu à Paris. Il est intéressant de préciser que dès 1852, le chanoine et futur archevêque de Paris, Georges Darboy, écrivit dans Le Correspondant que la Viamedia de Newman était «une œuvre capitale»23. 21. Cf. MERRIGAN, TheEnduringInfluence (n. 19), p. 34. 22. Voir B. DUPUY, Newman’s Influence in France, dans J. COULSON – A. ALLCHIN (éds), TheRediscoveryofNewman:AnOxfordSymposium, London, Sheed & Ward, 1967, 147-173. Et surtout le bilan dans A. MESZAROS, A Theology of History and Doctrinal DevelopmentaccordingtoJ.H.NewmanandYvesCongar, Leuven, dissertation non-publiée, 2013, pp. 55-57. 23. G. DARBOY, M.Newman, dans LeCorrespondant29 (10 janvier 1852) 385-407.

J.H. NEWMAN ET L’ŒCUMÉNISME CATHOLIQUE AVANT VATICAN II

283

Il avait lu la traduction française faite par Jules Gondon24, qui fut diffusée dans les bibliothèques françaises avec l’approbation d’Alfred de Falloux, ministre de l’Instruction publique sous la Deuxième République. Ensuite, il y eut une période de silence jusqu’au début du XXe siècle, moment où les écrits de Newman réapparurent lors de la crise moderniste. Cette fois, les figures clés qui désignaient Newman comme une autorité afin de stimuler la pensée historique dans la théologie catholique étaient Alfred Loisy et Henri Brémond25. À cette époque, la figure de Newman devint encore plus célèbre à la suite du livre sur LaRenaissancecatholiqueenAngleterre (1908-1910) de Paul Thureau-Dangin26. Newman fut rapidement utilisé pour s’opposer à la théologie thomiste fortement encouragée par Léon XIII et Pie X. En conséquence, le théologien anglais fut entouré d’une odeur de modernisme. La référence à Newman devenait risquée. Il fallut une troisième génération de lecteurs de Newman pour que l’image change une fois de plus. Dans les années 1920, le jésuite germano-polonais Erich Przywara apporta une contribution précieuse à une lecture de Newman qui cette fois n’était plus entièrement en contradiction avec la théologie thomiste27. En France, l’une des voix importantes qui redécouvrit Newman dans les années 1930 fut… Louis Bouyer. Alors qu’il citait l’œuvre de Thureau-Dangin comme l’une des meilleures contributions à l’histoire religieuse des cinquante dernières années28, Bouyer critiquait sévèrement la représentation de Newman par Brémond, qu’il accuse d’une insupportable «frivolité»29. La valeur particulière de la relecture de 24. J. GONDON, Histoire du développement de la doctrine chrétienne ou motifs de retouràl’Églisecatholique,Paris, Sagnier et Bray, 1848. Il faut bien ajouter que la pensée de Newman ne fut pas la première à faire entrer la notion de développement dans la théologie en France. Sur les antécédents de la réception de cette pensée, voir l’étude classique d’O. CHADWICK, FromBossuettoNewman:TheIdeaofDoctrinalDevelopment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1957. 25. Cf. R. BURKE, WasLoisyNewman’sDisciple?, dans M.J. WEAVER (éd.), Newman andtheModernists, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1985, et N. LASH, NewmanandA.Firmin, dans A.H. JENKINS (éd.), JohnHenryNewmanandModernism, Sigmaringendorf, Glock & Lutz, 1990, 56-73. Voir plus récemment G. DALY, Newman, DivineRevelation,andtheCatholicModernists, dans T. MERRIGAN – I. KER (éds), NewmanandtheWord (Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, 27), Leuven, Peeters, 2000, 49-68. Voir aussi l’article de L. DE GRANDMAISON, JohnHenryNewmanconsidéré commemaître, dans Études109 (1906) 721-750, et H. BRÉMOND, Apologiepourlesnewmanistesfrançais, dans Revuepratiqued’apologétique3 (1907) 655-666. 26. P. THUREAU-DANGIN, LaRenaissancecatholiqueenAngleterre, Paris, Plon, 1908. 27. E. PRZYWARA, EinführunginNewmansWesenundWerken, Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 1922. Voir aussi son œuvre sur Religionsbegründung:MaxScheler–J.H.Newman, Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 1923. 28. L. BOUYER, Newman’sInfluenceinFrance, dans TheDublinReview217 (1945) 182-188. 29. L. BOUYER, Newman:Savie.Saspiritualité,Paris, Cerf, 1952, p. 37.

284

K. SCHELKENS

Bouyer repose sur sa connaissance de la théologie protestante et ses contacts avec les oratoriens anglophones Henry Tristram et Francis Joseph Bacchus. Avec ces théologiens, il récupéra Newman et le sortit du cercle des modernistes. À cet égard, l’entrée de 1931 sur «Newman» dans le Dictionnaire de théologie catholique fut très importante30. Bouyer a construit sur cette réception et, grâce à son expertise, il fut une source précieuse pour d’autres érudits catholiques dans les années 30 et 40. C’est là que la génération de pionniers œcuméniques tels que Willebrands et Congar intervient à nouveau. Les idées de Newman sur la réforme et sur les branches du christianisme se sont avérées inspirantes pour nos trois personnages. VI. ŒCUMÉNISME

ET RÉFORME ECCLÉSIALE:

WILLEBRANDS ET CONGAR

Willebrands était un prêtre diocésain néerlandais, formé dans la tradition néo-thomiste classique. Pour parfaire son éducation, son évêque l’envoya à Rome en 1934, afin d’étudier la philosophie à l’Angelicum. Une fois là, il se lança dans l’étude de la théologie française. À cette époque, ni Congar ni Bouyer ne font partie de ses lectures, mais bien Reginald GarrigouLagrange, dont il suivit les cours31. Influencé par ce type de thomisme et par la lecture des écrits du dominicain hollandais Johannes Vincentius de Groot, Willebrands l’assimila à son intérêt antérieur pour l’anglicanisme32. Il décida d’écrire une thèse sur l’épistémologie de Newman. Sa compréhension de Newman fut façonnée par la récupération moderniste et, par conséquent, étant un disciple de l’antimodernisme hollandais33, son plan était de critiquer Brémond et d’écrire une critique thomiste de Newman afin de démasquer le théologien de l’époque victorienne en tant que… 30. H. TRISTRAM – J. BACCHUS, John-HenryNewman, dans DTC 11 (1931) 327-388. 31. K. SCHELKENS, Newman als ‘compagnon de route’, dans ID. – WITTE (éds), De denkleervankardinaalNewman (n. 12), VII-XXXI. À cette époque, Willebrands lisait plusieurs publications de Garrigou-Lagrange, telles que son livre, Dieu:Sonexistenceetsa nature, Paris, Beauchesne, 1914, et le volume sur la PerfectionchrétienneetcontemplationselonS.Thomasd’AquinetS.JeandelaCroix, Saint-Maximin, Éditions de la Vie Spirituelle, 1923. 32. J.V. DE GROOT, Denkersvanonzentijd, Bussum, Sijthoff, 1918. 33. Pour une étude assez vaste du modernisme aux Pays-Bas, voir L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WAL (éds), ReligiousModernismintheLowCountries (BETL, 255), Leuven, Peeters, 2013. Sur les péripéties autour de la dissertation de Willebrands à l’Angelicum, voir K. SCHELKENS, Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman? The Intellectual Itinerary of JohannesWillebrands, dans R. HEYNICK – S. SYMONS (éds), SoWhat’sNewaboutScholasticism?HowNeo-ThomismHelpedShapetheTwentiethCentury, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2018, 210-224.

J.H. NEWMAN ET L’ŒCUMÉNISME CATHOLIQUE AVANT VATICAN II

285

nominaliste34. Tout cela changea lorsque Willebrands plongea dans les écrits mêmes de Newman et commença à voyager en Angleterre dans les années 193035. Puis, à travers tout cela et la lecture de l’étude de Bouyer sur Newmanetleplatonismedel’âmeanglaise, le prêtre hollandais subit une conversion philosophique et théologique36. Il utilisera désormais la terminologie de Newman pour comprendre les divisions historiques du christianisme. Le discours de Gazzada le démontre, mais n’est en aucun cas nouveau. En effet, en 1946, Willebrands était professeur d’histoire de la philosophie aux Pays-Bas et publia un article dans la revue théologique des jésuites belges, Bijdragen37. Il y compare les vues de Newman et d’Hegel sur la relation entre vérité, histoire et développement. Il en ressort clairement que Willebrands s’est inspiré de l’EssayonDevelopment pour parler de la vie de l’Église comme d’une unité organique «manifestée/réalisée» (mais jamais épuisée), dans une variété de formes historiques ou d’«aspects» de l’idée chrétienne. Dans ses écrits œcuméniques ultérieurs, en tant que cardinal de l’unité dans les années 1970, Willebrands qualifiera ces diverses réalisations de typoi de l’unique Église du Christ38. Il utilisera les concepts de Newman pour expliquer la position œcuménique de Vatican II. Bien que Willebrands ait rencontré Congar pour la première fois en 1952, leurs cheminements antérieurs étaient étonnamment proches en ce qui concerne la réception de Newman au cours des années 3039: après avoir soumis son lectorat en juin 1931, Yves Congar lut les Mémoires récemment publiés de Loisy, et l’importance de Newman pour celui-ci ne put lui échapper40. Durant ces années, le dominicain – qui à la fin de sa vie recevra la barrette rouge des mains de Willebrands – étudia le modernisme catholique, et prit également conscience de la façon dont des auteurs tels que Tyrrell et Le Roy avaient lu Newman. En 1932, à la 34. Sur ce point, voir K. SCHELKENS, De l’inventaire à la vie: Quelques réflexions préparatoires à une biographie du cardinal Willebrands, dans L. DECLERCK, Inventaire desarchivespersonnellesducardinalJ.Willebrands,secrétaireetprésidentduSecrétariat pour l’Unité des Chrétiens, archevêque d’Utrecht (Instrumenta Theologica, 35), Leuven, Peeters, 2013, 17-20. 35. Cf. SCHELKENS, ThomasAquinasorJohnHenryNewman? (n. 33), pp. 218-219. 36. L. BOUYER, Newmanetleplatonismedel’âmeanglaise, dans RevuedePhilosophie6 (1936) 285-305. 37. WILLEBRANDS, Deontwikkelingderidee (n. 19),pp. 60-79. 38. Voir la collection d’essais et de contributions dans ATributetoJohannesCardinal Willebrands on the Occasion of His Ninetieth Birthday, dans Information Service 101 (1999/II-111), pp. 100-105, et surtout pp. 130-134. Cf. MERRIGAN, TheEnduringInfluence (n. 19), pp. 44-46. 39. Cf. A. NICHOLS, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development fromtheVictorianstotheSecondVaticanCouncil, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1990. 40. Voir J.-P. JOSSUA, YvesCongar:TheologyintheServiceofGod’sPeople, Chicago, IL, Priory Press, 1968. Voir aussi MESZAROS, ATheologyofHistory (n. 22), pp. 75 et 89.

286

K. SCHELKENS

faculté protestante du Boulevard Arago, Congar rencontra pour la première fois Bouyer et découvrit leur intérêt commun – ainsi que leurs différences sur la valeur du thomisme et sur le barthisme41. Dans les années 30, Congar se rendit souvent en Angleterre et, comme on le sait, y fut exilé à partir de 1955. Il développa aussi une autre lecture de Newman vers la fin de cette époque. Au moment de la publication de ses Esquissesdumystèredel’Église en 194142, le dominicain français avait bien saisi l’importance de la pensée newmanienne sur le développement, la tradition, le rôle de l’expérience vécue des fidèles dans l’Église ainsi que la notion de réforme pour la théologie. Congar ne suivit pas les unilatéralismes modernistes sur Newman, mais s’appuya davantage sur la traduction de la ViamediadeGondon, sur le livre de Jean Guitton de 1933 traitant de LaphilosophiedeNewman et sur les études de Bouyer43. Il donna une appréciation très positive sur les idées de Newman dans la préface de son travail sur l’Église: Ce sont là des notions qu’il y aurait grand profit à étudier et appliquer à la vie de l’Église et à la possession de la foi in fideEcclesiae. Seul, à notre connaissance, Newman y a recouru44.

Newman devint un point de référence constant dans des œuvres ultérieures telles que Vraieetfausseréformedansl’Église et Latraditionet les traditions45, et plus que souvent, il fait référence à la réception de Newman par Bouyer, comme dans son ouvrage Chrétiensdésunis46. Mais revenons à la présence de Bouyer, Newman et Willebrands à Strasbourg. VII. CONCLUSIONS: LA CONFÉRENCE CATHOLIQUE À STRASBOURG J’espère que le lien entre les trois principaux intervenants lors de la réunion de la Conférence catholique de 1961 est clair. Il n’est pas 41. Cf. B. LESOING, VerslaplénitudeduChrist:LouisBouyeretl’œcuménisme (Cogitatio fidei, 302), Paris, Cerf, 2017. 42. Y. CONGAR, Esquissesdumystèredel’Église (Unam Sanctam, 8), Paris, Cerf, 1941. 43. J. GUITTON, LaphilosophiedeNewman:Essaisurl’idéededéveloppement, Paris, Boivin, 1933. Voir, sur les influences sur Congar, les études du P. B. DUPUY, L’influence de Newman sur la théologie catholique du développement dogmatique, dans Newman Studien 6 (1964) 143-165, et trente ans plus tard Auxsourcesdel’œuvredupèreCongar, dans Istina 41 (1996) 117-132. 44. CONGAR, Esquissesdumystère (n. 42), p. 127. 45. Y. CONGAR, Vraieetfaussereformedansl’Église (Unam Sanctam, 20), Paris, Cerf, 1950, et Latraditionetlestraditions,2 vols, Paris, Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1960-1963. 46. Y. CONGAR, Chrétiens désunis: Principes d’un ‘œcuménisme’ catholique (Unam Sanctam, 1), Paris, Cerf, 1937, voir p. 323.

J.H. NEWMAN ET L’ŒCUMÉNISME CATHOLIQUE AVANT VATICAN II

287

nécessaire de répéter comment Willebrands a utilisé la pensée de Newman pour souligner les aspects positifs de la reconnaissance des variations chrétiennes et pour passer d’une compréhension notionnelle de l’autre à une compréhension réelle. Lutter pour l’unité des chrétiens était une question de «réalisation» de l’«idée» originale de chrétienté. Et en 1961, cela allait bien au-delà de Mortaliumanimos et même au-delà de l’instruction de Pie XII de 1950. La vigilance aux «défauts» de sa propre tradition fut combinée avec la volonté de réforme, ainsi que la reconnaissance de ce qui est valable dans les autres branches chrétiennes. L’œcuménisme et la réforme ecclésiale étaient interconnectés. Quand Willebrands invita Bouyer à parler à Strasbourg, il écrivit une lettre abordant plusieurs sujets. Il rappela que Bouyer s’était déjà adressé à la Conférence catholique à Paris en 1955 et évoqua les discussions à propos de son propre désir de créer un oratoire à Amsterdam47. Il souligna également que Strasbourg devait se concentrer sur la pluralité verticale dans la vie historique des branches chrétiennes. Dans ce cadre, Bouyer était invité à se concentrer sur le patrimoine biblique commun. Dans son discours, celui-ci mit en évidence l’importance d’une redécouverte commune des Écritures en tant qu’instrument de dialogue et de réforme, outrepassant les péripéties du modernisme48. Il construisit sa communication sur la distinction de Newman de la tradition épiscopale et prophétique et souligna que «d’une part, elle est protégée contre l’erreur et le péché à travers son infaillibilité»49, tandis que d’autre part il regretta l’accent catholique sur l’infaillibilité papale comme un exemple clair d’unilatéralisme historique. Il mit en évidence l’idée de Newman du sensusfidelium, en disant que, comme congregatiofidelium l’Église est placée sous le jugement sauveur de Dieu. Bouyer parlait après Congar. Et là encore, pour le dominicain, Newman a offert un terrain commun pour les communications sur la réforme. Congar a parlé sur «les raisons et les exigences principales d’un renouveau». Comme il le faisait dans 47. Voir T. SALEMINK (éd.), YouWillBeCalledRepaireroftheBreach:TheDiaryof J.G.M. Willebrands, Leuven, Peeters, 2009, p. 169: Le 16 juin 1960, Willebrands écrit dans son diaire: «We are all convinced that this Centre is a good thing, also, St. Philip Neri is the saint of freedom: cardinal Newman gave his Oratorium an ecumenical spirit, Louis Bouyer has provided a new example of the kind of Oratorium that we want». Plus tard, voir aussi la correspondance de Willebrands dans les Archives Chevetogne, CCQO, qui contient une lettre de Bouyer à Willebrands du 28 juillet 1960, annonçant que Bouyer viendra à Gazzada, qu’il a été heureux de passer quelques jours avec Willebrands et fait des vœux pour que Willebrands puisse réaliser son projet d’oratoire. 48. Archives Chevetogne, CCQO: Louis Bouyer, Discours Ecclesia semper reformanda, 1961, p. 10. 49. Ibid.

288

K. SCHELKENS

Vraie et fausse réforme, le dominicain a adopté plusieurs idées sur la réforme et la vigilance de la Viamedia, en disant que «la nécessité de la réforme dans l’Église n’était pas exclusivement liée aux péchés de chrétiens individuels, mais aussi à l’existence des ‘limites, retards, fautes historiques’ de l’Église comme un corps collectif»50. Ceci fut développé par Congar dans sa seconde thèse selon laquelle l’Église est faite par l’acte souverain de Dieu, et réalisée par les hommes dans l’Histoire. En fin de compte, il est frappant de voir comment plusieurs éléments clés de la pensée de Newman se retrouvent dans le débat œcuménique de 1961 sur la réforme ecclésiale. Non seulement l’enseignement de Newman sur le sensusfidelium y joue un rôle, mais aussi son idée de la tradition prophétique en tant qu’instrument de conservation et d’élucidation. Newman avait également une vision de l’Église à la fois «holistique» et «historique»51. Cette combinaison fut partagée par les trois spécialistes de Newman et leur permit de jouer un rôle important dans les réformes ecclésiales de Vatican II. Avec elle advint un désir non de cacher, mais d’aborder les défauts de l’Église catholique sans devoir l’abandonner. Le consensus était fait sur l’importance de prendre au sérieux la vie historique de l’Église. Théologiquement, cela implique de reconnaître un vrai développement au sein de l’Église elle-même, et pas seulement un développement externe limité aux apparences. En bref, cela permet une loyauté ecclésiale toujours vigilante. Tilburg University Kamer D 143 PO Box 90153 NL-5000 LE Tilburg Nederland [email protected]

Karim SCHELKENS

50. Archives Chevetogne, CCQO: Yves Congar, Lesraisonsetlesexigencesprincipalesd’unrenouveau Bouyer, 1961. 51. Cf. MESZAROS, A TheologyofHistory (n. 22), pp. 86-88.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF TWENTIETH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL THE DEBATE ON NOUVELLETHÉOLOGIE

The focus of this article is on the historiography of Catholic theological renewal during the 1930s and 1940s. In recent historiography, this renewal is often labelled “nouvelle théologie”. According to ModernChristianTheology(2016): “Nouvellethéologieis the name of a Catholic theological movement happening from the 1930s through the 1950s, among some Dominican and Jesuit theologians in France”1. The use of the term nouvellethéologie by historians of theology, however, remains contentious, primarily due to the phrase’s origin2. Moreover, its historical delimitation is also problematic: is it scientifically appropriate to refer to several various and complex (French) theological developments in the 1930s and 1940s (and by extension 1950s) as nouvellethéologie? In the past several decades, scholars have been aware of the ambiguous nature of this concept3. Some have predicted its possible disappearance4, but the term is very much alive in recent historiography. The 1. C.B. SIMPSON, ModernChristianTheology,London, T&T Clark, 2016, p. 267. See also R.E. OLSON, TheJourneyofModernTheology:FromReconstructiontoDeconstruction, Downers Grove, IL, IVP Academic, 2013, p. 547, “Nouvelle théologie is a broad category that encompasses many progressive Catholic theologians”. See also J. METTEPENNINGEN, Nouvelle théologie – New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of VaticanII,London, T&T Clark, 2010, p. xiii: “[…] nouvellethéologie: the theological movement from the 1930s, 40s and 50s that was to set the tone for the Catholic theology of the Second Vatican Council”. 2. For more on this issue, see É. FOUILLOUX, ‘Nouvellethéologie’etthéologienouvelle (1930-1960),in B. PELLISTRANDI (ed.), L’histoirereligieuseenFranceetEspagne(Collection de la Casa Velázquez, 87), Madrid, Casa de Velázquez, 2004, 411-425, p. 413: “Il s’agira d’abord de démontrer que l’utilisation théologienne de l’expression ‘nouvelle théologie’, celle des détracteurs, est inutilisable par l’historien, car délibérément agressive” and p. 417: “L’absence de tout accord sur l’expression ‘nouvelle théologie’ comme sur son contenu empêche l’historien d’en conserver l’usage dans un travail à prétention scientifique. Même pour la sortir de son purgatoire et lui donner une valeur positive de préparation à Vatican II, comme le font de bonne foi plusieurs histoires théologiennes de la théologie d’esprit conciliaires […]”. 3. This, for example, is shown by the fact that authors often talk about the ‘so-called nouvellethéologie’.One example is J.R. BROTHERTON, Development(s)intheTheologyof Revelation: From Francisco Marin-Sola to Joseph Ratzinger, in New Blackfriars 97 (2016) 661-676, p. 661. 4. In 1986, Carlo Colombo suggested that if nouvellethéologieis indeed – as Y. Congar maintained – a ‘fantasized idea’ without content, the concept could be effaced in the near future: “Se così è, non è impensabile che in un future più o meno prossimo, anche il nome

290

W. DE PRIL

question arises what the history of the historiography of theological renewal in the 1930s and 1940s can contribute to this discussion: can it provide some direction for an accurate definition and periodization of nouvellethéologie? First, this work examines how historians and theologians before Vatican II – chronologically closer to the events and in a way ‘unaffected’ by the notable theological interest in and assessment of nouvellethéologie during and after the Second Vatican Council – approached theological renewal in the 1930s and 1940s. Next, we discuss two divergent historiographical lines, discernible in the decades immediately following the Second Vatican Council, that concern nouvellethéologie and theological renewal in general. In the final section, we add a note on two highly interesting recent publications on nouvellethéologie. This work concludes by formulating some considerations for studying theological renewal in the 1930s and 1940s based on its historiography over the past seventy years. I. EARLY HISTORIOGRAPHY OF NOUVELLE THÉOLOGIE With the controversy on nouvellethéologie still raging throughout the second half of the 1940s, articles started to appear discussing nouvelle théologie in a non-polemical manner and attempting to assess its meaning within the history of theology. In March 1948, Agostino Gemelli, an Italian Franciscan, published an article on nouvellethéologie5 that was widely-read in Italy, France, and Belgium6. Gemelli begins by pointing to the movement’s specific French context, in which the question of the conflict between modern thinking and Church doctrine is posed differently than in Italy due to the characteristic rationalism dominating the French world. In France, there was a wide-spread belief that science had definitively triumphed over the affirmations of the Catholic faith. It is true, Gemelli states, that French intellectuals are eager to accommodate contemporaneous atheistic and agnostic ways of thinking, even to the point of accepting si cancelli; e in questa scia si può prevedere che difficilmente la Théologienouvellepotrà entrare nelle storie delle teologie che in future si scriveranno”. C. COLOMBO, Lateologiatra fedeeculturanellaprimametàdelsecoloXX,in Teologia11 (1986) 3-23, p. 3. 5. A. GEMELLI, L’incredulita degli ‘intellettuali’ in Francia e l’attivita dei cattolici francesisulterrenodellacultura,in VitaePensiero31 (1948) 157-165. 6. A French translation of the article was published in ETL24 (1948) 645-655. On the reception history of the article, see A. DESMAZIÈRES, AgostinoGemelliegliintellettuali cattolicifrancesinelsecondodopoguerra:La‘nouvellethéologie’vistadaMilano(19461951), in Annali di storia moderna e contemporanea 1 (2007) 159-192. According to Desmazières, there was a current in the Roman Curia to appease the debate on nouvelle théologiein early 1948.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 20TH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL

291

certain competing viewpoints. This does not mean, however, that a return to the modernism of 1907 is imminent. The modernism of 1907 was ambiguous and secretive, whereas French theologians like Teilhard de Chardin, Daniélou, Fessard, Bouillard, and de Lubac remained faithful to the Church, while trying to deprive their enemies of their arguments. According to Gemelli, the subject of the debate is to determine the position of the modern theologian who, on the one hand, wants to be faithful to the content and method of Aquinas, while, on the other, has to resolve problems that modern thinking has presented, specifically regarding theology’s sources, the value of historical documents, the interpretation of the Fathers, etc. For Gemelli, the progressive orientation of French theologians – compared to their Italian colleagues – is understandable given their specific historical context. The deeper reason for their renewal is apologetic: trying to win over French atheists and agnostics. In the same year, A. van Rijen, M.S.C., devoted an article to “a new movement in theology”7. According to the author, the movement had been discernible since 1942 and was inspired by the Jesuits from the theological faculty of Lyon-Fourvière. The most fundamental characteristic of this theology was situated in its historical orientation, its focus on the development of theology, and its theological notions. Not surprisingly, Henri Bouillard is given a prominent place. The purpose of their historical endeavor is to recover the lost resources of earlier times as a means to overcome the limitations of contemporary theology. Since theology is bound to time by all sorts of contingent elements, every era has its own version, with its own situational concepts and problems. Therefore, theology is a living discipline. The theology of the past can, and should, enrich the present-day practice. Van Rijen acknowledges nouvelle théologie’s affinity with modernism in its pursuit of adapting theology to contemporary thinking, the needs of modern man, and the contextual emphasis on the discipline’s development. Yet, the affinity is limited to the attempts of Nouvellethéologie to solve similar problems, while not sharing similar solutions. A final interesting article in this very early period was written in 1949 by the Swiss Dominican Th. Deman, discussing the “French efforts for a renewal of theology”8. Deman does not advocate the use of the expression 7. A. VAN RIJEN, Eennieuwestromingindetheologie,in Nederlandsekatholiekestemmen 44 (1948) 177-188. 8. The article was written in 1949, but published in 1950: T. DEMAN, Französische Bemühungen um eine Erneuerung der Theologie, in Theologische Revue 46/2 (1950) 61-82. In the same year an article with similar outlook was published by A. HAMMAN O.F.M., namely Religiöse Strömungen im heutigen Frankreich, in Wissenschaft und Weisheit12 (1949) 138-146.

292

W. DE PRIL

nouvellethéologieto denote the movement of renewal because it tends to simplify the reality to which it refers. The representatives of the renewal have no well-considered plan, and thus, according to Deman, it is better to say they share a certain ‘mentality’ (“Geisteshaltung”)9. Deman also acknowledges a number of similarities with the kerygmatic theology movement and with the discussion of the scientific nature of theology (the controversy of the late 1930s), but denies any historical or direct dependence. The ideas of the French theologians were not decisively influenced by these earlier discussions; rather, these ideas “scheinen vielmehr aus einem durchaus eigenen Milieu und aus selbständiger Initiative hervorzugehen, jedenfalls lassen sie ihre Eigenprägung durchaus erkennen”10. In his discussion of the renewal movement, Deman presents the ideas of three well-known Jesuits of Lyon-Fourvière: Daniélou, de Lubac, and, especially, Bouillard, who, with his Conversion et grâce chez saint Thomas d’Aquin,had raised the issues at the heart of the controversy surrounding the nouvellethéologie11. The first thorough historiographical studies on the theological renewal of the 1940s appeared in 1954, with the publication of R. Aubert’s La théologiecatholiqueaumilieuduXXesiècle12and G. Eldarov’s Presenza dellateologia13. Aubert starts his overview of Catholic theology in the middle of the twentieth century with an elaborate discussion of the ressourcement movement (biblical, liturgical, and patristic) as one of the proper characteristics of contemporaneous theology. A complementary aspect of this renewal of theology in a traditional sense – ressourcement – centers on theologians’ concerns of addressing contemporary preoccupations, both in an attempt to bring about appropriate Christian responses and to enrich theology by discovering new perspectives or objects of study. “C’est en effet un des traits les plus frappants du catholicisme actuel que la volonté déclarée d’être présent à son temps, de confronter hardiment le monde chrétien au monde moderne”14. This concern for ‘presence’ in the modern mentality resulted in efforts to adapt traditional theological approaches, e.g. to present doctrine in a new way (kerygmatic theology) or to study 9. DEMAN, FranzösischeBemühungen (n. 8), col. 61. 10. Ibid., col. 62. 11. Ibid., col. 69. 12. R. AUBERT, LathéologiecatholiqueaumilieuduXXesiècle(Cahiers de l’actualité religieuse), Tournai, Casterman, 1954. 13. G.M. ELDAROV, Presenza della teologia, Padova, Il messaggero di S. Antonio, 1954. 14. AUBERT, Lathéologiecatholique (n. 12),p. 46.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 20TH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL

293

new objects (theology of the laity, theology of history). In this context, Aubert does not mention the term nouvellethéologie.Only in the final chapter – titled “face à l’existentialisme et à l’œcuménisme: le sujet chrétien et la communauté ecclésiale” – the term appears in a brief discussion on a specific aspect in which theology renews itself in contact with certain modern philosophies15. This renewal consists of reacting against the way the Christian mystery has been rationalized in the past. The idea is to recover the mystery of God as a subject instead of an object. There is an aversion to every rational theological construction. The biblical and patristic ressourcement movement has given these theologians the opportunity to promote a way of exposing dogma to categories of thinking that scholastic theology had lost, but that correspond remarkably well with modern categories of thinking, particularly in the sense of being more concrete and leaving more room for historicity. According to Aubert, this is what the controversy concerning “théologie nouvelle”16 is about. He points out that the controversy started in 1946 with an article by Labourdette reacting against certain tendencies noticeable among Jesuit theologians like de Lubac and Daniélou, but does not delve much further into the issue. To summarize, Aubert, in his overview of Catholic theology in the middle of the twentieth century, devotes little attention to nouvellethéologie – théologienouvelle, only referring to it as a controversy that emerged after the Second World War and that has had resonances in Humanigeneris17. Nonetheless, theological renewal in this era is far more extensive and is instead described in terms of ‘ressourcement’ and its ‘presence’ in the modern world. It is precisely this second aspect – ‘presence’ – that is given a central position in Franciscan Giorgio Eldarov’s study from 1954, titled Presenzadellateologia. Just like Aubert, Eldarov understands the term nouvellethéologie in a very specific and limited sense, referring to one of the parties involved in a theological controversy in France that pitted a group of Jesuit theologians against Dominican theologians between 1946 and 195018. In a footnote, Eldarov explains that by specifically using the term nouvelle théologie – instead of the Italian translation 15. See ibid.,pp. 82-86. 16. Thus, Aubert prefers this term over nouvellethéologie. 17. In later publications, Aubert continued to maintain a narrow definition of nouvelle théologie. See R. AUBERT, LathéologiecatholiquedurantlapremièremoitiéduXXesiècle, in R. VANDER GUCHT – H. VORGRIMLER (eds.), Bilan de la théologie du XXe siècle. Tome I, Tournai, Casterman, 1970, 423-478, p. 457: “Des discussions assez vives se déroulèrent à ce propos en France autour de ce que certains surnommèrent la ‘théologie nouvelle’. Cela commença vers le milieu de 1946 […]”. 18. ELDAROV, Presenza (n. 13), p. 17.

294

W. DE PRIL

nuovateologia – he wanted to make sure that the term was understood in its historical meaning as one of the parties involved in a controversy between French theologians. The Italian term would be interpreted as ‘another theology’ without any continuity with the ‘surpassed’ theology and did not correspond with the intentions of the representatives of the nouvelle théologie19. What characterizes nouvelle théologie is its attitude toward a complex series of modern problems that can be best summarized as the problems concerning theology’s modern ‘presence’. According to theologians associated with nouvellethéologie, there is a breach between theology and the modern world: theology is absent from the problems of modern man, and should find ways to re-establish the contact. The Christian message has to be retold in terms of the modern cultural climate. Eldarov gives an elaborate overview of the history of the controversy, including its historical precedents, involved writings, and various developments until the publication of the encyclical Humanigeneris. In regard to the historical development of the controversy, Eldarov – in a manner similar to T. Deman – refers to two immediately preceding controversies: one on theological method and another on kerygmatic theology. The controversy surrounding theological method focuses on the discussion of the relationship between positive and speculative theology, in which positive theologians criticized the neo-Thomist emphasis on the ‘scientific’ nature of theology in an Aristotelian sense. Protagonists in this controversy included French and Belgian theologians, such as J.F. Bonnefoy, R. Draguet, and L. Charlier, who were countered by defenders of the traditional speculative form of theology, such as R. Gagnebet and C. Boyer. The problem of theological method did not yet have a satisfying answer when the discussion was brought to an abrupt end in 1942 by the H. Office placing a book by Charlier and Chenu on the Index. The controversy over kerygmatic theology was a German affair. A group of Jesuits from the theological faculty of Innsbruck aimed to re-evangelize the masses by presenting revelation in a manner similar to that of the Fathers and Apostles. Next, in response to a burgeoning belief in the scientific theology of revelation, they defended the need for a theology of preaching the revealed truth. Eldarov clearly distinguishes the three controversies, but also points to their shared problem: theological method. Theologians within the three controversies wanted to escape from the traditional (speculative, rationalist) practice, either because they denied its scientific scope, or they realized its inability to connect with modern man. Representatives of nouvelle 19. Ibid., p. 18.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 20TH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL

295

théologie specifically desired to escape from traditional forms by studying and expounding various themes that preceded the era of scholastic speculation – ressourcement – and insisted on focusing on those aspects which had the greatest contemporary appeal20. In his 1958 study Orientationsdelathéologie21, the Louvain theologian G. Thils was one of the first to situate the renewal of the 1930s and 1940s into a broader theological perspective22. Two influential steps are taken by the author. First, Thils discusses modernism and nouvellethéologie as two distinct episodes within the history of criticism during the first half of the twentieth century. Modernism is described by Thils as analogous to demolition (especially its philosophical implications), but, at the same time, the spirit of renewal and critical studies had constructive results, especially in regard to the substitution of dogmatic history with scientific history. Thils describes nouvellethéologie as “une autre période de l’histoire de la critique”23. He does not compare modernism and nouvellethéologie,but it is nonetheless important that he places them on the same level as movements of critique. Second, Thils starts his discussion of nouvellethéologiewith the condemnation of Chenu’s Une École de théologie: Le Saulchoir and Charlier’s Essai sur le problème théologique. In other words, he moves up the starting date of the controversy. According to Thils, P. Parente’s objections to Chenu’s and Charlier’s ideas, formulated in his officious commentary on the condemnation, lead us directly into the confusion of nouvellethéologie. Initially, the discussion focused on the nature of theology as a strict and deductive science and on the speculative and positive nature of theological work. Yet, “la phase capitale des discussions allait bientôt commencer, quelques années plus tard, vers 1946-1947. C’est alors que l’on parlera plus spécialement de la ‘nouvelle théologie’”24. During those years, theologians broadened the discussion to include the philosophy of language, theological concepts and ideas about the task of theology. What is important here is that Thils implicitly distinguishes between a preliminary phase and a capital phase of nouvellethéologie, an implicit distinction made explicit by later historians and theologians.

20. Ibid.,p. 35. 21. G. THILS, Orientationsdelathéologie(BETL, 11), Leuven, Ceuterick, 1958. 22. Cf. the preface of the book: “Il est encore trop tôt pour faire le bilan théologique du XXe siècle. Mais dégager certaines directions, fixer quelques sommets, signaler quelques ouvrages, préparer une histoire, c’est là une entreprise réalisable”. Ibid.,p. 5. 23. Ibid.,p. 56. 24. Ibid.,p. 58.

296

W. DE PRIL

II. HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL AFTER THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL Evidently, the Second Vatican Council is of tremendous importance for the theological assessment of nouvellethéologie. The Council transformed the negative connotations associated with nouvellethéologie into positive ones, which benefitted its various representatives, several of whom were made cardinals25. Nouvellethéologieturned into a hallmark of a historically-oriented theology26. Yet, our interest is in the historiography of theological renewal during the 1930s and 1940s. In this article it is not possible to give an overview of postconciliar historiography. Therefore, this work is limited to a discussion of two remarkable and divergent historiographical approaches to theological renewal during the 1930s and 1940s. The first historiographical line is most influential and goes back to T. Tshibangu’s 1980 study titled ThéologiecommescienceauXXèmesiècle27. To my knowledge, Tshibangu – a former student of Thils28 – is the first to explicitly divide the debate on nouvelle théologie into two phases29. The first phase runs from 1938 to 1946. Here, Tshibangu discusses Chenu’s Une École de théologie: Le Saulchoir alongside Charlier’s Essaisurleproblèmethéologique, both of which raised fundamental problems in regard to the conception and method of theology. As both publications were put on the Index in 1942, it is not clear as to why Tshibangu chose to end the first phase in 1946. The second phase, however, starts in 1946 and lasts until 1948. In this phase, Dominicans from RevueThomistecame into conflict with Jesuits from RecherchesdeScience Religieuse, Sources Chrétiennes, and Théologie. Tshibangu indicates three major issues in the second phase of the controversy: a distaste 25. METTEPENNINGEN, Nouvellethéologie–NewTheology (n. 1), pp. 36-37. 26. C. BAUER, Ortswechsel der Theologie: M.-Dominique Chenu im Kontext seiner Programmschrift‘Uneécoledethéologie:LeSaulchoir’, Band 2 (Tübinger Perspektiven zur Pastoraltheologie und Religionspädagogik), Berlin, Lit Verlag, 2010, p. 617. 27. Kinshasa, Presses universitaires du Zaire. 28. Thils promoted Tshibangu’s dissertations for obtaining the degree of doctor and magister: T. TSHIBANGU TSHISHIKU, Melchior Cano et la théologie positive (Universitas catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes ad gradum doctoris in Facultate theologica consequendum conscriptae. Series 1, 320), Leuven, 1962; ID., Théologiepositiveetthéologie spéculative: Position traditionnelle et nouvelle problématique (Universitas catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate theologica vel in Facultate iuris canonici consequendum conscriptae. Series 3, 10), Leuven, 1965. 29. “Ce débat dans lequel s’affrontent deux conceptions de la science théologique et deux conceptions épistemologiques sous-jacantes à celles-ci, connaîtra deux phases”. TSHIBANGU, Théologie (n. 28),p. 80.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 20TH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL

297

for Saint Thomas and scholastics, historical relativism regarding theology, and doctrinal relativism, or the relativity of dogmatic notions. Unsurprisingly, Tshibangu applies a broader definition to nouvellethéologie. More than referring to the post-warcontroversy, ‘nouvelle théologie’ represents an expression that is used to characterize the new tendencies of reflection on the nature of theology, such as the questioning of scholastic theology and reconsidering theology in the face of the rise of modern philosophy, the development of sciences, and the relation of both to the Church’s magisterium30. In the first phase, Chenu and Charlier emphasized the priority given to the revealed given (“le donné révélé”) within theology over the deviation brought about by ‘decadent’ scholastic theology, which consisted either in conceptualizing the revealed given (as per Chenu) or in excessively focusing on theological conclusions (as per Charlier). Nonetheless, both Chenu and Charlier remained loyal to ‘authentic’ scholasticism, especially that of Aquinas. During the second phase, the controversy intensified: theologians searched for new perspectives that encompassed both their work as theologians and the life of their field. Through historical study and philosophical criticism, they showed that theological systems and concepts, as well as conciliar notions, bear witness to a certain relativism. Tshibangu agrees with Thils in that the problem exists at an epistemological level31. Tshibangu’s belief that the theological renewal of the 1930s and 1940s represented two phases of the same controversy has been adopted by most authoritative surveys of the history of (twentieth century) theology32. Some historians of theology, however, have reacted against this presentation of theological renewal in the 1930s and 1940s. The most explicit criticism is to be found in C. Colombo’s 1986 article that specifically deals with the historiography of theological renewal during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s33. Colombo asserted that due to the difficulty 30. “L’expression nouvellethéologie,employée pour caractériser les recherches et les tendances nouvelles exprimées sur la nature de la théologie, couvre un tout complexe dont l’élément unificateur est, d’abord, la mise en question généralisée de la scolastique, et ensuite, la préoccupation de reconsidérer la ‘position de la théologie’ en confrontant celle-ci avec la philosophie moderne, le développement des sciences et le rapport qui la relie au Magistère de l’Église”. Ibid., p. 108. 31. See ibid., p. 109. 32. See E. VILANOVA, Histoiredesthéologieschrétiennes.Tome III: XVIIIe-XXesiècle (Initiations), Paris, Cerf, 1997, pp. 901-908 and R. GIBELLINI, Panoramadelathéologieau XXesiècle(Théologies), Paris, Cerf, 1994, pp. 186-196, especially p. 191. For recent historiography, see also J. Mettepenningen’s study Nouvelle théologie – New Theology (n. 1). Mettepenningen distinguishes four phases within the development of nouvellethéologieof which the first two phasesmore or less coincide with the presentation of Tshibangu. 33. COLOMBO, Lateologia(n. 4).

298

W. DE PRIL

surrounding the creation of a precise definition of nouvelle théologie, the concept runs the risk of being placed within a disputable historiographical schema. Moreover, Colombo identified two historiographical tendencies that worried him. First, he disagreed with those who blended the theology of the (late) 1930s and nouvellethéologie,and second, he likewise feared linking nouvellethéologieto modernism. The two tendencies, however, are closely related. Whereas historians close to the events had made the distinction between the theology of the 1930s and nouvelle théologie, later historians tended to unify them as separate phases of a single theological event. In addition, the passing of time since the emergence of nouvellethéologiegave rise to a historiographical chronology that often linked modernism and nouvellethéologiein the sense that the latter encountered the same problems as those experienced during the modernist crisis. In sum, a historiographical branch exists that binds modernism and nouvelle théologie together because both were committed to renewing theology by referring it to ‘modern’ culture. Thus, in this perspective, the theology of the 1930s acted as a bridge between modernism and nouvellethéologie; the theological current that starts with the modernist crisis eventually arrives at nouvelle théologie by passing through the anticipatory episode of the 1930s. According to Colombo, this historiographical chronology is too passively and uncritically dependent on the perspective of the magisterium, which has no interest in reconstructing historical events and only seeks to reveal their theological-pastoral aspect. Most interesting for us, however, is Colombo’s argument that the theology of the 1930s was distinct from nouvelle théologie. Indeed, theology during this era possessed a series of specific features due to the particular historical context. Compared to the preceding decades, the ecclesiastical situation had changed with the waning of the anti-modernist campaign. Until then, theologians presented ‘magisterium’ and ‘critique’ as being completely antithetical. Yet, in the 1930s, they tried to find a modusvivendi between the two by putting extra emphasis on the magisterium’s primacy in theology, developing the so-called ‘theology of the magisterium’, a theological renewal during the 1930s34 that was initially rejected by the magisterium, but was finally adopted in the 34. Colombo does not personally characterize theology of the magisterium as a renewal. This, however, is done by F.G. BRAMBILLA, TeologiadelMagisteroefermentidi rinnovamentonellateologiacattolica,in G. ANGELINI – S. MACCHI (eds.), Lateologiadel Novecento:Momentimaggioriequestioniaperte(Lectio, 7),Milano, Glossa, 2008, 189236, pp. 195-196. Brambilla explains that traditional theological methodology is put on its head by placing the magisterium at the beginning of theological reflection.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 20TH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL

299

late 1940s35. In addition, it was far removed from the way in which those theologians who later became associated with nouvellethéologie conceived of the discipline36. Furthermore, Colombo points to the fact that nouvellethéologieis characterized by the will to go back to theology’s most important sources, especially the Bible and the Church Fathers. The biblical and patristic ressourcement was far more important for nouvelle théologie than for theological practice during the 1930s37, which instead focused on the historical study of scholasticism in order to re-establish Thomas Aquinas’ authentic position. “La diversità d’ispirazione prossima si riflette coerentemente nella diversità degli esiti, perché la teologia degli anni Trenta, in particolare Chenu, non propone alla teologia l’abbandono del modello scolastico; la proposta è invece francamente formulata dalla théologie nouvelle” 38. Another fundamental difference concerns Blondel’s vast influence on nouvelle théologie, as expressed by the Jesuit school, while the philosophy of action was not welcomed within the Dominican school. However, both the theology of the 1930s and nouvellethéologie share a single radical distinction from modernism. Colombo vehemently refutes the view that both modernism and nouvellethéologiepossessed the same aspiration to meet new cultures – historical-critical methodology and modern philosophy/epistemology – as opposed to ‘essentialist’ scholasticism. After all, in modernism, ‘culture’ emerged as the alternative pole of ‘faith’ for theology’s renewal. The renewal was not functionally realized as a return to faith, but as an appropriation of modern culture. The recovery of faith as the renewing principle of theology did not occur through modernism’s revivalist tendencies, but as the alternative, or even antithetical, result of both the theological renewal of the 1930s and nouvelle théologie.

35. We will come back to this changing appreciation within the Roman milieu for a theology of the magisterium in our conclusion. 36. Cf. the 1964 critique of J. Comblin on this theology of the magisterium: “La théologie baroque a d’ailleurs connu en ces dernières années des formes extrêmes: elle a été poussée jusqu’à son extrême limite dans la théologie du magistère, école contemporaine qui se présentait vraiment à contre-courant de tendances dominantes du temps présent”. Comblin refers in a footnote to Charlier’s Essaisurleproblèmethéologique as the most important example of theology of the magisterium,while the same publication is considered in the historiographical line of Tshibangu as a representative of nouvelle théologie. J. COMBLIN, Vers une théologie de l’action, Bruxelles, La pensée catholique, 1964, p. 59. 37. “[…] mentre il movimento biblico (quello patristico seguirà soltanto successivamente), ‘bloccato’ solo attorno agli anni Trenta, quando è incominciato il disgelo della stagione antimodernista, non ha potuto ovviamente influire sulla teologia degli anni Trenta”. COLOMBO, Lateologia (n. 4),p. 20. 38. Ibid., pp. 20-21.

300

W. DE PRIL

Accordingly, modernism and nouvelle théologie cannot be conflated because they belong to two different moments within theological history, one which precedes, and the other which follows, the recovery of faith as a renewing principle of theology39. “Situate sul versante opposto a quello del modernismo, la teologia degli anni Trenta e la Théologie nouvelle si trovano insieme”40. III. A NOTE ON TWO RECENT HISTORIOGRAPHICAL APPROACHES As previously mentioned in the introduction, neither the term nouvelle théologie nor the interest in the theological renewal that it refers to has disappeared within recent historiography. On the contrary, several monographs specifically dealing with nouvellethéologie41, as well as an impressive volume on the ressourcementmovement42, have appeared within the last decade. We will briefly discuss Boersma’s relevant conclusions from Nouvelle théologie and Sacramental Ontology and some primary arguments from Flynn and Murray’s edited volume on ressourcement. According to Boersma, the heart of nouvellethéologieis derived from a sacramental ontology, “the conviction that historical realities of the created order served as divinely ordained, sacramental means leading to eternal divine mysteries”43. From this, nouvelle theologians wished to reconnect nature and the supernatural in a reaction against their separation by both modernism and neo-Thomism. Thus, for Boersma, modernism is fundamentally different from nouvellethéologie, precisely because of the latter’s sacramental ontology. This is why Boersma does not treat modernism as one of the precursors to nouvellethéologieand why he declines the historiographical chronology that presents nouvellethéologieas a historical step in a continuous theological trajectory leading from modernism to post-conciliar pluralism. Yet, in terms of the relation of theological renewal in the 1930s to nouvellethéologie,Boersma joins in with the historiographical belief that characterizes both periods as phases of the nouvelle 39. Ibid., p. 23. 40. Ibid., p. 18. 41. H. BOERSMA, NouvellethéologieandSacramentalOntology:AReturntoMystery, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009; METTEPENNINGEN, Nouvellethéologie–NewTheology (n. 1); J. KIRWAN, AnAvant-gardeTheologicalGeneration:TheNouvellethéologie and the French Crisis of Modernity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018 (this book was not yet published when I initially finished this article). 42. G. FLYNN – P.D. MURRAY (eds.), Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-CenturyCatholicTheology,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. 43. BOERSMA, Nouvellethéologie (n. 41),p. 289.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 20TH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL

301

théologie. In a paragraph on the ControversiesoverNouvellethéologie44, Boersma discusses the “controversy over the nature of theology (193742)”, “the controversy over Ressourcement (1944-50)” and the “controversy over Worker-Priests (1943-54)”. In regard to the controversy of the 1930s, Boersma mentions Chenu and Congar, Charlier and Draguet, and Le Saulchoir and Louvain as representing the nouvellethéologie45. In Flynn and Murray’s volume, the term ‘ressourcement’ is used to refer to a movement for theological renewal during the twentieth century, particularly in the period between 1930 and 1960. In the Introduction, Flynn tries to get a grip on the terminology of ‘ressourcement’ and ‘nouvelle théologie’. “What distinguishes the ressourcementtheologians from the nouveauxthéologiensis that the former were also nouveauxthéologiens while the latter were not always committed to ressourcement”46. Yet, H. Donneaud shows the difficulty with this definition in an article from the same volume47. Donneaud argues that M.-R. Gagnebet’s project should be placed within the ressourcementmovement. Gagnebet was the merciless critic of Charlier in the debate on the notion of theology as a science in the Aristotelian sense. Yet, it led him towards a scientifically valuable ‘Thomist ressourcement’, a new and better-informed interpretation of Aquinas’ authentic understanding of theology as a science. Therefore, Donneaud concludes that “Thomist ressourcementfind itself better expressed in Gagnebet than in Charlier”48. Gagnebet, however, can hardly be considered as a representative of nouvelle théologie49. Thus, Donneaud contradicts Flynn’s definition, which once again confronts us with the complexity of conceptualizing the 1930s theological renewal. Moreover, in regard to nouvellethéologie’s relation to modernism, we find the mutually opposing views of Gerard Loughlin50 and Hans Boersma51 in the same volume. As previously mentioned, Boersma is opposed to 44. Ibid.,pp. 17-31. 45. Cf. ibid., p. 25: “It was clear that Rome suspected the nouvelle théologie of Le Saulchoir and Louvain of a return to Modernism”. 46. G. FLYNN, Introduction:TheTwentieth-CenturyRenaissanceinCatholicTheology, in ID. – MURRAY (eds.), Ressourcement (n. 42),1-19, p. 11. 47. H. DONNEAUD, Gagnebet’sHiddenRessourcement:ADominicanSpeculativeTheologyfromToulouse,in FLYNN – MURRAY (eds.), Ressourcement (n. 42),95-110. 48. Ibid.,p. 109. 49. Donneaud asks: “Might we not find here an invitation not to assimilate nouvelle théologieand ressourcementtoo hastily? Does not ressourcementdesignate a broader movement that the former which is not co-extensive and not always even consonant with it?”. Ibid. 50. G. LOUGHLIN, Nouvellethéologie:AReturntoModernism?,in FLYNN – MURRAY (eds.), Ressourcement (n. 42),36-50. 51. H. BOERSMA, AnalogyofTruth:TheSacramentalEpistemologyofNouvellethéologie,in FLYNN – MURRAY (eds.), Ressourcement(n. 42),157-171.

302

W. DE PRIL

nouvellethéologie’s interpretationas a modernismusredivivus based on its sacramental ontology. However, according to Loughlin, “modernism is too readily excised from Boersma’s account of nouvellethéologie”52. On the basis of Tyrrell’s writings, Loughlin shows that modernism was actually engaged in ressourcementand that ‘modernists’ like Tyrrell and von Hügel held a sacramental view of the world. Loughlin argues that GarrigouLagrange was partially right when he said that the new theology represented a return to modernism53. IV. CONCLUSION The limited scope of this survey suggests a cautious approach to drawing conclusions. Nonetheless, we can make some tentative observations. The concept of nouvelle théologie was well-defined within the early historiographical works on theological renewal during the 1930s and 1940s. In these, nouvellethéologie generallyreferred to the controversy that arose during the second half of the 1940s between the French Jesuits of Lyon-Fourvière and the Dominicans. If the theological controversy of the late 1930s is mentioned, it is clearly distinguished from nouvelle théologie. Thils seems to have been the first to label the controversy between the Jesuits and the Dominicans as the capital phase of nouvelle théologie,thereby suggesting that the controversy of the late 1930s was a preliminary phase. Tshibangu, Thils’ student, elaborated on this initial impulse. He stated that the nouvellethéologie debate developed in two phases, which proved to be a very influential idea in the later historiography. Its meaning was also further expanded so as to refer to a movement of renewal between 1930 and 1960. Confronted with this historiographical approach, Colombo rightly warns us that researching the major themes in theology’s history beyond distinct historical episodes obscures a chronology that is so fundamental for understanding54. A close study of the theological and ecclesial context of the 52. LOUGHLIN, Nouvellethéologie(n. 50),p. 42. 53. Cf. ibid., p. 50: “If nouvellethéologiewas a return to mystery, then it was also a return to Modernism”. 54. Cf. COLOMBO, Lateologia (n. 4),p. 20. See also É. FOUILLOUX, Nouvellethéologie (n. 2), p. 424: “Qu’est-ce qu’une histoire non théologique de la théologie? Une histoire qui déconstruit le ‘sens commun’ théologien (ou ce qui se veut tel) comme on a tenté de le faire avec l’étiquette ‘nouvelle théologie’. Et une histoire qui reconstruit le sens plausible des évolutions intellectuelles du catholicisme à partir de la production théologique, mais en évitant de s’enfermer dans sa logique propre, et en tenant le plus grand compte du contexte ecclésial, mais aussi de l’histoire générale […]”.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 20TH-CENTURY THEOLOGICAL RENEWAL

303

1930s shows important differences between this period and the later 1940s. A case in point is the theology of the magisterium, defended by the Louvain theologians R. Draguet and L. Charlier55. Roman milieus refuted their focus on the living magisterium in both the theology of tradition and theological methodology (positivedumagistère as substitute for positivedes sources) in the 1930s and early 1940s, calling them ‘untraditional’ and neo-modernist56. In the era’s ‘official’ theology, the speculative task was given prominence over the positive one, just as many preferred a static notion of tradition over a dynamic one. Roman theologians, however, quickly reconsidered their initial rejection of a theology of the magisterium when confronted with Mariology’s increasing influence. It were Roman theologians like G. Filograssi S.J. who insisted on the life of dogma in the conscience of the Church and on the decisive intervention of the infallible magisterium, confirming the discoveries of the sensusfidelium and guaranteeing its homogeneity with revelation57. This new appreciation of a theology of the magisterium was ratified in Humanigeneris and MunificentissimusDeus58. Thus, what was seen as a theological renewal – dangerous to some, ‘revolutionary’ to others59 – during the late 1930s, had already become (part of) official theology by 1950. 55. For a discussion of Draguet’s and Charlier’s theology of the magisterium, see W. DE PRIL, Theological Renewal and the Resurgence of Integrism: The René Draguet Case(1942)inItsContext(BETL, 266), Leuven, Peeters, 2016. 56. For the Roman critique on the positivedumagistère and the identification between living magisterium and tradition, see the comments of Msgr. P. Parente on the condemnation of Chenu’s UneÉcoledethéologie:LeSaulchoirand Charlier’s Essaisurleproblème théologique: P. PARENTE, SupremaSacraCongregatioS.OfficiiDecretum4.Febr.1942. Annotationes,in Periodicaderemorali,canonica,liturgica31 (1942) 184-188, p. 186: “Illud praeterea de huiusmodi scriptis est deplorandum ac maxime dolendum quod per ea enervatur ac fere infringitur vis atque virtus probationum, quas theologi ex divina Sciptura et ex traditis ab antiquitate inducunt ad fulciendas et demonstrandas suas in rebus divinis sententias; et id eo magis quod duo scriptores videantur confundere traditionem Ecclesiae tamquam revelationis fontem cum vivente Ecclesiae magisterio quod est dumtaxat revelationis divinae custos et interpres”. A vehement defense of the positive des sources against the positive du magistère can be found in a series of articles by the Gregoriana professor T. Zapelena. T. ZAPELENA, Problema theologicum, in Gregorianum 24 (1943) 23-47, 287-326; 25 (1944) 38-73, 247-282. 57. AUBERT, Lathéologiecatholique (n. 17),p. 457. 58. This explains why Draguet could see Humani generis as a confirmation of his theological ideas, whereas for ‘new theologians’ it was a defeat of their views. 59. Cf. the assessment of Draguet’s theology by P. Schoonenberg: “Draguet wants to be the proclaimer of a new age in the history of theology… in which, in reaction to the one-sidedness of Scholasticism, especially the patristic method will be revived. […] the idea of a renewal of positive theology by this reorientation towards the Magisterium is inspiring” (our translation). P. SCHOONENBERG, Theologie als geloofsvertolking: Het proefschrift van 1948, ed. L. KENIS – J. METTEPENNINGEN (Documenta Libraria, 36), Leuven, Peeters, 2008, p. 114 and p. 118.

304

W. DE PRIL

In addition to being attentive to the evolution of official theology60, the historian also has to take care not to mimic the Roman circles’ misguided attempts of combining differing versions of renewal. In the condemnation of Chenu and Charlier in 1942, for instance, they fused together two deviant non-Roman theological schools that held highly divergent – but both ‘untraditional’ – theological views. This approach has been influential in later historiographies that have unjustifiably emphasized the similarities between the French and Belgian Dominicans more than their differences, for instance by talking about the nouvelle théologieof Louvain and Le Saulchoir61. Finally, one also has to take into account the important differences between the theological renewal attempts that occurred during the 1930s versus those during the 1940s. The context of the later 1940s – marked by the publication of the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu (1943), the spiritual impact of the Second World War, and the MissiondeFrance, etc. – urged for a deeper ressourcement than the Thomist version from the 1930s, along with more intensive contact with contemporaneous life and culture. In this regard, Le Saulchoir’s alternativeThomism from the 1930s can be distinguished from Lyon-Fourvière’s alternativetoThomism in the 1940s62. Given these observations, the early historiography of nouvellethéologie,– as exemplified at its best by Aubert’s 1954 study –with its well-defined understanding of the term and strict periodization, appears as a valuable approach that deserves to be taken into account. C. Deberiotstraat 26 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Ward DE PRIL

60. Concerning this issue, see É. FOUILLOUX, UneÉgliseenquêtedeliberté:Lapensée catholiquefrançaiseentremodernismeetVaticanII1914-1962(Anthropologiques), Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1998, pp. 261-279. Fouilloux discusses here the «accommodations Romaines» in reaction to the appeals of the nouvelle théologie. He observes a “réformisme d’en haut” (p. 262) in biblical studies and liturgical functions. The acknowledgement of these Roman accommodations enables the historian to possess a better view on the core of the conflict, the intellectual justification of the reformist suggestions of new theologians: “une théologie tendue entre l’expérience chrétienne et ses sources fondatrices, qui tend à minorer le role régulateur de l’autorité et qui refuse l’omnipotence de son outil conceptuel, un thomisme d’école jugé obsolète” (p. 306). 61. Cf. BOERSMA, Nouvellethéologie(n. 41),p. 25. 62. For the distinction between ‘alternative to Thomism’ and ‘alternative Thomism,’ see BAUER, Ortswechsel (n. 26), p. 141. See also, as already mentioned, COLOMBO, La teologia (n. 4), pp. 20-21.

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’ (C. 1935-1965)?

I. INTRODUCTION In which sense is it allowed to consider representatives of age-old religious orders as representatives of a kind of ‘new theology’? This question raises when research focusses on Dominicans like, for instance, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar and Henri-Marie Féret, or on Jesuits like, for instance, Henri de Lubac, Henri Bouillard and Jean Daniélou. In the 1930s, ̓40s and ̓50s they were considered as ‘new theologians’ – ‘nouveaux théologiens’ – following the negative content given by the highest Church authorities to the term ‘nouvelle théologie’ (cf. infra). On the eve of Vatican II and certainly during the Council itself and its aftermath, the connotation changed into a positive one due to the legacy of ‘nouvelle théologie’ and the contributions of its representatives during Vatican II. With his remarkable sense of pertinent criticism, my Doktorvater, professor Leo Kenis, opened my doctoral defense with a question we discussed earlier several times: is it allowed to describe the aforementioned theologians as representatives of ‘nouvelle théologie’? Is it even possible, Kenis said, to speak about ‘nouvelle théologie’ as a theological current as such? During our discussions, we never reached an answer we both fully liked nor a compromise which fully satisfied both of us. Nevertheless, the question was connected with the heart of my research on the topic of the doctoral dissertation of Piet Schoonenberg, S.J. Although born and working in the Netherlands, Schoonenberg considered in his dissertation the theological discussion of the 1930s and 1940s in both France and the French-speaking part of Belgium concerning the essence, relevance and methodology of Catholic theology. There, in Schoonenberg’s dissertation, several protagonists of the so-called ‘nouvelle théologie’ come to the floor. After his doctoral defense, Schoonenberg was prohibited to publish his dissertation due to several reasons, among them the impression that he had some sympathy in favour of ‘nouvelle théologie’. In the aftermath of my own doctoral defense on Schoonenberg’s initial theological work, my promotor and I published Schoonenberg’s dissertation in

306

J. METTEPENNINGEN

20081. The latter book, together with our publication in 2016 of the texts of a colloquium on Schoonenberg’s work and legacy2, illustrate the very good relationship I always had with my Doktorvater. But even good relationships contain their own tensions. Indeed, still there remains the question which challenged our minds softly: is it appropriate to speak about ‘nouvelle théologie’ as a theological current as such, and, as a consequence, is it allowed to describe the aforementioned theologians as representatives of ‘nouvelle théologie’? At the end of his professional career, it is not my purpose to reach finally an agreement with Leo Kenis, but rather – yes, in favour of his concern because I agree with its baseline – to present a concise plea to be careful to use the term ‘nouvelle théologie’! And let me be clear: I couldn’t write this essay without the question of my Doktorvater and his great contribution to our discussions. First, to see the framework, I present an overview of ‘nouvelle théologie’: its essence and historical shape. Second, I present some arguments which put the notion of ‘nouvelle théologie’ into criticism. Third, to tie up my contribution, I plea for a ‘healthy way’ of considering ‘nouvelle théologie’, this means: without emphasising nor deleting the notion of ‘nouvelle théologie’. II. ‘NOUVELLE THÉOLOGIE’: ITS ESSENCE Presenting a portrait of ‘nouvelle théologie’ is a difficult and delicate affair. While ‘nouvelle théologie’ is to be understood as a ‘cluster concept’ and the dedicated expression for a theological movement, the originally negative connotations surrounding it and the fact that its representatives were not always eager to identify themselves with the movement, make it difficult to provide an unambiguous description of ‘nouvelle théologie’. Nevertheless, I am convinced that without the following four characteristics little, if anything, can be said about ‘nouvelle théologie’. I consider these features to be central to the content of the concept which is ‘nouvelle théologie’.

1. P. SCHOONENBERG, Theologie als geloofsvertolking: Het proefschrift van 1948 ed. L. KENIS – J. METTEPENNINGEN (Documenta Libraria, 36), Leuven, Maurits Sabbebibliotheek – Faculteit Godgeleerdheid – Peeters, 2008. 2. L. KENIS – J. METTEPENNINGEN (eds.), Theologiealsgeloofsvertolking:Historische en theologische reflecties over het proefschrift van Piet Schoonenberg (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 73), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2016.

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

307

The first essential characteristic of ‘nouvelle théologie’ is the French language. While the movement may have spread into other language regions at the end of the 1940s, its origins remain French. The entrenchment of ‘nouvelle théologie’ in French speaking territories should not come as much of a surprise, however, as one should bear in mind that the modernist crisis likewise had its major linguistic roots in the French language. As such, the linguistic origins of the two major crises in (European) Catholic theology between Vatican I and Vatican II were mainly French. This reality, together with the precarious political situation in which French Catholicism found itself at the time, saw to it that (theological) developments in France were observed from Rome with considerable vigilance. In addition to the original embeddedness of ‘nouvelle théologie’ in the French language, three additional characteristic features of the movement can be discerned at the level of content, thus forming a triptych of aspirations, the third of which being the logical consequence of the first two. First, the endeavour to ascribe a worthy place to history within the theological endeavour is a characteristic feature of ‘nouvelle théologie’. Up to this juncture, history had tended to take second place to theology’s abstractions, theories and speculations. The ‘Catholic way of thinking’ constituted the conceptual horizon and determined the degree of openness with respect to history. In practice, this implied that theologians took dogmas and other Roman texts as their point of departure, arriving at new faith insights by way of deduction that were completely compatible with existing and familiar tenets of the faith. The representatives of ‘nouvelle théologie’, however, considered the time to be more than ripe to abandon such closed thinking and to resist an unworldly conceptual system that was determined to preserve itself, whatever the cost. A further characteristic feature can be added at this juncture, namely the appeal of a positive theology. Positive theology can be described as the search for the building blocks of authentic theological engagement in an exploration of the sources of faith, namely the Bible, liturgy and patristics. The representatives of ‘nouvelle théologie’ attached the same importance to this positive theological method as to the speculative method. In their opinion, the all-embracing speculative theology had lost contact with (the) concrete life (of faith) to such a degree that a corrective manoeuvre had become necessary. The practice of speculative theology had deduction at its core, while positive theology arrived at its insights by way of induction. While the magisterium opted for the former rather than the latter, the representatives of ‘nouvelle théologie’ supported the complementarity of both theological approaches, i.e. a positive-speculative theology.

308

J. METTEPENNINGEN

The word order is similarly important at this juncture: valid contributions to Catholic theology can only be made on the basis of thorough and critical source analysis. One must first search for building blocks before one can build. The final characteristic feature of ‘nouvelle théologie’ is its critical attitude towards Neo-Scholasticism, the specific and preferred form of speculative theology supported by the doctrinal authorities. The reduction of speculative theology to Neo-Scholastic theology had its roots in the understanding of Neo-Scholasticism as the exclusive antidote to modern thought. Against the background of a handbook tradition, the re-publication of many prominent commentaries on Aquinas, and the magisterium’s aggressive reaction to the modernists – a reaction that transformed Neo-Scholasticism into a conceptual framework for defining the norms of orthodoxy – such critique on the part of ‘nouvelle théologie’and the broader ressourcement movement was daring and far from evident3. III. ‘NOUVELLE THÉOLOGIE’: ITS HISTORICAL SHAPE In the development of ‘nouvelle théologie’, schematically and chronologically four phases can be distinguished: Thomistic ressourcement, theological ressourcement, the internationalisation of the movement, and its assimilation during the Second Vatican Council. The overview thus covers a period of thirty years from 1935 to 19654. 1. FirstPhase The bipolar starting point of the so-called nouvelle théologie can be postulated in 1935. On January 18th 1935, the French Dominican Yves Congar, professor at Le Saulchoir (the study house of the French Dominicans), published an opinion piece in the Catholic newspaper Septentitled “Déficit de la

3. On ‘nouvelle théologie’ and the broader ressourcement movement, see J. METTENouvelle Théologie – New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of VaticanII, London – New York, T&T Clark, 2010; H. BOERSMA, ‘NouvelleThéologie’& SacramentalOntology:AReturntotheMystery, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2009; G. FLYNN – P.D. MURRAY (eds.), Ressourcement:AMovementforRenewal inTwentieth-CenturyCatholicTheology, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2012. 4. Section III contains a revised version of the third chapter of my book Nouvelle Théologie–NewTheology and my contribution in Ressourcement (see n. 3). PENNINGEN,

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

309

théologie” (‘The Deficit of Theology’)5. Congar used the piece to formulate his critique of the practice of theology, which had become little more than a technical matter and had long lost sight of its relationship with the faith and life of ordinary men and women. He compared Neo-Scholastic theology with a ‘wax mask’: an expressionless face, lacking any genuine connection with ordinary life. Congar called for a theology rooted in faith and life, as he made clear in a second article published in June of the same year in VieIntellectuelle6. Congar’s confrere Marie-Dominique Chenu likewise published an article in the Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques on the “Position de la théologie”7. The article in question served as a blueprint for the third chapter of Chenu’s book Uneécoledethéologie:LeSaulchoir, which appeared promanuscripto in 19378. In line with Ambroise Gardeil, the founder of Le Saulchoir, Chenu called for the reformation of theology9. For Chenu, theology was “faith instatuscientiae” or “faith in its intellectual mode”, and the framework within which the theologian functioned was much broader than that provided by Neo-Scholasticism10. He insisted that it was not necessary to cut out the historical in order to engage in authentic theology. Indeed, the opposite was the case. For Chenu this was a logical consequence of the primary characteristic of the faith as a reality made concrete in everyday life – including intellectual life: the historical perspective focuses its research on the said reality and its concretisation. With this vision in mind, Chenu fashioned a project together with Congar and Henri-Marie Féret, his closest colleagues at Le Saulchoir, intended to result in a survey of the ‘history of theology in the West’, a work – as we can read in the project proposal – that would pay specific attention to the link between theology on the one hand, and 5. Y. CONGAR, Déficitdelathéologie, in Sept, January 18th 1935. 6. Asked for his observations on the survey, Congar declared that the gulf between faith and everyday life was the rise in secularisation’s primary cause. Cf. Y. CONGAR, Une conclusionthéologiqueàl’enquêtesurlesraisonsactuellesdel’incroyance, in VieIntellectuelle 37 (1935) 214-249. 7. M.-D. CHENU, Positiondelathéologie, in RSPT24 (1935) 232-257. 8. M.-D. CHENU, Uneécoledethéologie:LeSaulchoir, Kain, pro manuscripto, 1937; reissued by G. ALBERIGO etal. (eds.), Uneécoledethéologie:LeSaulchoir (Théologies), Paris, Cerf, 1985, pp. 91-173 (chapter on theology: pp. 129-150). Given the fact that the book was not commercially available, only one review exists, penned by F. STEGMÜLLER in TheologischeRevue 38 (1939) 48-51. 9. Chenu alludes here to A. GARDEIL, Le donné révélé et la théologie (Bibliothèque théologique, 4), Paris, Cerf, 1909, 21932. Chenu provided a foreword to the second edition: M.-D. CHENU, Préfacepourladeuxièmeédition, in GARDEIL, Ledonnérévéléetla théologie, 21932, pp. VII-XIV. 10. CHENU, Positiondelathéologie (n. 7), p. 233; ID., Uneécoledethéologie (n. 8), p. 145.

310

J. METTEPENNINGEN

cultural and spiritual life on the other11. While the project was never realised, its prevailing tone was representative of its three promoters and their work, emphasising the link between reality, history, faith and theology. A year after the appearance of Une école de théologie, the Belgian Dominican Louis Charlier published his Essai sur le problème théologique12. Although Charlier had not studied at Le Saulchoir, his ideas were remarkably similar to those of Chenu. A professor at Louvain’s Dominican theologate, Charlier’s work caused something of a stir and was the subject of a considerable number of reviews13. The content of his Essaisurleproblèmethéologique clearly offered food for thought. Charlier distinguished, for example, between the côté conceptuel – the ‘conceptual dimension’ – of revelation (the primary aspect of Neo-Scholastic theology) and the côtéréel– the ‘real dimension’ – thereof (absent in theology, although Charlier himself was convinced that revelation was in the first instance a living reality and only in the second instance a collection of concepts, concepts that could never be said to enjoy any form of independence). The joint relegation of Chenu’s work and Charlier’s book to the Church’s Index in February 194214 marks the end of the first phase of ‘nouvelle théologie’15. It should be noted, nevertheless, 11. The text of the project as found in the folder “Chenu, Congar, Féret: Projet d’histoire de la théologie. Kain années 30” in the ‘Archives de la province dominicaine de France’, was published in the footnotes of M. QUISINSKY, GeschichtlicherGlaubeineiner geschichtlichen Welt: Der Beitrag von M.-D. Chenu, Y. Congar und H.-M. Féret zum II.Vaticanum (Dogma und Geschichte, 6), Berlin, LIT, 2007, pp. 47-51 (with pictures of the relevant archive pages on pp. 568-574). On Féret, see M. QUISINSKY, Henri-Marie FéretOP(1904-1992):AufdemWegzueiner‘konkretenundgeschichtlichenTheologie’, in T. EGGENSPERGER – U. ENGEL (eds.), “MutigindieZukunft”:DominikanischeBeiträge zumVaticanumII (Dominikanische Quellen und Zeugnisse, 10), Leipzig, St. Benno, 2007, 65-103. 12. L. CHARLIER, Essaisurleproblèmethéologique (Bibliothèque Orientations. Section scientifique, 1), Thuillies, Ramgal, 1938. 13. Cf. J. METTEPENNINGEN, L’EssaideLouisCharlier(1938):Unecontributionàla nouvellethéologie, in RTL39 (2008) 211-232. 14. Cf. AAS 34 (1942) 37. See also É. FOUILLOUX, Autour d’une mise à l’Index, in Marie-Dominique Chenu, Moyen-Âge et modernité (Les Cahiers du Centre d’études du Saulchoir, 5), Paris, Cerf, 1997, 25-56. 15. The idea that nouvellethéologieevolved in a number of phases is also supported by Rosino Gibellini, Tarcisus Tshibangu and Étienne Fouilloux. In 1980, Tarcisus Tshibangu described ‘nouvelle théologie’as a crisis in two phases (T. TSHIBANGU, Lathéologie commescienceauXXèmesiècle, Kinshasa, Presses universitaires, 1980, pp. 79-110). Six years later, René Guelluy suggested that the Dominican contributions of 1935-42 served as the antecedent to Humanigeneris (R. GUELLUY, Lesantécédentsdel’encyclique‘Humanigeneris’danslessanctionsromainesde1942:Chenu,Charlier,Draguet, in RHE 81 [1986] 421-497). In a series of three articles published between 1989 and 1992, JeanClaude Petit agreed with Guelluy (J.-C. PETIT, La compréhension de la théologie dans

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

311

that both works were written independently of one another. Archival research reveals that Rome’s waning irritation with respect to Uneécole de théologie was rekindled by Charlier’s Essai and the attention it had received in the review context16. It was within the context of the relegation of both works to the Index that the expression ‘nouvelle théologie’ was used for the first time, namely by Pietro Parente, considering the representatives of it as a kind of noviheretici17. Parente argued that both works had brought Neo-Scholasticism into discredit with their (exaggerated) interest in the subject, experience, religious sentiment, and the notion of development. Mariano Cordovani, Pius XII’s resident theologian, had already sharply criticised “modern theology” during a lecture given at the Angelicum in 1940, symbolically enough on the feast day of Thomas Aquinas18. The texts of Parente and Cordovani received the support of the Dominican authorities, among them Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, professor at the Angelicum. The superiors of the Dominican priory in Louvain – where Charlier had taught – likewise considered it correct to deprive Dominicus De Petter of his teaching assignment in 1942. De Petter had caused something of a stir in 1939 with the publication of his article “Impliciete intuïtie” (‘Implicit Intuition’) in the first issue of Tijdschrift voor Philosophie lathéologiefrançaiseauXXesiècle:Lahantisedusavoiretdel’objectivité.L’exemple d’AmbroiseGardeil, in LTP45 [1989] 379-391; Lacompréhensiondelathéologiedans lathéologiefrançaiseauXXesiècle:Versunenouvelleconsciencehistorique.G.Rabeau, M.-D.Chenu,L.Charlier, in LTP47 [1991] 215-229; Lacompréhensiondelathéologie danslathéologiefrançaiseauXXesiècle:Pourunethéologiequirépondeànosnécessités.Lanouvellethéologie, in LTP48 [1992] 415-431). In 1994 and 1998 Rosino Gibellini and Étienne Fouilloux confirmed respectively that ‘nouvelle théologie’ was to be divided into two phases, although the precise dating of each phase differs from scholar to scholar (R. GIBELLINI, PanoramadelathéologieauXXesiècle[Théologies], Paris, Cerf, 1994, pp. 186-196; É. FOUILLOUX, UneÉgliseenquêtedeliberté:Lapenséecatholique françaiseentremodernismeetVaticanII(1914-1962), Paris, Desclée De Brouwer, 1998, pp. 193-300). While Fouilloux appears to suggest that the movement consisted of three phases, he does not discuss the third phase explicitly (cf. É. FOUILLOUX, ‘Nouvellethéologie’ et théologie nouvelle [1930-1960], in B. PELLISTRANDI [ed.], L’histoire religieuse enFranceetEspagne [Collection de la Casa Velázquez, 87], Madrid, Casa de Velázquez, 2004, 411-425). 16. Cf., for example, the letter of Chenu to Henri-Dominique Gardeil, February 28th 1939, 5 p., in the Archives de la Province dominicaine de France, ‘Corr Chenu Février 1939’, p. 2: Chenu writes that the Dominicans experience internal conflict because the younger generation wanted to free itself from the prevalence of Thomism. He notes in the margins: “Je présume que l’incident Charlier (Louvain) est à l’origine de cette recrudescence”. 17. P. PARENTE, Nuove tendenze teologiche, in Osservatore Romano, 9-10 February 1942, p. 1. 18. M. CORDOVANI, Per la vitalità della teologia cattolica, in Osservatore Romano, 22 March 1940, p. 3. This text is also included in Angelicum17 (1940) 133-146.

312

J. METTEPENNINGEN

(founded by De Petter) in which the anti-Neo-Scholastic tone was difficult to ignore19. Johan Van Wijngaarden has rightly pointed out that the sanctioning of De Petter can only be understood correctly against the background of the sanction issued against his confrere and fellow community member, Charlier20. It is equally clear that the withdrawal of the Louvain professor René Draguet’s teaching assignment in July 1942 was linked to the condemnation of Charlier’s Essai21. In short, in addition to Le Saulchoir, Louvain also deserves to be mentioned as an important centre of the first phase of ‘nouvelle théologie’. The ‘new theologians’ of the period 1935-1942 reacted against Neo-Scholasticism by insisting on a return to the historical Aquinas, a demand that fitted well within the emerging historical interest in the Middle Ages characteristic of the time. In other words, instead of referring to authoritative commentaries on Aquinas from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, they wanted to refer to Aquinas himself. In this sense, the first phase can be identified with a Thomistic ressourcement, whereby the Aquinas of the thirteenth century took pride of place over the (Neo-) Scholastic Thomistic system. Neo-Scholasticism was not abandoned completely – such would imply the dismissal of the accepted foundations of orthodoxy and, more than likely, one’s own dismissal –, rather it was supplemented in an initial step before proceeding in a second step to a theological ressourcement. During this first phase and in the aftermath of the fifteenth centenary of Saint Augustine’s death, Chenu published two articles on Augustine. First, he published an article in La Vie Spirituelle, entitled “Pour lire Saint Augustin”22. There, he made the plea to read saint Augustine himself, not only the commentators of Augustine: “Il faut lire saint Augustin lui-même”. The second article of 1930, published in the Revue des sciencesphilosophiquesetthéologiques, considered a bibliographical list of the works of Augustine23. 19. D.M. DE PETTER, Impliciete intuïtie, in Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 1 (1939) 84-105. 20. J. VAN WIJNGAERDEN, Voorstudie tot het denken van E. Schillebeeckx. D.M. De Pettero.p.(1905-1971):Eeninleidingtotzijnlevenendenken.Deel 1:Eenconjunctureel-historischesituering, unpublished MA Thesis, KU Leuven, 1988-1989, pp. 114-117. See also D. BOSSCHAERT, Dominicus De Petter O.P., a Forgotten Victim of the Crisis Causedbythe‘NouvelleThéologie’?, in ETL 93 (2017) 633-656. Concerning the Charlier case, see my article, L’EssaideLouisCharlier(1938) (n. 13). 21. See W. DE PRIL, TheologicalRenewalandtheResurgenceofIntegrism:TheRené DraguetCase(1942)inItsContext (BETL, 266), Louvain – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2016; METTEPENNINGEN, L’EssaideLouisCharlier(1938) (n. 13). 22. M.-D. CHENU, PourliresaintAugustin, in LaVieSpirituelle 24 (1930) 135-157. 23. M.-D. CHENU, in RSPT 19 (1930) 569-581.

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

313

2. SecondPhase In the second phase of ‘nouvelle théologie’, the Dominicans withdraw into the background and the Jesuits take the lead. The beginning of this phase can be related to a trilogy of publications. The first of these was Henri Bouillard’s reworked doctoral dissertation, published in 1944 under the title ConversionetgrâcechezSaintThomasd’Aquin24. In the book’s concluding observations, Bouillard writes that “a theology that lacks topicality is a false theology”25. Such statements could only be interpreted as an attack on Neo-Scholasticism. The second publication was an article by Jean Daniélou published in 1946 in Étudesunder the title “Orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse”26. Daniélou was not only explicit in arguing that Thomism had a relative value, he also insisted that a return to the Bible, liturgy and patristics was to be preferred above a theology that owed its existence to a single medieval theologian. The commotion that followed the article caused the discharge of Daniélou as editor of Études. The third publication, which appeared in the same year, was Henri de Lubac’s Surnaturel27. Based on a historical study, de Lubac wanted to “present a sort of essay in which contact between Catholic theology and contemporary thinking could be restored”, as de Lubac formulated the aim of it in his Mémoiresurl’occasionde mes écrits28. De Lubac did not hesitate to pepper his overview with barely concealed critique of Neo-Scholasticism. In his opinion, the latter swallows up the mystery of faith, i.e. the supernatural as supernatural. It is no coincidence that these three Jesuits were very interested in patristics: Daniélou was teaching History of the Ancient Church, Bouillard was a systematic theologian who wrote his doctoral dissertation on a historical study of grace, and H. de Lubac, as a dogmatic theologian and colleague of Bouillard, had written a historical survey of an important 24. H. BOUILLARD, ConversionetgrâcechezsaintThomasd’Aquin:Étudehistorique (Théologie, 1), Paris, Aubier, 1944. Bouillard defended his doctoral dissertation in La Fourvière in 1941. On his theology, see M. CASTRO, HenriBouillard(1908-1981):Éléments de biographie intellectuelle, in Mélanges de science religieuse 60 (2003) no. 4, 43-58 and ibid. 63 (2006) no. 2, 47-59; K.H. NEUFELD, VonGottreden:HenriBouillard 1908-1981, in StimmenderZeit 199 (1981) 786-788; T.G. GUARINO, HenriBouillardand the Truth-Status of Dogmatic Statements, in Science et Esprit 39 (1987) 331-343; E. SCULLY, Grace and Human Freedom in the Theology of Henri Bouillard, Bethesda, MD, Academica Press, 2007. 25. BOUILLARD, ConversionetgrâcechezsaintThomasd’Aquin (n. 24), p. 219. 26. J. DANIÉLOU, Les orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse, in Études 79 (1946) 5-21. 27. H. DE LUBAC, Surnaturel:Étudeshistoriques(Théologie, 8), Paris, Cerf, 1946. 28. H. DE LUBAC, Mémoire sur l’occasion de mes écrits, Namur, Culture et Vérité, 1989, 21992; (Œuvres complètes, 33), Paris, Cerf, 2006, p. 34.

314

J. METTEPENNINGEN

theme of fundamental theology. In the works of Bouillard and de Lubac, Augustine, the doctorgratiae, is abundantly present. The desire to inject theology with a new lease of life, grace and its associated return to the sources of the faith inspired the Jesuits of Lyon to establish the series ‘Sources chrétiennes’ and ‘Théologie’, in 1942 and 1944 respectively. Both series were based at the house of studies maintained by the Order in La Fourvière, near Lyon, since 1924, even though as professor at Lyon’s Institut catholique, Henri de Lubac was not a member of its staff29. It took little time for the house of studies of Lyon and the series to be seen as vehicles for ‘nouvelle théologie’, with de Lubac as the central figure30. Fergus Kerr is of the opinion in this regard that de Lubac’s Surnaturel served as a symbol in the struggle for historical theology against ongoing subjugation to the coalition between a Denzinger theology on the one hand, and conclusion theology on the other. Bearing in mind the commotion caused by the book, Kerr argues that Henri de Lubac and Surnaturelbrought about the greatest crisis twentieth-century Thomism – and perhaps even Catholic theology of the preceding century as a whole – had ever faced31. The fact that Surnaturel considered topics like grace, (Neo-)Scholasticism, Augustinianism and ressourcement justifies Kerr’s statement. This second phase is built on the first in the sense that Thomistic ressourcement served as its precursor and ongoing foundation. In other words, the said Thomistic ressourcement was not put under check in 1942. On the contrary: it acquired new impetus and dynamism in this 29. On Fourvière, see É. FOUILLOUX, Une‘écoledeFourvière’?, in Gregorianum 83 (2002) 451-459; ID., UneÉgliseenquêtedeliberté (n. 15), pp. 172-191; D. AVON, Une école théologique à Fourvière?, in É. FOUILLOUX – B. HOURS – D. AVON (eds.), Les jésuitesàLyon:XVIe-XXesiècle (Sociétes, espaces, temps), Lyon, ENS, 2005, 231-246. The connection between Fourvière and ‘nouvelle théologie’ is also made by W. GEERLINGS, Sources chrétiennes, in LTK 9 (32000), col. 747. On the link between Sources chrétiennes and ‘nouvelle théologie’, see É. FOUILLOUX, La collection ‘Sources chrétiennes’:ÉditerlesPèresdel’ÉgliseauXXesiècle, Paris, Cerf, 1995, pp. 113-152. 30. On de Lubac and the difficulties he was facing at the time, see B. COMTE, LePère deLubac,unthéologiendansl’ÉglisedeLyon, in J.-D. DURAND(ed.), HenrideLubac: Larencontreaucœurdel’Église, Paris, Cerf, 2006, 35-89, esp. pp. 73-81; É. FOUILLOUX, Autour d’un livre (1946-1953), ibid., 91-107, esp. pp. 93-95. For a more general study, see J.A. KOMONCHAK, Theology at Mid-Century: The Example of Henri de Lubac, in TheologicalStudies 51 (1990) 579-602. 31. F. KERR, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism, Malden, MA, Blackwell, 2002, p. 134. The colloquium “Surnaturel: une controverse au Cœur du thomisme au XXe siècle” took place in 2000 and its proceedings appeared in Revuethomiste109 (2001) 5-351. Reference can also be made at this juncture to J. MILBANK, TheSuspendedMiddle:Henri deLubacandtheDebateconcerningtheSupernatural, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2005.

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

315

period. The second phase can be described as theological ressourcement: the return to the sources of faith, whereby Rome’s prescribed orientation towards Neo-Scholasticism and the magisterium was forced deeper into the shadows. In short, together with the first phase, the second phase constitutes a reaction to the coalition of both a rigorous conclusion and Denzinger theology. Via the integration of the historical perspective, theology was called upon to cross the boundaries of a closed, meta-historical Thomism and meta-historical ‘magisteriumism’ to a historically oriented, open Thomism: in short, a source theology32. De Lubac and the Fourvière Jesuits met with stiff opposition, with the reputed Neo-Scholastic and Roman Dominican Garrigou-Lagrange at the helm. In February 1947, he published his article “La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?”33, the text of which contained his answer: ‘nouvelle théologie’is a new or renewed form of Modernism. He considered Daniélou’s article to be programmatic of ‘nouvelle théologie’ and – unimpeded by anachronism – the books of Bouillard and de Lubac its results. Of greater importance, however, was Garrigou’s belief that the weapons used in the past to combat Modernism should be used once again to suppress ‘nouvelle théologie’. In short, Garrigou-Lagrange ‘retrocontextualised’ the crisis, considering ‘nouvelle théologie’as ‘Modernism’34. Occasioned by Garrigou’s article, the Jesuit authorities decided to take action. The Belgian Jesuit Jean-Baptiste Janssens, the Order’s recently elected general, set up an inquiry into the orthodoxy of La Fourvière35 under the leadership of Édouard Dhanis, also a Belgian and a confidant of Janssens. In June 1950, this resulted, among other things, in the transfer of Henri de Lubac and Henri Bouillard from Lyon to Paris, which would have been seen as a full-fledged promotion had the circumstances 32. See Ressourcement (n. 3). 33. R. GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?, in Angelicum 23 (1946) 126-145. 34. The concept ‘retrocontextualisation’, whereby one relocates something to a context in the past, is first used in J. METTEPENNINGEN, Truth as Issue in a Second Modernist Crisis? The Clash between Recontextualization and Retrocontextualization in the French-Speaking Polemic of 1946-47, in M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), TheologyandtheQuestforTruth:Historical-andSystematic-TheologicalStudies (BETL, 202), Leuven, Peeters, 2006, 119-141, esp. p. 141. This article appeared in a revised edition: Truth, Orthodoxy, and the ‘Nouvelle Théologie’: Truth as Issue in a ‘SecondModernistCrisis’(1946-1950), in B. BECKING (ed.), Orthodoxy,Liberalism,and Adaptation:EssaysonWaysofChangefromBiblical,HistoricalandSystematicPerspectives(Studies in Theology and Religion, 15), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 149-182. 35. Cf. J. METTEPENNINGEN – K. SCHELKENS, ‘Quod immutabile est, nemo turbet et moveat’:LesrapportsentreH.deLubacetleP.GénéralJ.-B.Janssensdanslesannées 1946-1948.Àproposdedocumentsinédits, in Cristianesimonellastoria 29 (2008) 139172.

316

J. METTEPENNINGEN

been otherwise. In parallel with this discretely organised inquiry and the resulting sanctions, a war of conviction raged between the Roman Dominicans – with the Revue thomiste as their mouthpiece – and the Jesuits of Lyon – with the Recherches de science religieuse as their mouthpiece36. Before the publication of Garrigou’s article, Pius XII – probably with prior knowledge of the article37 – entered the debate while addressing the participants during the Jesuit general congregation on September 17th 194638. Five days later, he similarly addressed the general chapter of the Dominicans39. The pope insisted that more than enough had been said about ‘nouvelle théologie’and that the time had come to call a halt to the discussion. The aforementioned war of convictions, however, suggests that his words ultimately fell on deaf ears, and even provided the debate with new ammunition and publicity. Pius XII finally promulgated Humani generis in 195040. This encyclical can be understood as Rome’s final serious defence of Neo-Scholasticism as a normative framework determining the orthodoxy of theology. The contents of Humanigenerisran parallel with PascendiDominicigregis. Humanigeneris, however,says nothing about ‘nouvelle théologie’, although it is clear that the encyclical’s condemnation had this particular movement in mind41. The pope attacks historicism, for example, insisting that it places so much emphasis on particular facts that it thereby destroys the foundations of the universal truth of faith.

36. For an insight into the polemics surrounding ‘nouvelle théologie’, see É. FOUILDialoguethéologique?(1946-1948), in S.-T. BONINO (ed.), SaintThomasauXXe siècle, Paris, Saint Paul, 1995, 153-195; ID., Autour d’un livre (1946-1953) (n. 30); A. NICHOLS, Thomismand‘nouvellethéologie’, in TheThomist64 (2000) 1-19; METTEPENNINGEN, Truth,Orthodoxy,andthe‘NouvelleThéologie’(n. 34). 37. For chronology, redaction and actual publication of articles, see my article Truth, Orthodoxy,andthe‘NouvelleThéologie’ (n. 34).The fact that a number of journals had faced a chronological backlog makes it difficult to reconstruct the sequence of ‘reactions to reactions’. 38. Cf. IlveneratoDiscorsodelSommoPontificeallaXXIXCongregazioneGenerale della Compagnia di Gesù, in Osservatore Romano, 19 September 1946, p. 1 (see also: AAS38 [1946] 381-385). 39. Cf. Fervido Discorso del Sommo Pontifice ai Capitolari dell’Ordine dei Frati Predicatori, in OsservatoreRomano, 23-24 September 1946, p. 1 (see also: AAS38 [1946] 385-389). 40. Humanigeneris, Encyclical of Pius XII, 12 August 1950, in AAS42 (1950) 561578. 41. Strictly speaking, the encyclical does not mention ‘nouvelle théologie’, although it condemns thirteen matters it refers to as ‘new’. There was clearly little to misunderstand: ‘nouvelle théologie’ had been rejected. Cf. FOUILLOUX, ‘Nouvelle théologie’ et théologienouvelle(1930-1960) (n. 15). LOUX,

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

317

The years 1942-1950 are characterised by the influence of Maurice Blondel, the author of L’Actionin 1893. His plea for the living tradition and the method of immanence became popular in theological circles – especially those of the newtheologians– and one can speak of mutually stimulating dynamics. It is not surprising that Étienne Fouilloux, in his book UneÉgliseenquêtedeliberté, entitles the fifth chapter “Blondel, Fourvière et les Pères”, and – more importantly – the second paragraph of it: “Fourvière entre Blondel et les Pères grecs”42. 3. ThirdPhase After the second phase (1942-1950), which was concluded as the first with Roman censure, ‘nouvelle théologie’ found itself sailing into new waters, this time beyond the borders of France. The third phase concerns the period from Humani generis up to the Second Vatican Council, a phase characterised by the internationalisation of ‘nouvelle théologie’. ‘Nouvelle théologie’ pressed on in the Netherlands, for example, with scholars such as Edward Schillebeeckx43 and Piet Schoonenberg44, and in the German speaking world with the likes of Karl Rahner45 and Hans Urs von Balthasar46. In France itself, however, ‘nouvelle théologie’ was as good as paralysed in the 1950s, although there are some who defend the hypothesis that the work of the prêtres-ouvriersshould be understood as ‘nouvelle théologie’’s pastoral aspect47. The internationalisation of the movement resulted in a supra-francophone support base at Vatican II, which made the acceptance of ‘nouvelle théologie’ in the universal Church possible. Nonetheless, it should be noted in the margin that

42. FOUILLOUX, UneÉgliseenquêtedeliberté (n. 15), pp. 149-192. 43. Cf. J. METTEPENNINGEN, EdwardSchillebeeckx:Heroderoypromotordela‘nouvellethéologie’, in Mayéutica 78 (2008) 285-302. 44. Cf. J. METTEPENNINGEN, Christusdenkennaardemensentoe:De‘nouvellethéologie’christologischdoorgedachtdoorPietSchoonenberg, in TijdschriftvoorTheologie 46 (2006) 143-160. 45. Cf. B. SESBOÜÉ, Karl Rahner (Initiations aux théologiens), Paris, Cerf, 2001, pp. 193-195. 46. Cf. R. VODERHOLZER, DieBedeutungdersogenannten‘NouvelleThéologie’(insbesondereHenrideLubacs)fürdieTheologieHansUrsvonBalthasars, in W. KASPER (ed.), Logik der Liebe und Herrlichkeit Gottes: Hans Urs von Balthasar im Gespräch, Ostfildern, Grünewald, 2006, 204-228. 47. Wolfgang W. Müller suggests that the prêtres-ouvriersphenomenon represents the pastoral expression of ‘nouvelle théologie’ (W.W. MÜLLER, Was kann an der Theologie neu sein? Der Beitrag der Dominikaner zur ‘nouvelle théologie’, in ZKG 110 [1999] 86-104, p. 103).

318

J. METTEPENNINGEN

‘nouvelle théologie’ was not well received in every area. Spain, for example, had few if any representatives48. Among the representatives of the third phase, I only expand briefly on Piet Schoonenberg, who, in his doctoral dissertation of 1948, made clear that Augustine was very important in the turn from the Neo-Scholastic theology to theology as – what he calls – an articulation of the living faith49. More particularly, the contribution made by the Belgian Jesuit, Émile Mersch, much influenced by Augustine, meant the turning point in his survey of the debate surrounding the nature and method of Catholic theology. As a representative of the second phase of ‘nouvelle théologie’, Mersch’s theology is more than an intellectual business, it’s a kind of an act of faith, always in full contact with both the reality of faith, the faith in the living Lord, and all authoritative sources we have surrounding this faith50. Schoonenberg was not only influenced by Mersch, but also by Stanislas Lyonnet, another fellow Jesuit, who was professor in Exegesis at the Biblicum. In 1946-47, Schoonenberg attended his classes in Rome. Schoonenberg showed his sympathy with ‘nouvelle théologie’ in his “Het geloof van ons doopsel” (‘The faith of our baptism’), a series of four books (1955-1962), in which he elaborated an extensive approach of the creed, builded upon the sources of faith: Bible and patristics51. Finally, in 1962, he published Godswordendewereld (‘God’s World in the Making’), a collection of different essays in which he – inspired by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin – emphasised the connection between faith, theology, man, and history52. 48. Cf. É. FOUILLOUX, La‘nouvellethéologie’françaisevued’Espagne(1948-1951), in Revued’histoiredel’ÉglisedeFrance 90 (2004) 279-293. 49. SCHOONENBERG, Theologie als geloofsvertolking (n. 1). On this dissertation, see J. METTEPENNINGEN, Naartheologiealsgeloofsvertolking:PietSchoonenbergsproefschrift (1948/1951)alstheologischezelfreflectieophetkantelmomenttussenmodernismeenVaticanumII, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Theology, KU Leuven, 2008. 50. See my article DebetekenisvanEmileMersch’‘Christustotus’voordeopvatting van theologie als geloofsvertolking, in KENIS – METTEPENNINGEN (eds.), Theologie als geloofsvertolking (n. 2), 97-110. 51. P. SCHOONENBERG, Hetgeloofvanonsdoopsel:GesprekkenoverdeApostolische Geloofsbelijdenis. Vol. 1: God, Vader en Schepper: Het eerste geloofsartikel, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Malmberg, 1955 (ET: CovenantandCreation[Stagbooks], London – Sydney, Sheed and Ward, 1968); Vol. 2: Jezus,deChristus,deZoonGods:Hettweedegeloofsartikel, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Malmberg, 1956; Vol. 3: De Mensgeworden Zoon van God: Het derde geloofsartikel, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Malmberg, 1958; Vol. 4: De macht der zonde:Inleidingopdeverlossingsleer, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Malmberg, 1962 (ET: Manand Sin:ATheologicalView, London – Melbourne, Sheed and Ward, 1965). 52. P. SCHOONENBERG, Godswordendewereld(Woord en Beleving. Theologische Monografieën, 13), Tielt – Den Haag, Lannoo, 1962 (God’s World in the Making [Duquesne Studies. Theological Series, 2], Pittsburgh, PA, Duquesne University Press, 1964).

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

319

4. FourthPhase The fourth and last phase is to be situated during the Second Vatican Council itself, which ultimately assimilated the central features of ‘nouvelle théologie’. The dogmatic constitution DeiVerbumcan be singled out in this regard for containing definite echoes of ‘nouvelle théologie’53. Several representatives of ‘nouvelle théologie’ were present during Vatican II as periti (Congar, de Lubac, Daniélou) or as a personal advisor to one of the Council fathers or Bishop conferences (Chenu, Féret, Schillebeeckx)54. Viewed from the perspective of the Council, Michael Quisinsky has described the role of Congar, Chenu and Féret as that of pioneers, particularly with respect to the integration of history and theology55. It is in this sense that Bruno Forte rightly and accurately describes Vatican II as “the Council of history”56. Indeed, the deposition of Roman Neo-Scholasticism and the assimilation of ‘nouvelle théologie’ allow us to speak – as Peter Eicher suggests – of the rehabilitation of Chenu, Congar and de Lubac during the Council57. In the last analysis, the Council transformed the negative connotations associated with ‘nouvelle théologie’ into positive connotations, which reflected positively on its various representatives, several of whom were made cardinal (Daniélou in 1969, de Lubac in 1983, Congar – sadly too late – in 1994 and von Balthasar in 1988, although he died before the ceremony of elevation). During the Council, most of the references to Church Fathers are made to Augustine. It seems that the turn of a negative connotation to a positive one went hand in hand with the renewed appreciation for Augustine in Catholicism and the inherent critique to Neo-Scholasticism. 53. DeiVerbum, dogmatic constitution of Vatican II, 18 November 1965, in AAS 58 (1966) 817-835. 54. For those among them who were faced with Roman sanctions, the Council signified a rehabilitation, albeit without apology or explicit reinstatement (something alien to the Holy Office). In order to explore the ‘rehabilitation’ it would be necessary to account for the period preceding it, but this would take us beyond the boundaries of the present study. Reference can be made, for example, to Y. CONGAR, Journald’unthéologien19461956, Paris, Cerf, 2001. 55. Cf. QUISINSKY, GeschichtlicherGlaubeineinergeschichtlichenWelt (n. 11). 56. B. FORTE, Leprospettivedellaricerateologica, in R. FISICHELLA (ed.),IlConcilio VaticanoII:RecezioneeattualitàallalucedelGiubileo, Milano, San Paolo, 2000, 419429, p. 423. 57. Cf. P. EICHER, Von den Schwierigkeiten bürgerlicher Theologie mit den katholischenKirchenstrukturen, in K. RAHNER – H. FRIES (eds.), TheologieinFreiheitundVerantwortung, Munich, Kösel, 1981, 96-137, p. 101, reissued in W. KERN(ed.), DieTheologie und das Lehramt (Quaestiones Disputatae, 91), Freiburg – Basel – Wien, Herder, 1982, 116-151.

320

J. METTEPENNINGEN

IV. CRITICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE NOTION OF ‘NOUVELLE THÉOLOGIE’ After an overview of the essence of ‘nouvelle théologie’ and its historical shape, it is wise, for historically necessary, to have a look at the most important objections against the use of the notion of ‘nouvelle théologie’. I consider four different arguments. Every argument and certainly the combination of all of them make it comprehensible to show some hesitation in both using the notion of ‘nouvelle théologie’ and reducing theologians by calling them representatives of it. First, no theologian can be reduced to the epithet of whatever theological current, in spite of lists a lot of handbooks and encyclopedias like to use and to quote. So, no theologian too can be reduced to be a representative of the so-called ‘nouvelle théologie’. Most of the theologians even didn’t know themselves at that moment that they were such a representative. Due to their work and in an important way also due to their membership of an age-old religious order, every theologian which is considered to be a representative of ‘nouvelle théologie’ is in the first place a Catholic theologian, most of the time indeed firstly to be seen in the specific tradition of his own religious order. Revolutionary ideas were not to be expected, certainly not at a time of Neo-Scholasticism and a philosophical-theological handbook tradition, a time theologians knew the negative consequences and risks of the Modernist crisis. Here we come on the domain of the next point. Second argument: the notion ‘nouvelle théologie’ is invented by the adversaries of this theological current. Knowing that the word ‘novum’ or ‘new’ used by ecclesiastical authorities often deals with a negative connotation, put all the representatives in the ‘bad corner’ of the theological room. Rome indeed was very attentive for every sign of so-called Modernism. Even if we believe that there was a ‘third way’, a via media between Modernism and Anti-Modernism, a way ‘created’ by Léonce de Grandmaison S.J., Pierre Rousselot S.J., Ambroise Gardeil O.P. and Marie-Joseph Lagrange O.P., in Rome’s eyes it was quite evident that every sign which dit not fully correspond with Neo-Scholasticism, became suspicious58. For Rome ‘nouvelle théologie’ was a name which meant nothing else than a renewed Modernism. Nevertheless, although ‘nouvelle théologie’ is inheritor of key elements of Modernism, today it is clear that in the first place ‘nouvelle théologie’ is inheritor of this so-called third way. So, in short, it 58. J. METTEPENNINGEN, The‘ThirdWay’oftheModernistCrisis,Precursorof‘NouvelleThéologie’:AmbroiseGardeil,O.P.,andLéoncedeGrandmaison,S.J., in TheologicalStudies75 (2014) 774-794.

AGE-OLD RELIGIOUS ORDERS: BIRTHPLACES OF ‘NEW THEOLOGY’?

321

is historically more appropriate to call ‘nouvelle théologie’ inheritor of the Modernist crisis than inheritor of Modernism. Third, the notion ‘nouvelle théologie’ has undergone a development. Originally, it has got a negative meaning, but later it became ‘positive’ in light of the discussions and certainly the documents of the Second Vatican Council. As a consequence, we have to pay attention to use the notion of ‘nouvelle théologie’, depending of the perspective: before or after Vatican II. Fourth, back to the theologians: their main concern was to be authentic and to make Catholic theology more authentic. In their search for an answer that matters, ressourcement was the key stone: back to the sources of faith, i.e. Bible, patristics and liturgy. Not at least, they were aware of the fact that these three elements are connected with each other in an ecumenical atmosphere. V. CONCLUSION: PRUDENTIA In the historical overview we have written about ‘representatives’ of ‘nouvelle théologie’. At the end of our contribution and inspired by a lot of discussions, among others with Leo Kenis, we need to nuance both terms, ‘nouvelle théologie’ and its ‘representatives’. Of course, there was a current we may describe as ‘new theology’ for it is described as such by Church authorities. And there really was such a current due to the work of several theologians, as pointed out in section III. But none of these theologians – most of them member of an age-old religious order – is to be reduced to the label ‘representative of nouvelle théologie’. For all reasons we presented in section IV, we need to plea for some prudentia in using the term ‘nouvelle théologie’ and to call theologians in a narrow sense ‘representatives’ of it. At the end of all discussion, the paradox remains that members of ageold religious orders became representatives of the so-called ‘nouvelle théologie’ due to their intention to stay confident to the sources of Christian faith and Catholic tradition. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven St.-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Jürgen METTEPENNINGEN

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM LEUVEN THEOLOGIANS ENTERING THE PUBLIC SQUARE (1945-1956)

When discussing culture, Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution Gaudium etSpesclaimed that “theologians, within the requirements and methods proper to theology, are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men of their times, for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding, is another”1. The construction of this specific sentence concerned many theologians present at the Second Vatican Council, especially those from Leuven. Albert Dondeyne, Leuven professor of philosophy and dean of the Faculty of Theology during Vatican II, made it clear in one of his commentaries that the harmonization between culture and Christianity envisaged by this sentence represented one of the main tasks to be accomplished at seminaries and universities2. This clear invitation to communicate Christian doctrine to contemporary society challenged theologians to leave their ivory towers and adapt the gospel’s message to the present day. Interestingly, many of the Leuven theologians involved in this redaction had already dealt with this particular issue in the years preceding the Council. Indeed, the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences, founded at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1942, specifically aimed to connect the daily lives of lay students to the mysteries of Catholic dogma. Thus, professors teaching at this institute had already sought to embrace the harmony between Christianity and culture. Although this institute functioned as the center for those concerned with theology’s contemporary relevance, it was not the Leuven Ecclesiastical Faculties’ only window to outside cultures3. 1. GaudiumetSpes 62. 2. See A. DONDEYNE, Dejuistebevorderingvandeculturelevooruitgang, in Schema dertien:Tekstencommentaar,2, Hilversum – Antwerpen, Paul Brand, 1967, 148-166. 3. The history and theology of the Ecclesiastical Faculties have both been widely documented. See especially D. BOSSCHAERT, A House with Many Mansions: The Anthropological Turn in Louvain Theology, in Church History and Religious Culture 95 (2015) 293-314; L. GEVERS, VijfigjaarHogerInstituutvoorGodsdienstwetenschappen:1942-1992, in M. LAMBERIGTS – L. GEVERS – B. PATTYN (eds.), HogerInstituutvoorGodsdienstwetenschappen:Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid K.U.Leuven: 1942-1992. Rondom catechese en godsdienstonderricht

324

D. BOSSCHAERT

This contribution identifies twenty-nine professors appointed to the Leuven Ecclesiastical Faculties, how they wanted to be involved in the world, where they found their locitheologici, and to what extent they set aside their high-quality academic research in service to academia, society, and the Church. This work, however, only represents a general overview of the topic. While its support mostly derives from published sources, usually in the form of obituaries, it is also important to keep in mind that this study only considers a limited period of time, namely the years between 1942 and 1956, which span from the foundation of the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences to its reorganization as a teacher institute with its own staff4. This limited scope was necessary, as already twenty-nine appointed professors worked at the Ecclesiastical Faculties, which include both the Faculty of Theology and the Faculty of Common Law, within this fourteen-year period. Many of the professors appointed to the Ecclesiastical Faculties also taught courses at the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences or the Higher Institute of Philosophy. The selection of these twenty-nine figures makes it possible to study a representative sample of the nearly sixty professors appointed during the first half of the twentieth century, but it unfortunately means that this work must omit several interesting individuals, such as Charles Moeller5, who contributed greatly to the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences, but was a professor at the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, or Jan Hendrik Walgrave and Edward Schillebeeckx, who were both appointed professors at the (Documenta Libraria, 13), Leuven, Bibliotheek van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1992, 3-58; L. GEVERS – L. KENIS (eds.), DeFaculteitGodgeleerdheidindeK.U.Leuven1969-1995 (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 39),Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1997; L. KENIS, DeTheologische Faculteit te Leuven in de negentiende eeuw 1834-1889. With a summary in English (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Letteren, 54/143), Brussel, Koninklijke Academie, 1992; L. KENIS, TheLouvainFacultyofTheologyandItsProfessors:1834-1889, in ETL67 (1991) 398-414; ID., DetheologischefaculteitteLeuvenindenegentiendeeeuw:Eenoverzichtvanhaarontwikkeling en haar relatie met de priesteropleiding in Nederland, in Trajecta 9 (2000) 206-226; F. NEIRYNCK, VijftigjaarTheologischeFaculteit, in ID. (ed.), DeTheologischeFaculteit19191969 (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 17), Leuven, Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1970, 11-15, W. DE PRIL, Modernism and the Problematic Relation between History and Theology: The SearchforaCompromisebyLouvainHistoriansandTheologians(1870-1910), in ChurchHistoryandReligiousCulture 91 (2011) 59-78; K. SCHELKENS, TheLouvainFacultyofTheology: TheModern(ist)HeritageReconcilingHistoryandTheology, in RHE 104 (2008) 856-891. 4. The reference list of these obituaries in the footnotes is not exhaustive. 5. The absence of Charles Moeller in this overview is unfortunate, not only because many considered his lectures at the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences to be one of its highlights, but also because Moeller contributed greatly to the broader understanding of the theological discipline, especially in his contribution to the redaction of Gaudiumet Spesduring the Second Vatican Council and as undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith between 1966 and 1973.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

325

Higher Institute for Religious Sciences in 19566. Instead, this contribution identifies several lesser-known professors who have often gone unnoticed in historical overviews of the Ecclesiastical Faculties during the twentieth century because of the traditional focus on academic achievement. Although the time period used to select the studied figures is very specific, achievements from their whole career are taken into account. The chosen professors can be divided into six fields based on their primary research interests. Eight of them either worked on Biblical Studies or specialized in eastern and Semitic languages; this list includes Lucien Cerfaux7, Joseph Coppens8, Albert Descamps9, Édouard Massaux10, Joseph Vandervorst11, Joseph Lebon12, Gonzague Ryckmans13, and Robert De Langhe14. Three additional professors represented the History of Church and Theology: Albert De Meyer15, Roger Aubert16, 6. DeTheologischeFaculteit1919-1969(n. 3). 7. InmemoriamMgrLucienCerfaux, in ETL 44 (1968) 646; J. COPPENS, Cerfaux, in BN 41 (1979-1980) 97-110; ID., La carrière et l’œuvre scientifiques de monseigneur Lucien Cerfaux, in ETL 45 (1969) 8-44; ID., MonseigneurLucienCerfaux,inmemoriam:Sapersonnalité,sacarrière,sonœuvre(Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia, 47), Gembloux, Duculot, 1969; A. DESCAMPS, Monseigneur Lucien Cerfaux, in ETL 45 (1969) 45-57; G. THILS, In memoriam Mgr Lucien Cerfaux: Hommage de la Faculté de théologie, in ETL45 (1969) 5-7. 8. P.-M. BOGAERT, InmemoriamMgrJ.Coppens, in RTL 12 (1981) 398-401. 9. C. FOCANT, Descamps, Albert, in Nouvelle Biographie Nationale 10 (2010) 152155; ID., LeprofesseurAlbertDescamps, in RTL 12 (1981) 59-63; J. GIBLET, MgrAlbert Descamps: Exégète et théologien de Louvain, in RTL 40-58; R. GUELLUY, Albert Descampstelquejel’aiconnu, in RTL11 (1980) 407-415. 10. M. SCHOOYANS, HommageàMonseigneurEdouardMassaux, in RevueGénérale 143 (2008) 27-31. 11. J. COPPENS, LechanoineJosephVandervorst, in ETL 35 (1959) 920-922. 12. J. COPPENS, Lebon,Joseph, in NationaalBiografischWoordenboek 4 (1970) 488490; ID., InmemoriamMgrJosephLebon, in ETL 33 (1957) 672-675. 13. J. COPPENS, Ryckmans,Gonzague, in NouvelleBiographieNationale 1 (1988) 293298; A. PETITJEAN, AdieuàMonseigneurG.Ryckmans, in RTL 1 (1970) 234-236. 14. J. COPPENS, Lacarrièreetl’œuvrescientifiquedemonseigneurRobertDeLanghe, in ETL 40 (1964) 104-125. 15. Miscellanea historica in honorem Alberti De Meyer, Universitatis Catholicae in oppido Lovaniensi iam annos XXV professoris, Louvain, Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1946; J. COPPENS, Meyer, Albert Achille De, in Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek 3 (1968) 560-563; ID., DécèsdeM.lechanoineAlbertDeMeyer, in ETL 29 (1953) 256258; J. LAVALLEYE, DeMeyer,Albert, in BN38 (1973-74) 590-592; L. VAN DER ESSEN, Le professeur Albert De Meyer, 1887-1952: Son œuvre, sa signification pour le travail historiqueàLouvain, in RHE 48 (1953) 5-21. 16. L. COURTOIS etal. (eds.), Écrirel’histoireducatholicismedes19eet20esiècles: Bilan,tendancesrécentesetperspectives(1975-2005).HommageauprofesseurRoger Aubert à l’occassion de ses 90 ans (Sillages, 9), Louvain-la-Neuve, ARCA, 2005; A. HAQUIN, HommageauprofesseurRogerAubert(1914-2009), in RTL 41 (2010) 158160; J. PIROTTE – J.-P. DELVILLE, Le sens d’un hommage. Roger Aubert, historien de

326

D. BOSSCHAERT

and René Maere17. Many of the professors appointed to the Faculty of Theology also significantly contributed to the Higher Institute for Philosophy. This was particularly true for Léon Noël18, Nicolas Balthasar19, Franz Grégoire20, Jean Vieujean21, Albert Dondeyne22, and Fernand Van Steenberghen23. Five more professors primarily worked in Dogmatic

l’Église et de la papauté. Le métier d’historien, in J.-P. DELVILLE – M. JACOV (eds.), La papauté contemporaine (XIXe-XXe siècles): Hommage au chanoine Roger Aubert, professeur émérite à l’Université catholique de Louvain, pour ses 95 ans/Il papato contemporaneo(secoliXIX-XX):OmaggioalcanonicoRogerAubert,professoreemerito all’Università cattolica di Lovanio, per i 95 anni (Bibliothèque de la RHE, 90), Louvain-la-Neuve, Collège Erasme, 2009, 5-21; K. SCHELKENS – D. BOSSCHAERT, Roger Aubert, in G. WURST – J. ERNESTI (eds.), Kirchengeschichte im Porträt: Katholische Kirchenhistorikerim20.Jahrhundert,Freiburg i. Br., Herder, 2016, 45-55; T.J. SHELLEY, Canon Roger Aubert (1914-2009), in The Catholic Historical Review 96 (2010) 197-198. 17. HuldebetogingMonseigneurR.Maere,Leuven,22-VI-1947/ManifestationMonseigneurR.Maere,Louvain,22-VI-1947,Louvain, Nova et Vetera, 1947; J. COPPENS, Décès deMgrRenéMaere, in ETL 26 (1950) 296-297; J. LAVALLEYE, Maere,René, in BN 35 (1969-1970) 553-556. 18. J. COPPENS, DécèsdeMgrLéonNoël, in ETL 29 (1953) 700-701; G. VAN RIET, Noël, Léon, in BN 40 (1977-1978) 661-669; ID., L’épistémologie de Mgr Léon Noël, in RPL 35 (1954) 349-415. 19. L. DE RAEYMAEKER, In memoriam le Chanoine Nicolas Balthasar, in RPL 55 (1959) 493-496; F. VAN STEENBERGHEN, Balthasar, Nicolas, in Nouvelle Biographie Nationale 2 (1990) 19-21. 20. J. COPPENS, Le chanoine Franz Grégoire: Sa formation, son enseignement, son œuvre, in ETL 37 (1961) 390-402; J. PONTHOT, InmemoriamFranzGrégoire, in RTL 9 (1978) 129-132; H. VAN WAEYENBERGH, Hommage de l’Université Catholique à M. le chanoineGrégoire:ProfesseuràlaFacultédeThéologie, in ETL 37 (1961) 389. 21. P. DELHAYE, In memoriam Jean Vieujean, in RTL 1 (1970) 360-361; A. TIHON, Vieujean,Jean, in NouvelleBiographieNationale 8 (2005) 381-382. 22. Gelovendindewereld.FSAlbertDondeyne(Patmos-reeks: De christen in de tijd), Antwerpen, Patmos, 1972; J. BALCAEN – H. VUYE, Luisteren en spreken, ontvangen en geven. Huldeartikel A. Dondeyne, in Collationes 20 (1990) 21-40; D. BOSSCHAERT, A BraveNewWorld:AlbertDondeyne’sChristianHumanismintheUniversityandSociety, in Trajecta 24 (2015) 309-330; Indienstvangeloofenwereld:A.Dondeyne1901-1985, Leuven, Acco, 1985; J. GROOTAERS, L’engagementetcontributionduprofesseurA.DondeyneàVaticanII, in ActesetacteursàVaticanII(BETL, 139), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1998, 456-484; A. HOUSSIAU, InmemoriamMgrAlbertDondeyne, in RTL 16 (1985) 266-269; J. LADRIÈRE, InmemoriamAlbertDondeyne, in RPL 83 (1985) 462-484; C. TROISFONTAINES, Dondeyne, Albert, in Nouvelle Biographie Nationale 11 (2012) 116-119; A. VERGOTE, MgrAlbertDondeyne, in ETL 61 (1985) 445-447; A. WYLLEMAN, Dondeyne,Albert, in NationaalBiografischWoordenboek 9 (1981) 161-167. 23. HommageàMonsieurlechanoineFernandVanSteenberghen,professeuràl’Université catholique de Louvain à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, Louvain, Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1974; DécèsdeF.VanSteenberghen, in ETL 69 (1993) 516-517; J.-M. COUNET, Van Steenberghen, Fernand, in Nouvelle Biographie Nationale 7 (2003) 373-375; C. TROISFONTAINES, InmemoriamFernandvanSteenberghen, in RPL 91 (1993) 340-345.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

327

Theology: Joseph Bittremieux24, Gerard Philips25, René Draguet26, Gustave Thils27, and Albert Van Roey. Professors Arthur Janssen28 and Louis Janssens29 both studied Moral Theology, a rather new discipline. Finally, professors of Canon Law, while being an autonomous faculty since 1934, also clearly belonged to the Ecclesiastical Faculties. Moreover, because of the common meetings, they also contributed to the general development of Leuven theology. Therefore, professors belonging to this faculty, such as Willy Onclin30,

24. J. COPPENS, InmemoriamMonsieurlechanoineJ.Bittremieux, in ETL 27 (1951) 315-316. 25. A number of contributions on Philips have already appeared, so this list only includes those that are biographical: J. COPPENS, MonseigneurGérardPhilips:Sacarrière et son œuvre, in Ecclesia a Spiritu Sancto edocta: Lumen Gentium 53: Mélanges théologiques.HommageàMgrGérardPhilips/VerzameldetheologischeopstellenaangebodenaanMgrGérardPhilips(BETL, 27), Gembloux, Duculot, 1970, xi-xvi; J. COPPENS, MonseigneurGérardPhilips:Inmemoriam, in ETL 48 (1972) 321-332; A. DESCAMPS, In memoriamMonseigneurG.Philips, in RTL 3 (1972) 378-381; J.-M. HEUSCHEN, Homilie doorMgrHeuschenuitgesprokenopdebegrafenisplechtigheidvanMgrPhilips, in ETL 48 (1972) 333-337; G. THILS, More than Merely Names: Monsignor Gerard Philips (1899-1972), in LouvainStudies 5 (1974) 305-308. 26. A. DE HALLEUX, Draguet,René, in NouvelleBiographieNationale 2 (1990) 138141; J. PONTHOT, InmemoriamRenéDraguet, in RTL 12 (1981) 137-141. Under supervision of Prof. Dr. Leo Kenis a dissertation on Draguet’s conflict with Rome in the crisis of the nouvellethéologie was written. This study has been recently published as W. DE PRIL, Theological Renewal and the Resurgence of Integrism: The René Draguet Case (1942)inItsContext(BETL, 266), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2016. 27. A number of contributions on Thils have already appeared. Thus, this list only contains biographical examples: E. BRITO, LeprofesseurémériteGustaveThils, in G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis 1982-1997 (BETL, 134), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 35-41; C. FOCANT, HommageàMgrThils, in RTL 31 (2000) 467-473. 28. A. HOUSSIAU, InmemoriamMgrArthurJanssen, in RTL10 (1979) 125-127. 29. While Louis Janssens is generally recognized as a moral theologian, he only started to teach in the schola maior of moral theology in the year 1956. One cannot neglect the many contributions to (Leuven) ‘personalism’ by Louis Janssens, yet only a few biographical notes on this moral theologian have appeared: A. HAQUIN, Inmemoriam Louis Janssens, in RTL 33 (2002) 467. On his contribution to personalism, see R. BURGGRAEVE, The Holistic Personalism of Professor Magister Louis Janssens, in LouvainStudies 27 (2002) 29-38; ID., LepersonnalismeholistiqueduprofesseurLouis Janssens, in ETL 78 (2002) 267-276; J. DE TAVERNIER, The Historical Roots of Personalism:FromRenouvier’s‘LePersonnalisme’,Mounier’s‘Manifesteauservice du personnalisme’ and Maritain’s ‘Humanisme intégral’ to Janssens’ ‘Personne et Société’, in Ethical Perspectives 16 (2009) 361-392; J. JANS, Some Remarks on the Work of Professor Emeritus Louis Janssens, in J.A. SELLING (ed.), Personalist Morals: Essays in Honor of Professor Louis Janssens (BETL, 83), Leuven, Peeters, 1988, 319-328. 30. H. WAGNON, LiberamicorumMonseigneurOnclin(BibliothecaEphemeridumTheologicarumLovaniensium,xlii)1976, in RTL 9 (1978) 227-228.

328

D. BOSSCHAERT

Henri Wagnon31, Arthur Monin32, Gérard Fransen33, Alphonse Van Hove34 must also be taken into account. Many of these professors were widely known for their research, which they mainly diffused by publishing articles and taking part in international conferences. They often combined this with service to both their profession and society in general. These activities fall outside of their regular research and are discussed in this contribution by focusing on the three traditional fields to which theologians can offer their service, namely academia, society, and the Church. Although they are treated as three separate fields within this work, it is important to note that a strong interdependency did exist. I. SERVICE TO ACADEMIA The Catholic University of Leuven required a number of its professors to serve in the creation of the Ecclesiastical Faculties. The most central functions were those of dean and secretary. The Faculty of Theology and the Faculty of Canon Law shared a dean until the 1933-34 academic year, when the latter became an independent faculty. It still seemed appropriate to include the canon law deans given that the two faculties continued to have joint meetings and promotions. Moreover, three professors of canon law, Monin, Onclin, and Wagnon, seem to have dominated the board of the Ecclesiastical Faculties for the period in question. They respectively served six years as dean of the Faculty of Canon Law (Monin), one year as secretary and three years as dean of the Faculty of Canon Law (Onclin), and two years as secretary and two years as dean of the Faculty of Canon Law (Wagnon). This high continuity and presence of professors of Canon Law in the faculty board could indeed be explained by the lower number of professors in this faculty compared to the Faculty of Theology, increasing one’s chance to be appointed as dean. Leaving aside the canon law professors, the Faculty of Theology received a new dean almost every year between 1942 and 1956. In fact, Arthur Janssen, a moral theologian, was the only member of the faculty 31. G. FRANSEN, InmemoriamMgrHenriWagnon, in RTL14 (1983) 395-398. 32. H. WAGNON, InMemoriamM.lechanoineArthurMonin, in ETL 30 (1954) 274277. 33. P. GODDING, Fransen, Gérard, in Nouvelle Biographie Nationale 6 (2001) 205206; J.-M. SEVRIN, InmemoriamGérardFransen, in RTL 26 (1995) 416-417. 34. In memoriam Mgr Van Hove, in ETL 23 (1947) 636; W. ONCLIN, Monseigneur AlphonseVanHove.Inmemoriam, in ETL24 (1948) 5-16.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

329

in the time period under question in this contribution to serve a two-year term as dean (1944-1945). In addition, he had previously served three years as faculty secretary (1926-1929) and two years as dean (19341936). This made him the faculty’s most prominent board member during the first half of the twentieth century. One wonders if this had something to do with his character and its suitability to this particular faculty, which Houssiau pointedly described in the following way: “il craignait les conflits violents et le déchaînement des passions”35. Gerard Philips, a dogmatic theologian, represented a second exception given his three years of management experience, having served two years as secretary (19471949) and one year as dean (1952-1953). It is only since 1958 that the Faculty of Theology enjoyed a certain continuity with deans staying for multiple years: the exegete Joseph Coppens served two three-year terms (1959-1961, 1964-1967), separated only by Dondeyne’s three years (1961-1964) in the position. If one assumes that an individual dean could hardly shape a faculty’s organization, especially with the position’s fluidity during the 1940s and 1950s, a study that focuses on the combination and cooperation of the two deans and the faculty secretary takes on special importance. Having the same “team”, for example, could help in realizing a certain program. Yet, the Leuven Ecclesiastical Faculties also seem to have struggled in this capacity. In fact, it seems that only the deans of the Faculty of Canon Law were able to maintain consistent cooperation with their secretaries, for Monin served two years with Robert De Langhe and two years with Philips; Van Hove worked for two years with Wagnon; and Onclin teamed up with Gustave Thils, a fundamental theologian, for two more years. Unsurprisingly, Janssen was the only dean of the Faculty of Theology who worked for multiple years with the same person; Wagnon assisted him for one year as secretary and one year as his colleague as dean of the Faculty of Canon Law. A number of the Ecclesiastical Faculties’ professors also served in other positions within university administration. Given the strong connection between the Ecclesiastical Faculties and both the Higher Institute of Philosophy and the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences, members often served as president of one of these institutes, many of whom held the position for numerous years. The first institution received Léon Noël as its president after the death of Mercier’s former secretary, Simon Deploige. Noël served as the institute’s president between 1927 and 1948, when Louis Raeymaeker, a philosopher, succeeded him. Raeymaeker then 35. HOUSSIAU, InmemoriamMgrArthurJanssen (n. 28).

330

D. BOSSCHAERT

served until 1964, when Albert Dondeyne succeeded him as the new president. Dondeyne remained in the position until he received emeritus status in 1971. The Higher Institute for Religious Sciences also counted on members of the Ecclesiastical Faculties for its daily administration. Cerfaux held the first presidency and remained in this function for almost ten years. In 1953, Gustave Thils succeeded him for a single year, when Albert Descamps, an exegete, took his place. Serving in this function must have prepared Descamps for future administrative positions, as he became rectormagnificus of the Catholic University of Leuven ten years later and proceeded to hold this post during the tense final years of the unified Catholic University of Leuven. Interestingly enough, Édouard Massaux, one of his former colleagues, became the first rector of Louvain-la-Neuve after the university split into a Francophone and a Flemish branch. Piet De Somer succeeded Descamps as first rector of the Flemish university in Leuven. As professor of medicine and the first layman to become rector, this promotion may appear to represent a break in the link between the Ecclesiastical Faculties and the university’s direction. This, however, is not necessarily true, as both De Somer and the following rector, Roger Dillemans, who succeeded him in 1985, were intellectual pupils of Albert Dondeyne and instilled his views on Christian humanism into the university’s identity. Returning to the Ecclesiastical Faculties, its two journals, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses36 and Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique37 have always represented a second outlet for daily administrative opportunities, as professors were routinely expected to sit on their respective editorial boards. Yet, it was also a demanding task that often seemed very separate from the professors’ research activities. The editorial boards, however, also presented an instance where different members of the Ecclesiastical Faculties collaborated, crossing the borders of their disciplines. The ETL had nine appointed professors on its editorial board for the period between 1942-1956. Of them, Janssen, Coppens, Cerfaux, and Onclin had the most permanent positions, with the first two making the greatest contributions to the journal. The first was widely considered to be the journal’s “cheville ouvrière”38, and Coppens’ pointed Noticesbrèvesand Inmemoria 36. Cf. F. NEIRYNCK, IntroductionEphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses, in ETL57 (1981) 309-325. 37. Cf. J. TOLLEBEEK, New Periodicals for New Ideas: On the Birth of the Revue d’HistoireEcclésiastique, in RHE 95 (2000) 391-429. 38. “[Janssen] fut, en effet, la cheville ouvrière de la revue: dès les premiers jours et durant plus de trente années, il assura le secrétariat, avec toutes les tâches ardues voire obscures qu’il imposeˮ, in HOUSSIAU, InmemoriamMgrArthurJanssen (n. 28), p. 125.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

331

gave the journal for years a unique colour. During the same period, Lebon, Draguet, and Wagnon sat as the most permanent members of the RHE’s editorial board. However, it was two other professors, De Meyer and Aubert, who had the greatest impact on the journal’s overall character. Given his role as the director who reestablished the journal after the First World War, De Meyer is often considered its second founder. Similarly, he also founded the BibliothèquedelaRevued’HistoireEcclésiastique. In 1952, Aubert succeeded De Meyer and remained the journal’s director for almost half a century (until 1990). Interestingly, when considering the two editorial boards, it is striking that an almost complete separation between the two groups seemed to exist, as professors rarely served on both editorial boards. Finally, it should be mentioned that while these two journals were the most important, the Ecclesiastical Faculties’ professors also played prominent roles on the editorial boards of other journals, including the RevuephilosophiquedeLouvain, LouvainStudies, and the RevuethéologiquedeLouvain. Moreover, combining positions in the faculties’ administrative boards and the editorial boards of the journals presented certain professors the opportunity to work as mediators between the different parts of the faculty. In this sense, Janssen, Onclin, and Wagnon are again the best examples, having served in these boards together with eleven other professors between 1942 and 1956. Their role on the editorial boards enabled them to closely work together with many of their colleagues for an even longer period. Moreover, by combining their position on the editorial board with their place on the faculty board, these three professors became central mediating figures between the different communities present within the faculty. From this point of view, Wagnon’s position is especially notable. On the one hand, he served on the RHE’s board for many years. On the other hand, he also served as a dean, during which time he worked together with six different professors, many of whom were part of the ETL’s editorial board. This made him a connecting figure between these two seemingly separate milieus. In sum, the positions of many of these figures within both the faculty and university organizations, as well as their role in the publication of numerous journals, were an integral part of their appointment and of their contribution to the academic field. They often considered it as a service and support to their colleagues and their research. However, while time-consuming, these positions, and their consequences, often remain undervalued within classical church historical research, making a full study of the Ecclesiastical Faculties’ role in generating academic research a worthwhile endeavor.

332

D. BOSSCHAERT

II. SERVICE TO SOCIETY While it seemed that most theologians had lots of work due to their positions within the university and their own research, many were also called to deal with the transformation of Church and society. The Second World War had disrupted the naïve goal to install a nouvellechrétienté in society and, instead, a more socially engaged Left Catholicism emerged. Theologians were asked to establish their position within this field. In particular, the 1943 book La France, pays de mission?39 had urged them to pay attention to sociological shifts and to consider the pastoral and existential significance of their teaching. The French Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard, who had ordered the study on which this book was based, repeated its conclusions four years later in an almost equally appealing text, Essoroudéclindel’Église. His discernment of a historical turning point and the absence of Christian involvement therein were widely heard: La plus grande faute des chrétiens du XXe siècle, celle que leurs descendants ne leur pardonneraient pas, serait de laisser le monde se faire et s’unifier sans eux, sans Dieu… L’Église est à ce tournant où elle peut tout perdre ou tout gagner, selon la spiritualité qu’elle proposera à l’humanité40.

For the Leuven theologians, this was certainly not the first time that they considered their academic tasks from this point of view. Ten years earlier, Cardinal Van Roey had called upon them to study sociological changes in order to be able to present the essence of Christian faith in a suitable manner41. The establishment of a new chair for ‘contemporary pseudo-mysticisms’, to which Franz Grégoire would be appointed, represented an immediate consequence, while the creation of the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences was a long-term result. As such, both institutional developments can be considered pioneering for the call that they later raised in GaudiumetSpes. Besides their contribution to these institutional developments and the new emphases in their teaching and 39. H. GODIN – Y. DANIEL, La France, pays de mission? (Rencontres, 12), Paris, l’Abeille, 1943. 40. E. SUHARD, Essoroudéclindel’Église:Lettrepastorale,Carêmedel’andegrâce 1947,Paris, Les éditions du vitrail, 1947. 41. “Dans le bouleversement des civilisations occidentales, l’Église a pour mission de conserver à son dépôt toute sa clarté de pensée et sa force d’action. L’une et l’autre dépendent en dernière analyse des théologiensˮ (J. COPPENS, Chronica Consociationis: CongressusconsociationishabitusLovaniidie29iuniiinfestoSS.ApostolorumPetriet Pauli, in AnnuaNuntiaLovaniensia 3 (1938) 91-96. See also B. RIGAUX, Uneimportante réunionàlaFacultédeThéologiedel’UniversitédeLouvain, in AnnuaNuntiaLovaniensia2 (1937) 10-13.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

333

research, the Leuven theologians and canonists related to the sociological shifts on a more personal level, especially through their direct pastoral engagement. A number of Leuven professors were actively engaged in the successful Catholic Action movement. First, Philips was appointed the chaplain of the Catholic Action movement for Students KatholiekeStudentenActie (KSA)for the diocese of Limburg in 1926. This was only the start, however, as both the Jeugdverbond voor Katholieke Actie (JVKA) and the VrouwelijkJeugdverbondvoorKatholiekeActie(VJVKA), the umbrella-organizations of the youth Catholic Action movements in Flanders, appointed him as general chaplain in 1938. From this experience, he acquired the necessary expertise to develop his own ‘theology of the laity’42 and contribute to the international theological current. Moreover, it also introduced him to the work of the ComitatoPermanentedeiCongressi Internazionali per l’Apostolato dei Laici (COPECIAL)43. This committee, presided over by the Italian lay person Vittorino Veronese, guaranteed continuity between the different World Conferences for the Apostolate of the Laity. It should thus come as no surprise that Philips also actively participated in both international conferences in 1951 and 1957, and that he strongly supported the Belgian conference in 1956. Philips’ work in COPECIAL and collaboration with a number of theologians who also specialized in the lay apostolate, such as Sebastian Tromp, Yves Congar, Emiliano Guano, and Achille Glorieux perfectly prepared him for his participation in the Second Vatican Council. Professor Jean Vieujean was the second Leuven professor to strongly engage in the Catholic Action movement. He was also likely the only professor whose arrival in Leuven in 1926 was not linked with an academic appointment, as he came to succeed Mgr. Picard as the chaplain of the ActionCatholiquedelaJeunesseBelgeFrancophone. Six years later, the Faculty of Theology appointed him as assistant-professor, engaging him to teach courses to lay students at the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences, as well as those courses on ‘religious questions’ at the university’s other faculties. Thirdly, Albert Dondeyne was appointed chaplain of the HoogstudentenverbondvoorKatholiekeActie(HVKA), founded by Karel Devriendt in 1932, upon his arrival in Leuven. The organization published the periodical 42. G. PHILIPS, DeleekindeKerk,Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1952; G. PHILIPS, Lerôledu laïcatdansl’Église(Cahiers de l’actualité religieuse, 5), Tournai, Casterman, 1954. 43. B. MINVIELLE, L’apostolat des laïcs à la veille du concile (1949-1959): Histoire descongrèsmondiauxde1951et1957(Studia Friburgensia: Series Historica), Fribourg, Éditions universitaires, 2001.

334

D. BOSSCHAERT

Universitas,first issued in November 1933, as one of its main platforms to promote its ideas. Its title was programmatic and indicated the students’ pursuit of wholeness in their identity as Catholics at the university44. Dondeyne became the spiritual mentor of this group, which soon developed into a true university movement. Given Dondeyne’s interest in social justice after the Second World War, the movement also developed as an expression of Left Catholicism45. Later, several of its members came to play important roles within both the Christian Democratic movement and Belgian civil society. In these positions, former-members always remained loyal to Dondeyne’s principles and ideas, which he expressed most programmatically in his book Geloof en Wereld46. Dondeyne’s sense for social justice and the fate of the labor class aligned him with Joseph Cardijn and his Young Christian Workers (KAJ) movement, especially during the Second World War. Some professors’ roles as presidents of the different colleges or student residences in Leuven also naturally led to them caring for the (spiritual) needs of an entire generation of young academics. The university had reserved a number of their colleges for priest-students, but some also housed the university’s lay students. Two colleges, the Pope’s College and the Holy Spirit College, were traditionally linked with the Ecclesiastical Faculties. Without neglecting De Langhe’s term as president, Coppens left a particularly strong mark on the Pope’s college. Starting as a sub-regent47, he served as president of the college for almost a quarter of a century (1943-1967). The Holy Spirit College also maintained a relationship with the Faculty of Theology. Joseph Lebon, in particular, served as president between 1909 and 1944 and left his mark on this college. In addition, Professor Janssen served as president of Justus Lipsius College, De Langhe as president of Saint Pius X College, and Van Steenberghen worked as a spiritual director in the Leo XIII Seminary and president of the Latin American College. Thus, one can hardly neglect the central role many university professors played in student life. The professors’ contact with new generations of students through their courses or as presidents of the different colleges also caused them to 44. R. BOUDENS, Dondeyneen‘Universitas’, in ID, DeKerkinVlaanderen:Momentopnamen, Averbode, Altiora, 1994, 321-325; H. ROEFFAERS, Universitas en professor Albert Dondeyne, in Streven 72 (2005) 291-302; A. SCHRAMME, Universitas, meer dan eenstudentenbeweging, in OnzeAlmaMater 39 (1985) 251-264. 45. Cf. B. LATRÉ, Strijd & inkeer: De kerk- en maatschappijkritische beweging in Vlaanderen(KADOC-Studies, 34), Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2011. 46. A. DONDEYNE, GeloofenWereld,Antwerpen, Patmos, 1961. 47. Gustave Thils and Jean Vieujean also served as sub-regent in the Pope’s College.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

335

rethink the position of Christianity within society and culture. After the Second World War, this often resulted in publications in which they shunned their standard academic communities and presented their views to a broader audience. One clear example of this is their contribution to the French journal Larevuenouvelle. This journal, founded in 1945 by Jean Vieujean, can be considered the continuation of Jacques Leclerq’s LaCité Chrétienne48. All contributors to the journal presented a similar awareness for Catholic interaction with present-day socio-cultural developments49. The editorial board’s members and the journal’s contributors belonged to different academic and societal fields. Cerfaux, Aubert, Dondeyne, and Philips primarily provided its theological voice, as they published a number of articles that presented their research in a more accessible manner, which had always been one of the underlying aims of the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences. When the institute started its own series in 1945, the series’ editors unsurprisingly turned to these professors, whose research focused on the intersection between Christianity and culture. In the series some of their most popular works were published: La sainte Église catholiqueby Philips, Unelecturedel’épîtreauxRomainsby Cerfaux and Christianismesetchristianismeby Thils50. The Dutch publishers Patmos and Davidsfonds envisaged reaching out to a similar audience, leading to some of the Leuven professors’ most remarkable publications: Dondeyne’s Geloof en Wereld , Philips’ De leek in de kerk and Naar een volwassen christendom, and Janssen’s Demensenzijnlichaam51. 48. Jacques Leclercq was a Belgian priest and professor of Natural Law and Moral Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy and Arts. In 1926 he founded the journal LaCité Chrétienne.In 1930 he was appointed as chaplain of the JeunesseUniversitaireCatholique (JUC). Around the figure of Leclercq, a group of socially engaged francophone Catholic students emerged, many of whom contributed to the journal. 49. J.-L. JADOULLE, The Milieu of Left Catholics in Belgium (1940s-1950s), in G.-R. HORN – E. GERARD (eds.), Left Catholicism 1943-1955: Catholics and Society in WesternEuropeatthePointofLiberation(KADOC-Studies, 25), Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2001, 102-117; ID., Chrétiens modernes? L’engagement des intellectuels catholiques ‘progressistes’ belges de 1945 à 1958 à travers ‘La revue nouvelle’, ‘La relève’etl’éditionbelgede‘Témoignagechrétien’(Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres, 3), Louvain-la-Neuve, Academia Bruylant – Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2003. 50. L. CERFAUX, Une lecture de l’épître aux Romains (Bibliothèque de l’Institut Supérieur des Sciences Religieuses, 2), Tournai, Casterman, 1947; G. PHILIPS, Lasainte Églisecatholique(Bibliothèque de l’Institut Supérieur des Sciences Religieuses, 3), Tournai, Casterman, 1947; G. THILS, Christianismesetchristianisme(Bibliothèque de l’Institut Supérieur des Sciences religieuses, 5), Tournai – Paris, Casterman, 1951. 51. A. DONDEYNE, GeloofenWereld,Antwerpen, Patmos, 1961; A. JANSSEN, Demens enzijnlichaam:Moraaltheologischeverhandelingen(Davidsfonds Keurreeks, 79), Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1960; G. PHILIPS, DeleekindeKerk,Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1952; ID., Naar eenvolwassenChristendom(Davidsfonds Keurreeks, 81), Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1961.

336

D. BOSSCHAERT

Some professors also engaged more directly in the socio-political and cultural elements of society. Van Hove, for example, was director of the SocialeStudiekringand the VerenigingvoorVolkenbondenWereldvrede, while Descamps served as the national president of Pax Christi, and Louis Janssens was a consultor for the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions, Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond (ACV), and taught at the Sociale Hogeschool. Jean Vieujean, and later Dondeyne, strongly supported the work of Auxilia, an organization that offered correspondence courses to people with a handicap or that were homebound because of sickness. De Meyer’s contributions to organizations supporting Flemish culture, like the Katholieke Vlaamsche Radio-omroep or the Vlaamse leergangen, similarly contributed to the development of society. A number of professors also had connections within politics. Dondeyne, in particular, had, through former members of Universitas, strong links with the Belgian Christian Democratic Party. Moreover, his ideas were even reflected in the political party’s Christmas Program that formulated its ideological stance for the post-Second World War period. Nevertheless, only Gerard Philips would serve in a political function. In 1953, Philips was co-opted into the Belgian senate, replacing Mgr. Broekx, who had served as a senator since 1929. As a senator, Philips not only served as chaplain for the Christian politicians, but he also contributed content-wise to senatorial work. Two debates in particular held his attention. The first concerned Catholic education. This topic was highly debated during the Second School War in the 1950s. Philips mediated, and even contributed to, the resulting School Pact. He also dealt with the decolonization of the Belgian Congo. On the eve of its independence, Philips even conducted an academic journey commissioned by the senate, leading to his speech on the emancipation of the Congo on the senate floor in 195952. Finally, given their research and active role in the service of society, the Académie Royale de Belgique, classe des lettres et des sciences moralesetpolitiques elected a number of Leuven professors to become members, including Léon Nöel (1926), Roger Aubert (1968), Gérard Fransen (1991), Fernand Van Steenberghen (1970), and René Draguet (1960). René Maere became a corresponding member of the Commission royaledesMonuments in 1907. In 1919, he became a full member and, in 1937, the commission appointed him vice-president. Similarly, a number of the Dutch-speaking professors became members of the Koninklijke AcademievanWetenschappen,LetterenenSchoneKunstenvanBelgië, 52. G. PHILIPS, L’émancipation du Congo et l’Église, in Revue Générale 95 (1959) 65-75.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

337

including Ryckmans (1939), Maere (1939), Van Hove (1939), Coppens (1939), De Meyer (1944), and Dondeyne (1970). The contribution of this last group to the Koninklijke Academie was not without merit, because four of them were among the ten founding members in 1939, Coppens became its president in 1952and De Meyer, in turn, set the standard for its NationaalBiografischWoordenboek in 1952, which published its first volume twelve years later. III. SERVICE TO THE CHURCH While Dondeyne advocated that “it is the wish of the council, that several members of the laity could enjoy an adapted theological training, even more, that the Church in every country could count on some professionally trained lay theologians”53 in his commentary on Gaudiumet Spes 62, professors appointed to the Ecclesiastical Faculties between 1942 and 1956 were all diocesan priests. To them, rendering service to the Church was still a logical presupposition of their role as theologians. Taking into account that many of them started their careers by teaching seminarians in the Belgian Major Seminaries, the link between the priesthood and the discipline of theology seemed almost inseparable for them. They expressed this through their involvement in Church events and committees, their engagements as chaplains and pastors, their contributions to Marian devotion, and their service in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. First, the Second Vatican Council had a profound impact upon the twentieth-century Catholic Church, as the event represented an “exceptional milestone” in church history54. Many studies have already pointed to the strong and frequent contributions made by Belgian theologians at the Council, focusing especially on the work of the squadrabelga55. Moreover, 53. “Het is zelfs te wensen, aldus het concilie, dat meerdere leken een aangepaste theologische opleiding zouden genieten, meer nog, dat de kerk in elk land op enkele deskundig geschoolde leken-theologen zou mogen rekenen”, in DONDEYNE, De juiste bevorderingvandeculturelevooruitgang (n. 2). 54. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. KENIS (eds.), VaticanumII:Geschiedenisofinspiratie.TheologischeopstellenoverhettweedeVaticaansConcilie,Antwerpen, Halewijn, 2013. 55. The most extensive studies of the Belgian contribution to the Council can be found in D. DONNELLY etal. (eds.), TheBelgianContributiontotheSecondVaticanCouncil: InternationalResearchConferenceatMechelen,Leuven,andLouvain-la-Neuve(September12-16,2005)(BETL, 216), Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA, Peeters, 2008. One of the best studies on the ‘squadra belga’ can be found in M. LAMBERIGTS – L. DECLERCK, La contribution de la ‘squadra belga’ au Concile Vatican II, in Anuario de historia de laIglesia 21 (2012) 157-183.

338

D. BOSSCHAERT

the efficiency of this particular group is often attributed to the fact that the theologians already professionally knew each other before the Council convened, had previously worked together, and came from common milieus. The Ecclesiastical Faculties clearly presented such a milieu. Albert Descamps, having being ordained as Titular Bishop in 1960, served as one of the conciliar fathers. In addition, the Council appointed five professors as official periti, Cerfaux, Philips, Thils, Onclin, and Wagnon, who served in that function throughout all four periods. Four additional theologians, Aubert, Dondeyne, Janssens, and Massaux, also contributed to the Council, even though they had not officially been appointed as periti. It is especially interesting to see that the Belgians were not only concerned with the development of the Church ad intra, but also in its mission ad extra. Indeed, Leuven’s faculty members crafted among others the chapter on culture for the Pastoral Constitution GaudiumetSpes, integrating their theology and experiences with the socio-cultural domain. Secondly, taking part in the Second Vatican Council was not their only contribution to the general development of the twentieth-century Church. As professors specialized in certain areas, they were often appointed to international ecclesial committees, occasionally serving in prominent positions. Given the traditional importance of Biblical Studies at the Leuven Faculty of Theology, some of its professors were elected to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, as was the case for Cerfaux in 1941. More than twenty years later, Descamps also became a member (1967), before eventually becoming its secretary. Moreover, Onclin’s presence on the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law was particularly noticeable56. In light of his achievements during the Council, the commission appointed him to serve as joint secretary. The commission’s task centered on the revision of the code of canon law, which had been Pope John XXIII’s initial intention when he announced the Council in 1959, although its work only started in November 196557. When the commission completed its work in 1983, it was secretary Mgr. Castillo Lara and joint-secretary Mgr. Onclin, who, after the death of the president Mgr. Felici one year earlier, presented the final version of the revised Code of Canon Law to Pope John Paul II. The position Descamps 56. In a certain way he walked in the footsteps of professor Van Hove, who in 1905 started his work in the Commissione dei Consultori per la codificazione del diritto canonico. 57. C. VAN DE WIEL – G. COOMAN (eds.), Repertorium van de documenten in het archiefMonseigneurWillyOnclin:TweedeVaticaansConcilieenPauselijkeCommissie voor de herziening van het Wetboek van Canoniek recht (Novum commentarium Lovaniense in codicem iuris canonici, 2), Leuven, Peeters, 1998.

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

339

and Onclin had both acquired within the Roman Curia by the 1970s, as a result of their work for the Biblical Commission and the Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law, also provided them with a special mission in 1974, when they were sent out to conduct the apostolic visitation of the seminary of the Society of Saint Pius X in Écône. As is well-known, this visitation and especially certain comments of the apostolic visitators resulted in Mgr. Lefebvre’s DéclarationdeFoi, the basis for the withdrawal of the society’s canonical recognition58. Thirdly, a number of professors were also involved in pastoral activities as chaplains or pastors, with some experiencing their introduction to pastoral fieldwork during the First World War. Professor Maere became a military chaplain and first served in a military camp atRuchardin France before moving to a hospital in Chambéry. Ryckmans also served as military chaplain and escorted the Belgian army during its retreat from the cities of Aarschot and Leuven. He was later hospitalized after a gas attack during the final days of the First World War. The professors’ involvement during the Second World War is less clear, as this history remains to be written. It is still worth noting, however, that members of the KVHV, with their strong links to Dondeyne’s Universitas movement, were regularly involved in resistance activities. One of their members was even killed in the maquis d’Orchimont. The professors’ regular pastoral activities are better documented. Bittremieux first served three years as chaplain in Moeskroen before being sent to Leuven to teach. However, Professor Gérard Fransen’s work remains more exemplary when it comes to the pastoral activities of theology professors, as he worked with the university parish, while simultaneously ministering a parish in Verviers. Cerfaux also attempted to fulfill his vocation in this sense, serving the community of the Franciscan sisters that lived next to him for many years. A final particular pastoral interest of Leuven’s professors concerned their spiritual directorship over the Auxiliaries of the Apostolate. Living by the rules established by Cardinal Mercier in 1917, these lay women maintained their religious vocation under the auspices of the diocese, where they often held prominent positions. Their profiles and positions within society demanded an adapted spiritual guidance that would also be intellectually challenging. The Leuven professors thus seemed the most suitable candidates to act as spiritual directors. Lucien Cerfaux held this position for many years, preaching instruction on the New Testament in their house in Brussels on Friday afternoons. His strong relationship with this group of lay women is 58. See A. HENDERICKX – L. KENIS, DezaakLefebvre:Feitenenachtergronden(Horizonreeks, 46), Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1980, pp. 200-223.

340

D. BOSSCHAERT

best exemplified by his death in their house in Lourdes. However, he was not the only one involved in this movement, for both Dondeyne and Philips also participated in the women’s spiritual wellbeing. A fourth interesting contribution that Leuven professors made to ecclesial life was in their support of Marian devotion. This was particularly true of Joseph Bittremieux, who had made Mariology one of the Faculty of Theology’s thematic strengths. His academic interest was accompanied by concrete support for the development of Marian devotion in the daily life of the Church, best shown through his founding of the Journées Mariales de Tongerloo in the Premonstratensian Abbey of Tongerlo in 1931. His successor, Philips, continued this work by being an active participant in the International Conferences on Mariology. Their expertise in Mariology made Leuven professors useful consultants to the Church’s hierarchy. Lebon wrote for example the report on Mary’s mediatorship for Cardinal Mercier. In addition Philips’ contribution to the chapter on Mary in the redaction of the Second Vatican Council’s document on the Church, LumenGentium, is widely known. Similarly, Mgr. André-Marie Charue, bishop of the diocese of Namur, appointed Professor Monin to conduct an investigation of the 1932-1933 Marian apparitions in Beauraing. Monin led the doctrinal commission and drafted the final conclusions that resulted in the recognition of these apparitions in 1949 and that authorized this particular cultus. Finally, many of the professors were skilled theologians and good pastors. A few even seemed to be suitable candidates for available bishoprics, although only Descamps had a brief episcopal career. In 1960, two years before he was appointed rector of the Catholic University of Leuven, he was appointed as auxiliary bishop of Mgr. Himmer, the bishop of Tournai, and was ordained as titular bishop of Tunis. After the split of the university in 1969, Descamps resigned and returned to his position as professor of New Testament at the Catholic University in Louvain-laNeuve. In addition, rumors circulated that some other professors had also been named as possible bishops, having made the ternaof the apostolic nuncio: Lebon as a possible successor to Mgr. Heylen in the diocese of Namur in 1940 and Philips as possible successor to Mgr. Callewaert in the diocese of Ghent in 1964. IV. CONCLUSION Although Leo Kenis has claimed that the “foundation of the unit Pastoral Theology [in 1969] was a novumin the history of the Leuven Theological

BREAKING THE VOW OF ACADEMIC MONASTICISM

341

Faculty”59, many professors maintained a concern for how the church’s service would relate to the future of society. This was inspired, he observed, by the Ecclesiastical Faculties’ own traditions. This study has indeed highlighted how one generation of professors actively shaped their profession as theologians. Most importantly, they conducted high-quality academic research, which they presented in numerous publications and at academic conferences. On an international level, it was through their academic talents that they made a name for themselves. On a local level, they had often achieved even so much more. Indeed, by leading the faculties or one of its journals, they enabled the academic progress of many others, while actively supporting the development of society and Church through a variety of other activities. In a sense, their dual identity as academic theologians and diocesan priests stimulated their involvement in society and church, as they had realized, long before the existence of the idea of publictheology, that their practices were not to be locked up within the ivory towers of academia. The true extent of this conviction, however, requires further research, for this study is only based on a small sample of professors and makes use of limited sources. Given that the obituaries used were almost all written by other academics and therefore focused more on academic achievement, it is expected that further archival research will yield more instances in which professors worked at the intersection of academia, society, and Church. Although their academic accomplishments are indisputable, one can wonder if their non-academic accomplishments, often consisting of unnoticed tasks and commitments, were even of greater significance to the greater public. If one only takes into account the concern of these professors for each generation of new students, one cannot deny the far-reaching effects of their public role. Thus, even if only on the basis of this explorative study, it is impossible to claim it was these theologians who first prepared theories on the public role of theologians, at least it is evident they had been actively practicing them for many years before the Second Vatican Council. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven Sint-Michielsstraat 6/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Dries BOSSCHAERT

59. L. KENIS, Pastoraaltheologie, in GEVERS – KENIS (eds.), DeFaculteitGodgeleerdheidindeK.U.Leuven1969-1995(n. 3), 232-265, p. 232 (my translation).

SOLAGES VERSUS GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (1947)

Début février 1947 est publié en estratto un article du père Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange à paraître dans Angelicum, revue de l’université dominicaine de Rome dont il est le plus célèbre professeur1: «La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?». Sorti quelques semaines après la critique de l’expression par Pie XII dans son discours à la Congrégation générale des jésuites du 17 septembre 1946, il fait figure d’interprétation officieuse de celle-ci et, vu l’autorité de son signataire comme qualificateur du Saint-Office, de prélude à une condamnation des auteurs cités. Le fougueux dominicain s’en prend nommément à trois jésuites proches du scolasticat de Lyon-Fourvière, Henri Bouillard, Gaston Fessard, Henri de Lubac, à leur inspirateur présumé le philosophe Maurice Blondel, mais aussi, sans les nommer, à son confrère et ancien étudiant MarieDominique Chenu, mis à l’Index en 19422, et aux jésuites Jean Daniélou, Yves de Montcheuil ou Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, les deux derniers épinglés pour des textes inédits. Selon le père Garrigou, la «nouvelle théologie» produite par le groupe ainsi constitué «revient au modernisme»3, «carrefour de toutes les hérésies» condamné par Pie X en 1907 dans l’encyclique Pascendi. Elle est donc aussi condamnable à ses yeux. I. LA «BOMBE» GARRIGOU La charge est si rude que les dominicains toulousains de la Revue Thomiste, pourtant proches du père Garrigou, et aux prises avec les mêmes jésuites dans un difficile «dialogue théologique» sur le thomisme4,

1. Né en 1877 à Auch (Gers), il est entré dans la province dominicaine de France en 1899 et il enseigne à l’Angelicum depuis 1909. Théologien prolixe, il est l’auteur d’une œuvre spéculative abondante, en latin et en français, qui ne rayonne guère hors du monde clérical, sauf dans le domaine de la théologie mystique, que le dominicain enseigne avec succès depuis 1917. Voir R. PEDDICORD, TheSacredMonsterofThomism:AnIntroduction totheLifeandLegacyofReginaldGarrigou-Lagrange,o.p., South Bend, IN, St Augustine’s Press, 2005. 2. É. FOUILLOUX, L’affaireChenu(1937-1943), dans RSPT 98 (2014) 261-352. 3. Il figure dans la dernière livraison de la revue pour 1946, retardée (3-4, pp. 126-145, citation p. 143). 4. Sur ce débat, É. FOUILLOUX, Dialoguethéologique?(1946-1948), dans S.-T. BONINO (éd.), SaintThomasauXXe siècle, Paris, Éditions Saint-Paul, 1994, 153-195.

344

É. FOUILLOUX

ont refusé l’article5. Tandis que le philosophe Jacques Maritain, ambassadeur de France auprès du Saint-Siège, estime que Garrigou a «terriblement raison» sur le fond6, le père Labourdette lui explique sa décision: «Entre nous, je dois vous dire que je viens de refuser un article du P. Garrigou, extrêmement violent (et d’ailleurs vigoureux, mais terriblement massif) […] et prenant à partie le groupe Daniélou, Bouillard, etc., citant (sans les nommer) des phrases de Teilhard et Montcheuil; on sent planer sur l’ensemble une menace de Saint-Office». Sans être en désaccord avec Garrigou, «à qui, en somme, nous devons tant»7, les thomistes toulousains ne pouvaient cautionner une attaque aussi virulente sans saborder tout espoir d’apaisement avec leurs interlocuteurs jésuites. Vendue «comme des petits pains» à vingt lires pièce8, la charge du père Garrigou-Lagrange fait sensation à Rome où ses confrères de l’Angélique Paul Philippe et Louis-Bertrand Gillon la surnomment «la bombe atomique». C’est d’ailleurs sous le titre «La bombe» qu’est placé le dossier de Mgr Bruno de Solages qui fournit la matière de la présente contribution9. «Il est à sa place dans l’‘Angelicum’ et enfoncera le clou»10, estime le père Philippe, alors que le père Gillon s’en démarque nettement. «Je crois que c’est une gaffe de s’être présenté comme l’oracle du pape lui-même en présentant une sorte de commentaire du discours de septembre dernier. Le pape ne pourra faire autre chose (et je crois même qu’il l’a déjà fait) que de dire que le P. G. n’a aucunmandat pour interpréter sa pensée»11, écrit-il à Labourdette en lui demandant «de souligner que la ‘Revue Thomiste’ n’a rien de commun avec un certain intégrisme» dont l’attaque du père Garrigou-Lagrange signalerait la résurgence12.

5. L’intéressé s’en plaint au père Labourdette le 30 septembre 1946, et encore le 5 mars 1947, Archives de la province dominicaine de Toulouse (ADT désormais). 6. Lettre à l’abbé Charles Journet, 11 février 1947, Journet Maritain, Correspondance, Volume III, 1940-1949, Paris, Éditions Saint-Augustin/Parole et Silence, 1998, p. 525. 7. Lettre du 21 octobre 1946, fonds Jacques et Raïssa Maritain, Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg (BNUS désormais). 8. Lettre du père André Rétif au père de Lubac, 21 février 1947, Archives françaises de la Compagnie de Jésus (AFSJ désormais), copie; le père Garrigou-Lagrange se félicite de cet accueil, lettre au père Labourdette du 5 mars, ADT. 9. Consulté aux Archives de l’Institut catholique de Toulouse (désormais ICT). 10. Lettre au père Labourdette du 14 février 1947, ADT. 11. Il croit savoir que le jésuite Augustin Bea, confesseur du pape, est intervenu auprès de ce dernier dans ce sens. 12. Lettre du 20 février, ADT.

SOLAGES VERSUS GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (1947)

II. L’ENTRÉE

EN LICE DE

345

SOLAGES

Dès qu’il est connu en France, fin février, le brûlot du père Garrigou suscite l’indignation, non seulement chez les auteurs qu’il cloue au pilori, mais aussi chez leurs amis. «Je n’ai pas besoin de vous dire que je répudie toute solidarité avec le P. Garrigou-Lagrange du dernier n° d’Angelicum», écrit ainsi le père Congar au père de Lubac le 25 février13. Mgr Bruno de Solages, recteur de l’Institut catholique de Toulouse, a reçu l’article incriminé la veille et a immédiatement manifesté son intention d’y répondre. «J’ai reçu hier soir l’article de Garrigou-Lagrange», écrit-il au père Marie-Dominique Chenu. «Je fourbis mon épée... car j’en ai assez. C’est un tissu de contre-sens et j’ai l’intention d’en faire la preuve publique»14. Sans préjuger de la réponse des jésuites, «moi, je compte répondre publiquement, car j’en ai assez, et le cardinal [Saliège] m’y encourage», écrit-il au père de Lubac15. Mais qui est donc le recteur du modeste Institut catholique de Toulouse pour intervenir aussi hardiment dans la bataille? Né en 1895 dans une grande famille du Tarn, adversaire du tribun socialiste Jean Jaurès, il a été ordonné prêtre pour le diocèse d’Albi en 1922, avant de faire des études de théologie et de droit canon à Rome, où il a été l’élève du père Garrigou-Lagrange (1922-1924), puis d’exégèse à l’École biblique de Jérusalem (1924-1925). Professeur dans un petit séminaire du Tarn de 1925 à 1931, il se fait rapidement un nom comme pourfendeur de l’Action française de Charles Maurras, comme conférencier des Semaines sociales de France et comme avocat d’une sortie rapide de la crise moderniste. Très lié à Mgr Jules-Géraud Saliège, archevêque de Toulouse depuis 1928, il est promu recteur de l’Institut catholique de la ville rose alors qu’il n’a que trente-sept ans. Son attitude lors des crises qui secouent la France, et l’Église de France, au cours des années 1930 et 1940 lui permet d’acquérir une stature nationale: d’abord comme apôtre d’un catholicisme ouvert et conquérant dans les billets signés Christianus de la revue dominicaine LaVieIntellectuelle; puis comme promoteur à Toulouse, sous l’Occupation, d’une Résistance spirituelle qui lui vaut d’être déporté en Allemagne, au camp de Neuengamme, en 1944-1945. Bien que proposé pour l’épiscopat par le gouvernement du général de Gaulle, il ne devient pas évêque car son engagement résistant n’a pas fait 13. AFSJ, copie; termes voisins dans sa lettre à Bruno de Solages, 4 avril, ICT. 14. Lettre du 25 février, Archives de la province dominicaine de France (ADF). 15. Lettre du 26 février, AFSJ, copie. Mgr Louis de Courrèges, ancien évêque auxiliaire de Toulouse, recteur de Saint-Louis des Français à Rome, a envoyé l’article à Saliège, lettre à Bruno de Solages du 18 février, ICT.

346

É. FOUILLOUX

que des heureux dans les milieux ecclésiastiques. En visite adlimina au printemps 1946 avec Saliège, récemment promu à la pourpre, il se fait des illusions sur son influence à Rome, ce qui ne l’empêche pas de s’autoproclamer avocat des innovations pastorales et intellectuelles de l’Église de France. Il est ainsi l’initiateur, en octobre 1946, de la démarche qui suscite la lettre de la Commission biblique au cardinal Suhard de janvier 1948 sur les premiers chapitres de la Genèse, libératrice pour l’exégèse. Il y a du chevalier Bayard, sinon du Don Quichotte, chez ce petit homme sec et vif qui ne craint pas de croiser le fer pour les causes qu’il estime justes16. Thomiste de formation, mais lié de longue date au père Teilhard de Chardin et à ses amis jésuites, il a proposé son arbitrage pour dénouer le contentieux entre les dominicains de Toulouse et les jésuites de Fourvière au moment où éclate la «bombe» Garrigou: son échange de lettres avec le père Marie-Joseph Nicolas, provincial dominicain de Toulouse, sort au même moment dans le Bulletindelittérature ecclésiastique,revue de son Institut17. Même si les religieux toulousains se démarquent de leur confrère de l’Angelicum, l’intervention de celui-ci ne peut que contrarier ses efforts de paix. Sa réaction prend d’abord la forme d’une intervention privée à Rome. Solages s’autorise en effet d’une audience de juin 1946 avec Mgr Alfredo Ottaviani, assesseur du Saint-Office, pour dénoncer auprès de lui les méthodes, ou plutôt l’absence de méthode, du père Garrigou-Lagrange, «utilisant même des textes qui ne sont pas du domaine public, citant des bouts de textes détachés de leur contexte et accumulant les contre-sens les plus manifestes d’une manière, dont il est hélas coutumier, mais qui n’en est pas moins indigne d’un théologien sérieux». Et d’annoncer à Ottaviani la réponse publique à venir sous couvert du cardinal Saliège qui, «indigné, m’a fait appeler et m’a demandé de répondre»18. En attendant, il prend la défense de Maurice Blondel, «vieillard vénérable qui a souffert toute sa vie pour obliger les philosophes ses contemporains à se poser le problème du surnaturel», du père de Lubac «le plus grand théologien français de la Compagnie de Jésus», du père Fessard, «penseur puissant» qui a préservé l’Église des infiltrations du paganisme hitlérien 16. «Mgr Bruno de Solages», colloque 13, 14 et 15 décembre 1996, Bulletindelittérature ecclésiastique, janvier-juin 1998; M.-T. DUFFAU, Bruno de Solages: Biographie d’unintellectuelcatholiqueengagé(1895-1983), Paris, Pierre Téqui, 2014. 17. «Autour d’une controverse», 48 (janvier-mars 1947) 3-17; envoi par Solages au père Nicolas le 6 mars, ADT. 18. «Je lui dis que, d’ordre du Cardinal (!) je vais être amené à démontrer que le P. Garrigou-Lagrange ne sait ni citer ni interpréter un texte correctement», écrit-il au père de Lubac le 28 février, AFSJ, copie. Le point d’exclamation suggère que la caution cardinalice n’est qu’un paravent.

SOLAGES VERSUS GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (1947)

347

pendant la guerre, et enfin du père Teilhard de Chardin dont «une condamnation serait à l’heure actuelle un malheur de l’ordre de la condamnation de Galilée dont nous souffrons encore». «Comment voulez-vous que l’on travaille paisiblement», s’indigne Solages, par exemple à la réfutation des attaques, autrement sérieuses, des marxistes ou des existentialistes, «quand on constate qu’un théologien si plein de parti-pris qu’il en devient incapable de lire un texte objectivement comme le P. Garrigou-Lagrange est qualificateur du Saint-Office»? La diatribe de ce professeur en vue d’une université pontificale, nuit «singulièrement au prestige de Rome dans les milieux qui créent l’opinion», conclut le recteur de Toulouse19. Ottaviani n’a pas encore acquis la réputation de «carabinier» de l’Église ou de «rempart» de l’orthodoxie qui sera la sienne par la suite. Il n’a cependant pas dû recevoir beaucoup de lettres aussi dépourvues de langue de buis ecclésiastique. Et on peut douter de l’effet qu’elle a produit sur lui... «Elle est remarquable par son esprit chevaleresque, et étonnante par son impertinence», fait remarquer Mgr Stanislas Courbe, évêque auxiliaire de Paris familier des milieux curiaux20. Envoyée aussi au cardinal Gerlier, archevêque de Lyon, elle transite par le dominicain Thomas Delos, conseiller canonique de l’ambassade de France près le Saint-Siège, qui attend avec impatience l’article en préparation21. Lui aussi destinataire d’une copie, l’archevêque coadjuteur de Cambrai, Mgr Guerry, est plus dubitatif: «J’ai admiré dans votre lettre à Mgr Ottaviani, une fois de plus, votre courage, votre loyauté et votre fidélité à vos amis. Me permettezvous de vous confier affectueusement une pensée personnelle? Mais ne croyez-vous pas d’affaiblir votre argumentation par une attaque contre la personne même du R. P.?»22. Le conseil ne sera guère entendu. Pour préparer sa réponse, Mgr de Solages collecte des informations auprès de ses amis les pères Marie-Dominique Chenu, Jean Daniélou et René d’Ouince, directeur des Études, mais surtout auprès de père de Lubac qui lui envoie subsecreto la première mouture de sa réponse et de celle de ses confrères au factum de Garrigou-Lagrange. Le théologien lyonnais lui est «d’autant plus reconnaissant de la publication» annoncée

19. Lettre du 28 février, copie, ICT. 20. Propos transmis à Jacques Maritain par l’abbé Journet le 29 août 1947, Journet Maritain, Correspondance, III (n. 6), pp. 582-583. 21. «Toute cette affaire est déplorable. L’article, en lui-même, est au-dessous de tout, au point qu’on se demande s’il ne sonne pas le glas d’un esprit jadis puissant. Il faut qu’une réfutation dénonce cet invraisemblable manque de méthode, et le procédé dépourvu de toute loyauté intellectuelle», lettre à Solages des 5 et 6 mars, ICT. 22. Lettre du 13 mars, ICT.

348

É. FOUILLOUX

que les jésuites incriminés sont empêchés par leurs supérieurs de les rendre publiques23, le pape lui-même ne désirant pas que la polémique se prolonge24. Le texte promis par Mgr de Solages leur servira, en quelque sorte, de réponse par procuration. «Puisque vous me dites vous-même que vous atténuerez quelques vivacités, je n’ai plus aucun scrupule à vous dire mon adhésion totale», poursuit le père de Lubac après lecture d’une première version qu’il trouve «magnifique»25. Plusieurs avis autorisés rejoignent le sien et celui de Mgr Guerry pour conseiller la prudence au bouillant recteur de Toulouse. Mgr Blanchet, recteur de l’Institut catholique de Paris, l’informe que le cardinal Suhard préfère de discrètes démarches individuelles à une «intervention massive», sans être par ailleurs convaincu que tous les torts sont du même côté26. Mgr de Courrèges, venu à Toulouse pour la remise de la Légion d’honneur à Mgr de Solages par le président de la République Vincent Auriol, le 15 mars, a lu cette première version avec un certain embarras. De retour à Rome, il s’appuie sur les avis du père Delos, du père René Arnou, professeur à l’Université grégorienne, et du père de Gorostarzu, assistant de France du préposé général des jésuites, pour inviter Solages à la remanier dans le sens de la volonté d’apaisement du pape27. Faute de documents sur la genèse du texte, on ne sait pas s’il a été entendu, mais on peut en douter car Bruno de Solages a daté sa contre-attaque du 7 mars, «fête de saint Thomas d’Aquin». III. UNE RÉPONSE CINGLANTE «Pour l’honneur de la Théologie. Les contre-sens du R. P. GarrigouLagrange», paraît en tiré à part au début du mois d’avril 194728. Si la charge du père Garrigou était une bombe atomique, la réponse de Solages 23. Lettre à Solages du 3 mars, ICT. 24. «Le Saint-Père a fait savoir aux jésuites qu’il ne voulait pas voir se prolonger une polémique et ceux-ci sont beaucoup plus réservés maintenant», lettre de Mgr de Courrèges à Solages, 29 mars, ICT. 25. Lettre du 12 mars 1947, AFSJ, copie. Solages aurait demandé «à un collègue» de lui signaler «pour que je le supprime, tout ce qui dans mon texte lui paraîtrait violence inutile», brouillon de lettre à Mgr Montini, s. d. 26. Lettre du 17 mars, ICT; l’archevêque de Paris vient pourtant de critiquer l’intégrisme dans sa lettre pastorale de Carême Essoroudéclindel’Église datée du 11 février 1947. 27. Lettre du 29 mars, ICT. 28. Première réaction du dossier, celle du père Teilhard de Chardin date du 3 avril, ICT. Le texte est publié ensuite dans le Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 48 (1947) 65-84.

SOLAGES VERSUS GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (1947)

349

tient du bouclier anti-missiles. Abritée derrière une recommandation du pape Benoît XIV sur la censure des livres, l’idée de manœuvre du recteur de Toulouse est de prouver que le dominicain de l’Angelicum, qui «manie tout le temps le thomisme comme une massue pour écraser ses adversaires, ferait mieux d’être plus fidèle à l’exemple du Docteur Angélique»29. La première règle violée par le père Garrigou-Lagrange est d’ordre déontologique: «on n’utilise pas – entre honnêtes gens – dans une controverse publique, des textes qui ne sont pas dans le domaine public, à plus forte raison des textes dont on ne sait pas s’ils sont authentiques»30. Non seulement Garrigou s’y risque, à la différence de saint Thomas, mais il le fait sur la foi de propos rapportés par des «indicateurs». «Nous sommes un certain nombre qui, sous l’occupation, ont été payés pour savoir» ce que valent les renseignements ainsi obtenus, écrit Bruno de Solages, héros de la Résistance spirituelle. L’allusion est particulièrement cruelle. En s’en prenant à un propos ancien du père Yves de Montcheuil, fusillé par les Allemands, que Solages se refuse à nommer, le père Garrigou-Lagrange a franchi un interdit, lui dont la fidélité aveugle au maréchal Pétain était de notoriété publique31. Tout aussi coupable, l’utilisation d’un inédit du père Teilhard de Chardin était inutile, puisque le dominicain pouvait fonder sa critique sur des articles publiés. Après la leçon de déontologie, la leçon de méthode, avec la dénonciation du procès de tendance intenté à un groupe artificiellement constitué. Alors que Thomas d’Aquin distinguait soigneusement les nuances entre ses contradicteurs, le père Garrigou-Lagrange a construit de toutes pièces, sous l’étiquette «nouvelle théologie», un être de raison qui n’a de consistance que dans son esprit faussé. Or Bruno de Solages est bien placé pour souligner, qu’«il n’y a pas moins de distance entre le ‘Teilhardisme’ et le Blondélisme qu’entre les courants platoniciens et aristotéliciens» du Moyen âge32. Un bon disciple de saint Thomas aurait dû éviter des amalgames de ce genre. Enfin et surtout, troisième étape de la démolition, le père Garrigou, loin de rendre compte de l’ensemble de la pensée de ceux qu’il critique, la réduit à quelques phrases de leurs œuvres, sorties de leur contexte et parfois citées de manière erronée: une phrase du père de Lubac dans 29. Ibid., p. 66. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid., p. 67. Dans sa lettre au père Labourdette du 20 février, le père Gillon lui demandait de se démarquer d’un «certain intégrisme qui a approuvé la livraison des juifs par Pétain et d’autres petits cas de conscience analogues» (sans toutefois accuser le père Garrigou d’un tel méfait), ADT. 32. Ibid., p. 69.

350

É. FOUILLOUX

Surnaturel pour l’accuser de confondre l’ordre naturel et l’ordre surnaturel; une phrase du père Daniélou et une phrase citée fautivement du père Chenu pour les accuser de refuser à la théologie son caractère scientifique en la fondant sur la seule expérience religieuse; une interprétation fautive de la phrase du père Bouillard selon lequel «une théologie qui ne serait pas actuelle serait une théologie fausse»; enfin et surtout la définition par Maurice Blondel de la vérité comme «adaequatio realis mentis et vitae», et non comme l’«adaequatio [speculativa] rei et intellectus» des scolastiques, erreur de laquelle procéderait toute la «nouvelle théologie»: vieille querelle que le dominicain poursuit depuis des décennies contre le maître d’Aix sans tenir compte de l’évolution de la pensée de celui-ci. Cinq citations partielles, cinq contre-sens. «Un théologien qui s’avère incapable d’interpréter correctement les textes perd tout droit à porter un jugement sur eux. Par la même, comme juge de leur orthodoxie, il se disqualifie» assène Mgr de Solages33. Mais confondre les amalgames et les contre-sens du père GarrigouLagrange ne suffit pas, car les œuvres qu’il pourfend pointent un vrai problème, identifié par le recteur de Toulouse comme celui du «rapport de l’évolution à la transcendance»34, c’est-à-dire de l’impact du temps, de la durée, de l’histoire, sur la vérité que le magistère catholique continue de présenter comme une immuabilité dans l’Être. En s’appuyant sur l’exemple de saint Thomas aux prises avec la découverte d’Aristote, le recteur de Toulouse montre comment, avec des fondements philosophiques différents, le père Teilhard de Chardin, le père Fessard ou le père de Lubac tentent de résoudre la difficulté, sans se cantonner au fixisme de Garrigou. «Mais dans cette entreprise complexe qui a pour but, à l’exemple même de l’attitude de saint Thomas d’Aquin au XIIIe siècle, de sauver la transcendance dans l’évolution, quel rôle s’est attribué le R. P. Garrigou-Lagrange, le thomiste bien connu»? «Il est – et je le regrette – dans le camp de ceux qui firent condamner saint Thomas en son temps»35, conclut de façon ironique Bruno de Solages dont les pages vigoureuses ont méthodiquement détruit l’argumentation du dominicain. Au terme de sa démonstration, il n’en reste plus rien. Ceux qu’il critique ont été plus fidèles à saint Thomas que lui. La «nouvelle théologie» n’existe pas comme tendance constituée. Et la pensée de ceux que le dominicain y amalgame indûment ne saurait être suspectée de modernisme. 33. Ibid., p. 80. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., p. 84.

SOLAGES VERSUS GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (1947)

IV. LA

351

GRATITUDE DES PAIRS

Le dossier de réactions conservé par le recteur de Toulouse comporte quarante-huit pièces. Une seule lui est franchement hostile: la carte du jésuite Joseph de Tonquédec, autre adversaire de Blondel, qu’il a qualifié de «thomiste sclérosé», ce que son correspondant interprète, non sans humour, comme «durci dans la fidélité à S. Thomas»36. Toutes les autres réactions sont positives, mais avec des nuances appréciables. Huit proviennent de jésuites proches de Fourvière qui ne cachent pas leur satisfaction. «Mes fils injustement attaqués ont trouvé en vous leur noble et courageux défenseur», remercie le père Auguste Décisier, provincial de Lyon (5 avril). Gaston Fessard se félicite de la «correction magistrale» administrée à Garrigou (4 avril); René d’Ouince, d’une «magistrale exécution» (10 avril); l’exégète Joseph Bonsirven, naguère victime de censure, envoie «un merci très vif pour la défense que vous apportez à la vraie théologie» (20 avril); Henri Bouillard nie toute intention de prôner une nouvelle définition de la vérité (21 mai). Le moins enthousiaste est le père de Lubac: tout en admettant la nécessité de la réplique et sa justesse sur le fond, il en craint les retombées car elle exprime «des choses dures, et c’est bien regrettable», qui peuvent inciter «beaucoup de prudents [à dire] peut-être qu’elle est trop forte» (lundi de Pâques, 7 avril). Des sept réponses dominicaines, la moins convaincue provient du père François-Marie Braun, exégète de Fribourg, pour lequel «il ne suffit pas qu’un auteur commette des fautes contre ses adversaires pour que la cause de ceux-ci soit digne d’être approuvée sans réserves» (26 avril); «Quelle sonnerie de cloches!», se réjouit en revanche le père Chenu (5 avril); «Il est parfait», cet article, écrit de Rome le père Delos (11 avril); «Pour cet acte courageux merci», ajoutent les pères Congar et Féret (17 avril); «Quelle volée de bois vert au Père Garrigou!», se félicite le père Boisselot: «Voilà trop longtemps que cet esprit sans objectivité empoisonne l’atmosphère de travail, en France notamment» (6 mai). Les franciscains Damien Van Hoorn, de Rotterdam, JeanFrançois Bonnefoy et Adalbert Hamman font chorus: «Enfin il s’est trouvé quelqu’un pour rappeler aux soi-disant champions de l’orthodoxie de respecter les lois de la plus élémentaire honnêteté. Vivons-nous sous l’inquisition encore?», s’inquiète le dernier (20 juin). Les facultés de théologie francophones ne sont pas en reste. «Faut-il vous dire que la Faculté de Théologie de Lille rejoint de grand cœur, en semblable procès, celle de Toulouse et celle de Lyon? Et comme Paris est évidemment dans 36. Ibid., note p. 80; réponse, carte s. d.

352

É. FOUILLOUX

la même ligne, cette unanimité qui va se resserrant ne peut être que de bon augure», écrit le doyen Palémon Glorieux (19 avril)37. Pour Lyon, on ne possède que la chaleureuse approbation de l’exégète Joseph Chaine (17 avril)38 et le témoignage indirect du père de Lubac (29 avril)39. «Il me paraît difficile d’asséner plus fortement une leçon de méthode», constate le recteur de Paris, Mgr Blanchet, moins chaleureux toutefois que le doyen de sa faculté de théologie, Mgr Arquillière: «Vous luttez pour labonnecause!», écrit celui-ci à Solages (s. d.). De Louvain proviennent les soutiens de Franz Grégoire, qui approuve «une œuvre brillante et courageuse de salubrité publique» (6 avril), de René Draguet, qui offre de renseigner Solages sur son exclusion récente de la faculté de théologie (12 avril) et du recteur, Mgr Van Waeyenbergh, qui le remercie et le félicite «de tout cœur» (18 avril). Des prêtres voués à la formation du clergé, comme le sulpicien André Callon, du grand séminaire d’Issyles-Moulineaux (14 avril) ou à celle des laïcs, comme l’abbé Émile Berrar, conseiller ecclésiastique du Centre catholique des intellectuels français (18 avril), se joignent au concert de louanges. Malgré quelques réserves sur sa vivacité de ton, la réponse de Mgr de Solages au père Garrigou-Lagrange recueille donc une large approbation dans les milieux théologiques d’expression française, où elle fait figure de réparation bienvenue. Les quelques réactions épiscopales sont plus partagées. La plus favorable est celle du cardinal Petit de Julleville, archevêque de Rouen, qui confirme ainsi son soutien de longue date à l’aile marchante du catholicisme français: «Je crois qu’il était temps de défendre tant de bons esprits qui se trouvaient attaqués. Vous l’avez fait, avec force et loyauté; on ne peut que vous en féliciter» (17 avril). Même soutien de la part du cardinal Liénart, évêque de Lille: «Je suis avec attention cette affaire, souhaitant vivement qu’on puisse dans la recherche de la vérité émettre, entre théologiens, des opinions différentes et les discuter loyalement sans être aussitôt soupçonné dans son orthodoxie» (5 avril). En visite ad limina, Mgr Carton de Wiart, évêque de Tournai, fait état de ses entretiens avec le père Garrigou-Lagrange et avec le père Gillet, maître général

37. On notera l’absence d’Angers et de Strasbourg. Mais l’abbé Maurice Nédoncelle, professeur de philosophie à Strasbourg, a assuré par avance Mgr de Solages de son soutien (14 mars). 38. «J’étais aux Journées Universitaires de Lille quand la nouvelle de cette réponse est arrivée. Parmi les initiés la joie a été grande. Je suis revenu par Paris. À Paris et à Lyon, on se réjouit». 39. «Mes confrères de l’Institut catholique m’écrivent leur soulagement et leur joie à la lecture de votre Réponse au Père Garrigou-Lagrange».

SOLAGES VERSUS GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (1947)

353

des dominicains, mais aussi de son désaccord avec les expressions imprudentes du père Daniélou. Il se garde bien de dire qu’il plaide alors la cause de réhabilitation de René Draguet, prêtre de son diocèse (16 avril)40. Les avis du vicaire général de Périgueux, Mgr Dupin de SaintCyr, qui s’afflige de telles querelles (29 mai), de Mgr Guerry, archevêque coadjuteur de Cambrai, ou de Mgr Feltin, archevêque de Bordeaux, sont sans doute plus représentatifs de l’état d’esprit moyen de l’épiscopat. Mgr Guerry juge la réponse de Solages «étourdissante, accablante pour la victime» et pense qu’elle «calmera toutes les ambitions belliqueuses des intégristes». Mais il y déplore «certaines expressions, celles qui attaquent la personne». Et il invite Solages à «s’élever au-dessus des polémiques» et à dominer les mouvements intérieurs de révolte» pour mieux assumer la mission qui est incontestablement la sienne (6 avril). «On est unanime à reconnaître la valeur de votre position, mais puisque vous me demandez mon avis, laissez-moi vous dire en toute simplicité confiante que plusieurs regrettent le ton un peu trop vif du débat et pensent que plus de sérénité dans l’expression […] aurait donné plus de force encore à votre argumentation», écrit Mgr Feltin (3 juin). V. UN

COUP D’ÉPÉE DANS L’EAU?

Le père Garrigou-Lagrange prend son temps pour répondre à Mgr de Solages. Sans paraître outré par la virulence de celui-ci, il se défend de «vouloir imposer à tous le thomisme» alors qu’il demande «seulement qu’on adhère à la valeur réelle du principe de contradiction»41. Les courtes pages de conclusion du recteur de Toulouse sur la nécessité de conjuguer évolution et transcendance ne l’ont pourtant pas convaincu; et elles n’ont pas convaincu non plus les Maritain ni leurs amis de la Revue Thomiste. D’accord en cela avec Garrigou, Raïssa Maritain estime «que ce qui gêne le plus les nouveaux théologiens c’est le substrat de philosophie aristotélico-thomiste des formules dogmatiques. En tout état de cause ne devraient-ils pas comprendre que seule une philosophie fondée sur le sens commun […] peut servir de véhicule à une révélation proposée à l’humanité tout entière sans limitation de temps ni d’espace»; sans être canonisée, elle possède en effet «l’universalité la plus proche de la Révélation». Elle touche là une des racines de la querelle, car il est 40. W. DE PRIL, Theological Renewal and the Resurgence of Integrism: The René DraguetCase(1942)inItsContext (BETL, 266), Leuven, Peeters, 2016. 41. Lettre à Jacques Maritain du 28 avril 1947, BNUS.

354

É. FOUILLOUX

peu vraisemblable que les jésuites incriminés acceptent un tel présupposé42. Le père Labourdette, pour sa part, juge l’article de Solages «peu qualifiable en sa forme et très léger en son fond». «Je peux vous répéter que vos positions doctrinales essentielles sont nôtres», écrit-il au père Garrigou-Lagrange. Il n’en justifie pas moins le refus de publier son article dans la RevueThomiste par le désir que la discussion théologique ne soit pas entravée par le risque d’une intervention du magistère. L’article était «fait pour Rome», pas pour la France où le climat intellectuel est bien différent43. Jacques Maritain plaide lui aussi pour une «libre discussion sereine et approfondie» seule apte à conduire les esprits vers la lumière44. Pour les tranquilliser, le père Garrigou assure qu’il répondra à Solages «d’une manière toute objective, en parlant le moins possible des personnes»45. Ce sera l’article «Vérité et immutabilité du dogme» où il persiste et signe, contre Maurice Blondel surtout, mais aussi contre Bouillard, de Lubac et Fessard46. «Je la trouve meilleure que son premier article», écrit l’abbé Journet à Maritain de sa réponse, «et au moins, il ramène la dispute sur le plan de l’esprit», pas des personnes47. Campant sur ses positions, le dominicain romain ne fait guère avancer un débat aux allures de dialogue de sourds, mais il fait retomber la polémique. Le bénéfice intellectuel de la passe d’armes est donc minime. Reste à en évaluer l’effet tactique. L’intervention de Mgr de Solages a-t-elle atteint son but: protéger les auteurs incriminés d’éventuelles sanctions romaines? La réponse est, elle aussi, négative. Déconsidéré en France, le père Garrigou-Lagrange ne l’est pas en «Hollande, Amérique, Espagne» où son offensive aurait fait «très grande impression»48. Tel n’est pas non plus le cas à Rome si l’on en croit les informateurs du recteur de Toulouse. Seul Mgr André Jullien, doyen français du tribunal de Rote («Opus justitiae», 13 avril) et peut-être le jésuite belge du Saint-Office Joseph Creusen, ont apprécié sa philippique49. «En gros, j’ai l’impression que ceux qui ont l’expérience du travail intellectuel trouvent que vous avez bien raison, et que ce que vous avez dit est ‘le moins que l’on puisse dire’. Par contre, j’ai l’impression que nombre de ceux qui exercent une fonction qui participe à l’exercice de l’autorité ont vu avec déplaisir une 42. Lettre s. d., avec laquelle Garrigou exprime son accord le 22 février, BNUS, copie. 43. Lettre du 21 avril 1947, ADT, copie. «Je suis consterné de la parution de l’article du P. Garrigou», écrit pour sa part à Solages le père Nicolas, s. d. 44. Lettre du 6 mai 1947, BNUS, copie. 45. Lettre à Jacques Maritain du 6 mai, BNUS. 46. Angelicum, avril-juin 1947, pp. 124-139. 47. Lettre du 29 juin, Journet Maritain, Correspondance, III (n. 6), p. 563. 48. Lettre du père de Lubac à Solages, 29 avril. 49. Lettre de Mgr de Courrèges à Solages, 5 juin.

SOLAGES VERSUS GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE (1947)

355

discussion polémique entre personnages importants, portée devant le grand public», lui écrit le père Delos50. Mgr de Courrèges est plus précis. «J’ai recueilli ces jours-ci des remarques défavorables à votre sujet faites à des tiers par Mgr Ott[aviani] et Mgr Mont[ini]. Le second a parlé d’excuses que vous devriez faire au Père Gar[rigou]»51. Il ne s’agit pas que de bruits de couloirs. «Je crois pourtant dès maintenant – sur la seule vue du titre [‘Pour l’honneur de la Théologie’ qu’il n’a pas encore lu] – devoir vous confier très simplement une certaine inquiétude qui me vient à voir rallumer de cette manière des disputes entre théologiens», écrit à Solages le substitut de la Secrétairerie d’État Mgr Montini. «Est-ce vraiment bien le moment et la méthode qui conviennent? Et ne vaudrait-il pas mieux, pour le bien de l’Église, procéder sur un ton plus modéré? Je vous confie cette suggestion à titre amical et confidentiel et n’ayant uniquement en vue en cela que le bien général, et le vôtre en particulier»52. Manifestement, la contre-offensive du recteur de Toulouse a déplu en cour de Rome, sur la forme à tout le moins: il ne fallait pas porter sur la place publique un débat technique qui risque de troubler le bon peuple. Dans sa longue lettre de justification, dont nous n’avons que le brouillon, le recteur de Toulouse finit par donner sa motivation première: «En réalité, je n’aurais pas pris la plume si la procédure du Saint-Office était normale. Si j’avais été sûr qu’en cas de procès les intéressés seraient appelés à s’expliquer et que leurs supérieurs hiérarchiques, consultés d’office, auraient pu prendre leur défense, je serais resté tranquille car je n’aime pas la controverse. Mais j’ai craint que, trop facilement impressionné par l’autorité du père Garrigou-Lagrange, seul théologien français porté sur l’Annuario pontificio comme appartenant au SaintOffice, une condamnation s’en suive»53. Or des sanctions contre Chenu, de Lubac ou Teilhard auraient, selon Solages, sur l’Église de France et sur l’Église tout court, des répercussions catastrophiques54. Mgr de Solages n’a pas plus de succès sur le terrain ecclésial que sur le terrain intellectuel. Son intervention est même contre-productive: elle diminue son crédit à Rome où il n’obtient que difficilement une audience pontificale en juin 194855. Quant aux procédures contre les théologiens

50. Lettre du 6 juin. 51. Lettre de Mgr de Courrèges à Solages, 11 mai, ICT. 52. Lettre de Mgr Montini à Solages, N. 153035, 17 mai, ICT. 53. Brouillon de la réponse de Solages à Mgr Montini, s. d., ICT. 54. Il renouvelle, dans le cas Teilhard, sa crainte d’une nouvelle affaire Galilée. 55. Après une autre passe d’armes sur la théorie de l’évolution, dépêche de Jean Bourdeillette à Georges Bidault, 18 juin 1948, Archives du Ministère français des Affaires étrangères.

356

É. FOUILLOUX

visés par le père Garrigou, elles suivent leur cours souterrain. Les jésuites de Fourvière seront durement frappés en 1950 et le Saulchoir dominicain une seconde fois en 1954. La passe d’armes Solages-Garrigou n’a donc au total qu’un caractère anecdotique. Irruption retentissante de la querelle de la «nouvelle théologie» dans l’opinion, elle a retenu brièvement l’attention par son inhabituelle intensité. Elle est restée dans les mémoires comme le bref moment paroxystique au cours duquel deux figures majeures de la théologie française se sont affrontées sans fleurets mouchetés. Elle nourrit le complexe antiromain du catholicisme français et y ruine définitivement la réputation du père Garrigou-Lagrange, désormais identifié de façon réductrice au seul texte démoli par Mgr de Solages. [email protected]

Étienne FOUILLOUX

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE À LA LUMIÈRE DE L’ÉTUDE D’YVES CONGAR SUR LE RENOUVEAU DE L’ÉGLISE

En 2017, cinq siècles après le début de la Réforme – la révolte de Martin Luther contre le commerce des indulgences par les thèses qu’il énonce le 31 octobre 1517 –, parut un document fustigeant le pape François qui aurait l’intention de mettre en œuvre une réforme de l’Église dans la lignée de celle de Luther1. Comme on admet généralement que l’actuel souverain pontife, dans la foulée de ses prédécesseurs Paul VI, Jean-Paul II et Benoît XVI, désire exécuter l’«aggiornamento» du Concile Vatican II2, ceci impliquerait que, sous l’influence de ce concile, le célèbre réformateur allemand du XVIe siècle soit désormais reçu positivement dans l’Église catholique environ 500 ans après la publication de ses 95 thèses. Dans la présente contribution, je souhaite vérifier dans quelle mesure cette hypothèse est correcte, à l’aide d’une étude critique du livre fondamental d’Yves Congar sur la réforme de l’Église paru en 19503, dans lequel l’auteur, qui était déjà connu pour une étude sur les principes d’un œcuménisme catholique, veut donner un fil conducteur pour tendre au renouveau qu’il percevait dans l’Église (et principalement celle de la France). La réforme vraie et authentique à laquelle il faut aspirer, selon Congar, est une réforme qui ne conduit pas à un déchirement de l’Église, comme l’a fait celle de Luther, mais qui parvient à en préserver l’unité. Dans son ouvrage, Congar émet un jugement plutôt négatif de la Réforme du XVIe siècle.

1. Dans un résumé de la lettre ouverte Correctiofilialisdehaeresibuspropagatis, il est dit que l’une des causes de la crise dans l’Église «est constituée par l’influence apparente des idées de Martin Luther sur le pape François. La lettre montre comment Luther, fondateur du protestantisme, avait sur le mariage, le divorce, le pardon et la loi divine des idées qui correspondent à celles promues par le pape en paroles, en actions et par omission. Elle met également en évidence la louange explicite et sans précédent qu’a faite le pape de l’hérésiarque allemand» (www.correctiofilialis.org). 2. G. O’CONNELL, CardinalWuerl:PopeFrancisHasReconnectedtheChurchwith VaticanII, dans America.TheJesuitReview, 6 mars 2017 (https://www.americamagazine. org/faith/2017/03/06/cardinal-wuerl-pope-francis-has-reconnected-church-vatican-ii). 3. Y.M.-J. CONGAR,Vraieetfausseréformedansl’Église (Unam Sanctam, 20), Paris, Cerf, 1950. Sur Congar: J. FAMERÉE, L’ecclésiologie d’Yves Congar avant Vatican II. HistoireetÉglise:Analyseetreprisecritique (BETL, 107), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1992; C.T.M. VAN VLIET, Communio sacramentalis: Das Kirchenverständnis von Yves Congar, genetisch und systematisch betrachtet, Mainz, MatthiasGrünewald-Verlag, 1995.

358

M. GIELIS

Après quelques commentaires sur le livre de Congar dans la première partie, j’examinerai dans la partie suivante la Réforme du XVIe siècle à la lumière des principes d’une réforme catholique avancés dans cet ouvrage. Dans la troisième et dernière partie de cette contribution, je soumettrai certaines considérations critiques concernant le jugement de Congar sur la Réforme, afin d’en tirer une leçon pour la réception de Luther dans l’Église catholique contemporaine. I. LE LIVRE FONDAMENTAL D’YVES CONGAR SUR L’ÉGLISE

LA RÉFORME DE

Dans l’introduction de Vraie et fausse réforme de l’Église4, Congar signale la présence d’une forte aspiration à une réforme et un renouveau de l’Église dans le catholicisme français au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Il vise à évaluer cette aspiration à la lumière des principes devant servir de base à une réforme de l’Église qui ne provoquerait pas un nouveau déchirement de celle-ci, comme l’avait fait la Réforme du XVIe siècle. Dans une première partie5, il examine dans quel sens l’Église peut ou éventuellement doit se réformer. L’Église étant une institution divine selon la doctrine catholique, le croyant peut aisément avoir la conviction qu’elle est immuable, qu’elle n’a nul besoin de réforme et que celle-ci serait même impossible. Congar distingue toutefois l’Église en tant que communauté des croyants et l’Église comme institution fondée par JésusChrist. En tant que communauté de pécheurs, l’Église peut souffrir de «vices» qui doivent être combattus par une réforme. De tels vices sont l’attention exclusivement portée aux apparences et l’absolutisation des formes temporelles d’une période historique déterminée. La reconnaissance de l’historicité de l’Église est donc une condition pour se rendre compte que, parfois, une réforme est nécessaire. Dans la deuxième partie6, Congar s’étend sur les quatre conditions à remplir pour aboutir à une réforme juste et bonne, c’est-à-dire sans risque de schisme. 1) Une réforme doit être axée sur la pastorale et sur le concept de la charité, et ne peut être une construction purement théologique ou intellectuelle. 4. CONGAR, Vraieetfausseréforme(n. 3), pp. 19-59. 5. Ibid., pp. 61-228. 6. Ibid., pp. 229-352.

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE

359

2) Une réforme doit avoir lieu en communion avec tout le corps de l’Église, ce qui suppose que les personnes qui désirent cette réforme adoptent une attitude non schismatique. Elles doivent reconnaître le rôle de la hiérarchie ecclésiastique et s’y soumettre: le salut doit finalement venir à travers l’Église et non à travers la personnalité individuelle du réformateur! 3) Par conséquent, ceux qui œuvrent à une réforme doivent attendre jusqu’à cette réforme soit acceptée par la hiérarchie et/ou ait influencé en profondeur la communauté des croyants. Mais en même temps, Congar estime que la hiérarchie ne doit pas inutilement mettre à l’épreuve la patience des réformateurs. 4) La condition la plus importante pour une bonne réforme est qu’elle doit avoir lieu par un ressourcement à la Tradition, et non pas par une adaptation au courant de la pensée de l’époque. Une réforme de l’Église catholique qui veut avoir une chance de réussir doit être fondée sur le principe de la Tradition, et non pas seulement sur l’introduction d’une «nouveauté», comme ce fut le cas dans le libéralisme de Lamennais et dans le modernisme. Le principe régulateur et actif doit être la Tradition et non pas des nouveautés auxquelles on veut donner une place, par exemple de nouvelles formes de la liturgie ou la proclamation de la foi, qui seraient souhaitables pour joindre les évolutions des coutumes ou la culture d’un peuple auquel l’Évangile vient d’être annoncé. Ceci signifie que la Tradition se développe en assimilant le nouvel élément, mais parallèlement, continue à remplir la fonction de critère envers ce nouvel élément. Congar établit la comparaison avec l’aspiration à l’œcuménisme catholique, qui peut seulement exister dans un développement de la Tradition catholique tel que les éléments acceptables apportés par les chrétiens non catholiques peuvent ressortir simultanément de l’intérieur de l’Église catholique. L’Église catholique doit constamment chercher, en particulier à chaque renouveau et pour chaque effort œcuménique supposant un renouveau, à rester fidèle à la Tradition, qui inclut d’ailleurs «des éléments rigoureusement normatifs»7 (Écriture sainte et définitions des dogmes). Congar soutient que cela ne signifie nullement que l’Église doit conserver immuablement l’apparence qu’elle avait prise à un moment déterminé de son histoire – comme le voudraient les intégristes. Le retour au principe de la Tradition ne signifie pas non plus une restauration de son état originel, un retour à la lettre d’un «monument» de la Tradition tel que 7. Ibid., p. 336.

360

M. GIELIS

saint Augustin – comme le voudraient les jansénistes –, et même non plus de demeurer fidèle à la lettre des Écritures – plusieurs mouvements de réforme dans l’histoire ecclésiastique sont tombés dans ce piège. Mais il n’est pas facile d’exprimer de façon positive ce que signifie spécifiquement ce retour au principe de la Tradition. Pourtant, un ressourcement aux Écritures et à la Tradition est essentiel pour une saine réforme. C’est pourquoi l’étude théologique et surtout l’étude de la théologie positive, par conséquent l’exégèse et l’histoire de l’Église et de la théologie, ont une fonction irremplaçable. Il s’agit de se distancier, par la connaissance de la Tradition plus large, de l’interprétation trop stricte à laquelle l’Église a été éventuellement amenée par les développements récentes. De cette Tradition plus large, il faut distinguer des éléments qui peuvent défier les contemporains plus que les éléments déformés d’une tradition récente. Un réformateur doit cependant veiller à ne pas répéter les hérésies déjà condamnées dans le passé. De tout cela il apparaît que la hiérarchie ecclésiastique doit jouer un rôle important dans une réforme. Parce qu’il est de son devoir fondamental de préserver fidèlement l’héritage qui lui a été confié, elle conduit les esprits réformateurs à se justifier à partir de la Tradition et par conséquent à mettre en œuvre le principe de la Tradition. Congar souligne qu’une bonne réforme liturgique (par exemple à la suite de l’introduction de la langue vernaculaire, qu’il prévoit déjà en 1950) offre le modèle par excellence d’une telle réforme. Ayant établi les critères pour distinguer une bonne réforme d’une fausse, Congar se sent contraint de dresser une évaluation de la Réforme protestante du XVIe siècle. Il y consacre la troisième partie de son ouvrage8. Dans l’introduction de cette partie9 il complète les considérations ecclésiologiques de la première partie en faisant une distinction entre la structure (au singulier), les structures (au pluriel) et la vie de l’Église. «La structure» de l’Église en tant qu’institution (dogme, sacrements, hiérarchie) est immuable; «les structures» sont des formes temporaires dans lesquelles s’inscrit cette structure (élaboration concrète de la catéchèse, prédication, théologie, liturgie, pastorale); «la vie de l’Église» concerne la conduite morale des croyants et de l’hiérarchie ecclésiastique. Une réforme morale ne pose aucun problème: c’est en effet l’essence même de la vie de la foi de s’efforcer de mieux respecter la loi évangélique de l’amour de Dieu et du prochain. Le vrai problème 8. Ibid., pp. 353-536. 9. Ibid., pp. 355-367.

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE

361

d’une réforme de l’Église consiste à distinguer entre une réforme ou un changement de la structure essentielle de l’Église, qui ne peut avoir lieu, et une réforme ou un renouvellement des structures temporaires et changeantes, dans lesquelles est incorporée cette structure. Selon Congar, les réformateurs du XVIe siècle ont introduit une réforme qui a débouché sur un schisme, parce qu’en s’appuyant sur une notion erronée de l’Église, ils en ont modifié et déformé la structure essentielle10. Congar voit déjà présents dans le Moyen Âge des antécédents de cette conception erronée de l’Église: l’augustinisme, qui conçoit l’Église comme une communauté de personnes prédestinées, les mouvements critiques comme l’ockhamisme et l’aspiration du conciliarisme à une réforme. La critique fondamentale de Congar à l’égard du réformateur Martin Luther est qu’il considère l’Église, dans la lignée de ces courants de pensée, selon un mouvement de l’intérieur vers l’extérieur: pour Luther importe la foi intérieure, qui s’exprime ensuite par la confession de la foi et les sacrements; tout au plus il peut accepter quelque influence de la parole biblique (considérée de façon nominaliste). L’Église catholique voit les choses différemment, notamment comme un mouvement de l’extérieur (les éléments extérieurs comme le dogme et les sacrements) vers l’intérieur (l’âme): l’Église est un moyen de grâce. Selon Congar, les autres réformateurs comme Zwingli et Calvin adoptent le même spiritualisme que Luther. Congar exprime la position ecclésiologique du protestantisme en général comme suit11: les protestants acceptent l’action intérieure du Christ divin, par laquelle une vie chrétienne est réalisée chez les individus, qui se réunissent ensuite sous la forme d’une communauté ecclésiale. L’explication de cette ecclésiologie peut être trouvée dans un certain docétisme au sein de la christologie (c’est-à-dire la conception hérétique que Jésus-Christ n’était pas vraiment un être humain) et dans une certaine conception de la relation entre transcendance et immanence, qui ne parvient pas à voir quelque chose de sensible comme transcendant. Pour un catholique en revanche, l’Église est également considérée comme sacrée en tant qu’institution extérieure, mais sacramentelle. Ce contraste entre les vues catholiques et protestantes peut s’expliquer par les paroles de Gilles de Viterbe au cinquième Concile de Latran (1512-1517), qui reflète la vision catholique sur la réforme de l’Église, notamment que le «sacré» (l’institution) doit changer la «communauté» des hommes, et non l’inverse: «Hominespersacraimmutarifasest,non 10. Ibid., pp. 368-440. 11. Ibid., pp. 440-466.

362

M. GIELIS

sacraperhomines»12! Selon Congar, un protestant veut réformer l’Église à partir de la subjectivité humaine (sacra immutari per homines), alors qu’un catholique veut opérer une réforme à partir de la Parole et du Sacrement ou d’une Tradition «objectivement» donnée (homines per sacra immutari). Congar formule ensuite une critique détaillée des implications du point de vue protestant13: 1) Le protestantisme ne reconnaît pas que, dans le Nouveau Testament, la rédemption par le Christ est irrévocablement accordée à l’Église, et échoue de ce fait dans un occasionalisme typique de l’Ancien Testament. 2) Le protestantisme considère erronément le rapport entre Écriture sainte, Tradition et Église. Selon le catholicisme, la Tradition est la présence de la Révélation dans l’Église; elle est une réalité sacramentelle. Une réforme doit être basée sur la Tradition: l’Écriture sainte est le plus ancien «monument» ou témoin de la Tradition. Mais elle n’est pas une norme extrinsèque pour l’Église; on ne peut par conséquent jamais s’appuyer sur l’Écriture sainte ni sur d’autres témoignages de la Tradition (par exemple les Pères de l’Église) pour critiquer l’Église actuelle de l’extérieur. 3) Le protestantisme a aussi une conception fautive du rôle des théologiens. Luther a justifié son activité de réformateur par son titre de docteur en théologie; la Tradition (et l’Écriture sainte) est en fait, en tant que «norma normans», au-dessus de l’autorité cléricale qui est la «norma normata» pour les croyants; les théologiens sont donc également soumis à cette autorité ecclésiastique, mais en tant que savants de l’Écriture sainte et de la Tradition – qu’ils doivent interpréter pour leur temps –, ils exercent éventuellement une fonction critique envers le magistère, dont ils ne peuvent jamais se dissocier: c’est le magistère (le pape et les évêques) qui présente le dogme aux croyants, non pas les théologiens. Dans la conclusion de son livre14, Congar détermine plusieurs attitudes envers cette aspiration à une réforme. En ce qui concerne cette aspiration en général, il décèle d’une part le groupe de personnes ouvertes aux réformes, et d’autre part celles qui les refusent; ces groupes correspondent à ceux qui reconnaissent oui ou non l’historicité de l’existence 12. G.D. MANSI, Sacrorumconciliorumnovaetamplissimacollectio,Florence, Expensis Antonii Zatta, 1759-1798, vol. XXXII, col. 669. 13. CONGAR, Vraieetfausseréforme(n. 3), pp. 466-536. 14. Ibid., pp. 537-576.

363

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE

humaine. Qu’un réformateur demeure fidèle à l’Église ou devienne un révolutionnaire est en général une question de caractère. En ce qui concerne l’aspiration à une réforme qu’il perçoit dans l’Église (de France) au milieu du siècle dernier, Congar souligne que la fiabilité du mouvement de réforme et l’ouverture de la hiérarchie permettent de nourrir un espoir légitime d’une réforme sans schisme. Bien plus réel que le risque de schisme était alors le danger d’une polarisation de l’Église. Dans des publications ultérieures, Congar revient à plusieurs reprises à ce qu’il a affirmé dans son étude fondamentale de 1950 à propos de la réforme de l’Église et y ajoute des compléments ou traite de thèmes relatés. Ainsi, dans l’étude en deux volumes La Tradition et les traditions, parue de 1960 à 1963, au début du Concile Vatican II (1962-65), il traite du rapport entre la Tradition et la Révélation, l’Église et l’Écriture sainte, mais aussi des «monuments» de la Tradition (dont le Nouveau Testament est le premier du point de vue chronologique et donc le plus important du point de vue théologique) et à nouveau, de la problématique du protestantisme15. Il consacre une annexe au concept d’Évangile gravé dans le cœur, qui est à peu près synonyme de «Tradition». On retient surtout le parallélisme entre la structure et les structures d’une part, la Tradition et les traditions d’autre part. Dans la suite de cette contribution, j’aborderai les mouvements réformateurs du XVIe siècle que Congar a examinés de façon critique dans Vraieetfausseréformedel’Église, pour vérifier si l’évaluation qu’il en donne est plausible. Je pense que Congar, en tant que théologien, a établi des critères très utiles basés sur la Tradition pour juger si une réforme, du point de vue catholique, doit être considérée comme authentique ou fausse, mais d’autre part je crois qu’il se trompe, en tant qu’historien, dans l’interprétation et l’évaluation des mouvements réformateurs du XVIe siècle. II. MARTIN LUTHER ET LES AUTRES RÉFORMATEURS

DU

XVIE

SIÈCLE

Au congrès BreachesandBridgesintheHistoryofEuropeanSpirituality (Utrecht, 13-16 janvier 2010), j’ai parlé d’un concept commenté par Congar dans LaTraditionetlestraditions: l’Évangile infusé au cœur du croyant par la prédication et les sacrements de l’Église. J’ai étudié comment ce concept avait été appréhendé par les divers mouvements 15. Y.M.-J. Congar, LaTraditionetlestraditions, Paris, Fayard, 1960-1963.

364

M. GIELIS

réformateurs du XVIe siècle, et aussi comment ces diverses tendances peuvent être évaluées du point de vue catholique (c’est-à-dire de la vision exprimée par Congar dans Vraie et fausse réforme de l’Église). Je suis revenu à ces questions dans des publications ultérieures16. Au début du XVIe siècle, plusieurs mouvements se sont opposés à la conception de la vie chrétienne, qui était la plus répandue à la fin du Moyen Âge et qui se caractérisait par l’intellectualisme, le ritualisme et le juridisme. La prédication de la foi était conçue comme l’imposition d’une doctrine scolastique. Celle-ci avait été transmise en tant qu’une oratiomentalis dans la tradition orale depuis les apôtres jusqu’aux théologiens du Moyen Âge, et présentée ensuite comme la doctrine que l’Église nous propose à croire. La vie sacramentelle était considérée comme une série de rituels imposés par l’Église, qui tendaient vers la magie et la vénalité. L’éthique était conçue comme une stricte observance des commandements, qui n’étaient certainement pas tous des lois divines, mais plutôt des lois ecclésiastiques, mais néanmoins imposés par l’Église de façon quasiment absolue et sans distinction. Le grand humaniste chrétien Érasme de Rotterdam s’est efforcé de propager une réforme de l’Église par le biais d’une tout autre conception de la vie chrétienne. Le cœur du christianisme consiste selon lui à respecter la loi évangélique de la charité, que nous pouvons accomplir par la foi17. Le christianisme humaniste a clairement une orientation éthique. Ainsi, dans son Paraclesis, Érasme estime que la «philosophie du Christ» a un rapport moins fort avec les cérémonies et les doctrines qu’avec l’âme et la vie entière: il espère de voir apparaître «Christianorum genus ... quod Christiphilosophiamnonceremoniistantumetpropositionibus,sedipso pectoretotaquevitareferret»18. Pour Érasme, l’erreur du christianisme de 16. M. GIELIS, Het Woord Gods als sacrament: De actualiteit van de polemiek van JohannesDriedovanTurnhouttegenErasmusenLuther, dans Taxandria:Jaarboekvan deKoninklijkeGeschied-enoudheidkundigeKringvandeAntwerpseKempen 81 (2009) 275-294; Hetevangelieinhethart:OorsprongvanhetLeuvenseaugustinismeenvande scholastiekvandemodernetijd, dans J. VAN NEER – B. HEFFERNAN (éds),Verlangennaar geestelijke schoonheid. Opstellen aangeboden aan Martijn Schrama, O.S.A., Bergambacht, 2VM, 2014, 119-130; Evangelium in Corde vel ex Corde? The Actuality of a Discussion between Erasmus, Luther and Driedo, dans J. VAN REETH – B. POTTIER – H. SŁAWIŃSKI – F. DE RYCKE (éds), SecularisationandEurope, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Uitgeverij Betsaida; Krakowie, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Papieskiego Jana Pawła II, 2017, 165-179. 17. Je souhaite signaler que selon un point de vue largement répandu, ceci est une opinion protestante! Mais selon ce même point de vue, on identifie à tort le protestantisme libéral du XIXe siècle avec la Réforme du XVIe siècle. 18. DESIDERIUS ERASMUS ROTERODAMUS, Ausgewählte Werke, ed. H. HOLBORN, München, C.H. Beck, 1964, p. 144.

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE

365

son époque consiste à identifier la piété aux pratiques religieuses extérieures. Or celles-ci ne sont parfois qu’une expression de la piété, sans en être la cause. Selon lui, la vraie dévotion réside dans la nature intérieure du croyant: «...perperamponuntpietateminrebusvisibilibus,quaesigna sunt fortasse pietatis, non causa ... cum vera pietas sit in ipsis animis» (Paraphrases)19. Érasme est parfaitement conscient que l’Église de son temps souffre de plusieurs «vices»: par la conception scolastique du christianisme durant le Moyen Âge, la foi s’est dissociée de la vie. En réponse, Érasme veut «ré-ancrer» l’Évangile dans l’âme du croyant. C’est pourquoi il affirme que les éléments extérieurs tels que la profession de la foi et les sacrements ne sont que des signes, mais pas la cause de la foi. En rappelant que l’observance du Sermon sur la Montagne n’est possible que grâce à la miséricorde qui nous est donnée par la foi (intérieure), Érasme surpasse en fait l’horizontalisme et le moralisme. Néanmoins, ses antagonistes (les théologiens scolastiques de Louvain, Paris et Salamanque, par exemple) le voient comme l’inventeur d’une nouvelle hérésie semi-pélagienne. Face à ce christianisme «érasmien», qui met l’accent sur l’éthique, ils défendent un christianisme dans lequel non seulement les sacrements et les autres rituels extérieurs, mais également la prédication d’un dogme formulé de façon scolastique sont de la plus haute importance. Les théologiens scolastiques ne sont pas les seuls pour qui la notion d’Érasme sur la vie chrétienne est problématique: Martin Luther la critique aussi. Il défend une vision très différente d’Érasme sur la réforme de l’Église, parce qu’il part d’une Parole de Dieu certaine, extérieure et «donnée comme objective», ayant une signification et un effet sacramentels. Dans le Deservoarbitrio, il déclare au grand humaniste: «Spiritus sanctus...necdubiaautopinionesincordibusnostrisscripsit,sedassertiones»20. Dans son livre sur la relation entre la Parole de Dieu et le dogme catholique, Walter Kasper, le jeune théologien qui deviendra plus tard cardinal et président du Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de l’unité des chrétiens, cite cette phrase de Luther en l’approuvant fortement21. Pourtant, le fait que Luther, à l’instar des théologiens de Louvain 19. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia, Leiden, Petrus van der Aa, 17031706, VII, ParaphrasisinepistolamJacobi, 1124E-F. 20. M. LUTHER, Werke.KritischeGesamtausgabe(WeimarerAusgabe),Graz, Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1883-2009, Band 18: Deservoarbitrio,18:605, 32-33. Dès maintenant: WA. 21. W. KASPER, Dogmeetévangile(Christianisme en mouvement, 4), Tournai, Casterman, p. 16.

366

M. GIELIS

par exemple, s’oppose à la notion d’Érasme sur la Parole de Dieu ne veut pas dire qu’il considère l’Évangile comme une doctrine purement conceptuelle (comme l’interprète Érasme, selon lequel Luther serait en fait resté un théologien scolastique, et comme les théologiens catholiques euxmêmes l’ont longtemps conçu, en analogie avec leur propre conception de la Révélation comme la communication de vérités abstraites). Dans l’ouvrage précité, Kasper fait observer que l’Évangile pour Luther est «instrument et promesse du Saint-Esprit»22. Les «assertiones» dont parle Luther ne sont nullement des déclarations vides, mais ont une signification sacramentelle, dans le sens qu’elles donnent vraiment la grâce de Dieu. Dans le même ouvrage, Luther a exposé très clairement que Dieu n’accorde pas son pardon sans Verbe extérieur: «SicplacitumestDeoutnon sineverbo,sedperverbumtribuatspiritum,utnoshabeatsuoscooperatores,dumforissonamus,quodintusipsesolusspirat»23. Face à ses maîtres nominalistes de l’université d’Erfurt, face aux «illuminés» Andreas Bodenstein de Karlstadt et Thomas Müntzer, face aux réformateurs humanistes comme Ulrich Zwingli, face aux anabaptistes et face à Érasme lui-même, Luther a maintes fois souligné la priorité, dans le processus de la justification, des éléments extérieurs comme la Parole et les Sacrements. Dans DieSchmalkaldischeArtikel, il s’oppose aux spiritualistes de tous bords, défend la nécessité du Verbe extérieur et établit clairement le lien entre Verbe et Sacrement: «Und inn diesen stuecken, so das muendlich, eusserlich wort betreffen, ist fest darauff zu bleiben, das Gott niemand seinen Geist oder gnade gibt on durch oder mit dem vorgehend eusserlichem wort, ... Darumb sollen und muessen wir darauff beharren das Gott nicht wil mit uns Menschen handeln, denn durch sein eusserlich wort und Sacrament»24. Il est difficile de trouver une meilleure formulation de ce que Congar considère comme la caractéristique de l’ecclésiologie catholique. Lorsque Luther, dans le traité Deservoarbitrio, rejette la conception d’Érasme sur la vie chrétienne, il ne le fait pas pour défendre la prédication scolastique, mais pour proposer une conception plus dynamique de l’Évangile, en l’occurrence que la Parole de Dieu doit être considérée comme sacramentel. Pour Luther, l’essentiel est que les gens soient réellement touchés par le message de l’Évangile et amenés à changer. Par conséquent, l’Évangile ne peut pas être une doctrine abstraite, dissociée de la vie. Par une telle conception, Luther se distingue des théologiens 22. Ibid., p. 17. 23. WA 18, 695, 28-31. 24. WA 50, 245, 1-4; 246, 24-27.

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE

367

scolastiques qui ont séparé la foi et la vie. Pour Luther, le Verbe, les sacrements, la foi et la vie sont indissociablement liés. À l’instar d’Érasme, il se distingue de l’intellectualisme, du ritualisme et du juridisme de l’Église du Moyen Âge et des théologiens scolastiques pour présever l’union entre la foi et la vie. Mais à cause de la priorité du Verbe (extérieur) et des sacrements, la conception humaniste de la vie chrétienne, consistant à accomplir la loi évangélique de la charité due à une infusion intérieure de la grâce, est à ses yeux inacceptable. La Parole sacramentelle de Dieu occupe une place centrale, elle est nécessaire pour que le croyant (mais pécheur) puisse vivre dans l’amour. À Érasme qui accorde la priorité à l’éthique, il reproche de confondre loi et Évangile, de sorte que la Parole de Dieu perd son effet sacramentelle et ne peut plus donner au croyant la force de vivre dans l’amour. À l’instar d’autres théologiens scolastiques et de Luther, Johannes Driedo de Turnhout, le principal théologien louvaniste de son époque, s’oppose à Érasme, à qui il reproche, tout comme Luther, de faire de l’Évangile une doctrine morale. Selon Driedo, Érasme a formulé une opinion erronée concernant le Verbe et les sacrements. On peut le voir non seulement dans les analyses très détaillées de Driedo sur la grâce, le libre arbitre, les bonnes œuvres, la prédestination, etc., mais également dans ce qu’il affirme à propos de la Tradition25. Driedo est le premier théologien catholique qui se penche amplement sur la Tradition, qu’il considère comme une réalité complexe, englobant la prédication, les sacrements et les autres rituels, la prière et la conduite morale, bref, tout ce qui touche au mode de vie, à la culture et à la spiritualité. Pour Driedo, la Tradition est avant tout une réalité sacramentelle: par l’Évangile transmis dans l’Église, Dieu accorde son pardon aux croyants et les sanctifie. La notion de Tradition selon Driedo ressemble à la notion de l’Évangile ou de la Parole de Dieu selon Luther. À ses yeux aussi, le Verbe et les sacrements sont primordiaux. Avec de telles opinions, Driedo a fortement influencé non seulement la Réforme catholique du XVIe siècle, mais également les théologiens du concile Vatican II. Dans son livre sur la Tradition et les traditions, Congar présente les points de vue de Driedo, entre autres dans l’annexe sur l’Évangile dans le cœur. Dans le livre précité sur la Parole de Dieu et le dogme catholique, Kasper écrit: «Au temps du concile de Trente, on doit

25. M. GIELIS, JohannesDriedo:AnwaltderTraditionimStreitmitHumanismusund Reformation, dans M.H. JUNG – P. WALTER (éds), Theologendes16.Jahrhunderts:Humanismus–Reformation–KatholischeErneuerung, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002, 135-153.

368

M. GIELIS

surtout nommer John Driedo. Il distingue nettement l’évangile écrit de l’évangile gravé dans les cœurs et déclare que la ‘voix vivante’ de l’évangile possède force et puissance. J. Ratzinger a montré que cette idée a joué un rôle important au concile de Trente dans le débat sur l’Écriture et la tradition»26. Ce passage montre que non seulement le futur préfet du Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de l’unité des chrétiens, mais également Joseph Ratzinger, devenu plus tard le pâpe Benoît XVI, se sont inspirés de Driedo pour développer leurs théologies de la Tradition. Par l’influence exercée par Driedo non seulement sur le Concile de Trente, mais également sur le développement ultérieur du dogme, et même sur les deux plus grands théologiens catholiques encore en vie, qui sont ou furent des dirigeants ecclésiastiques de la plus haute importance, ce théologien louvaniste a certainement déjà obtenu le statut de Docteur de l’Église, du moins officieusement. Et, peut-être assez surprenant, en ce qui concerne la conception du Verbe efficace et des sacrements, il y a peu ou pas de différence entre Luther et Driedo. III. CONSIDÉRATIONS CRITIQUES SUR L’ÉVALUATION DE CONGAR SUR LA RÉFORME Lorsqu’on saisit bien les relations ecclésiastiques du XVIe siècle, on peut comprendre que Congar ne voit pas que Luther, contrairement à Érasme, donne la priorité aux éléments extérieurs «objectifs» du Verbe et des sacrements, d’une manière somme toute typiquement catholique, et qu’il est de ce fait très proche de Driedo, le théologien louvaniste si important et si influent. Au début de la renommé de Luther, maints opposants et partisans l’ont vu comme un disciple d’Érasme. Et un bon nombre de chrétiens humanistes inspirés par Érasme ont adhéré à la Réforme ou du moins ont sympathisé avec des idées protestantes; c’est certainement le cas dans la Réforme suisse. Johannes Oecolampadius et Ulrich Zwingli, les réformateurs respectivement de Bâle et de Zurich, sont restés largement dans la lignée d’Érasme. Ils se sont caractérisés par une conception purement symbolique des sacrements, c’est-à-dire que le rite extérieur est un signe ou une expression d’un pardon déjà obtenu intérieurement. Ceci n’a pas seulement conduit à des discussions sur le sacrement de la Pénitence, avec entre autres le théologien louvaniste Jacobus Latomus, et plus précisément sur l’absolution comme Verbe 26. W. KASPER, Dogmeetévangile(Christianisme en mouvement, 4), Tournai, Casterman, pp. 82-83.

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE

369

efficacement miséricordieux de la part de Dieu, mais également à la lutte sur la Dernière Cène avec Luther, qui lors du colloque de Marburg a vigoureusement défendu la présence réelle du Christ dans le pain et le vin, par la force de la Parole active de Dieu. Aussi parmi les théologiens louvanistes, qui ont pris l’initiative dans l’Église catholique d’une condamnation doctrinaire de Luther, beaucoup considéraient ce dernier comme un disciple plus extrême d’Érasme. Cette opinion était fondée sur plusieurs arguments. Jusqu’en 1518, la théologie de Luther était plus orientée vers l’humanisme. Dans la condamnation de 1519, les théologiens n’ont lu que les traités de Luther issus du recueil imprimé chez Johann Froben à Bâle à l’automne 151827. Pendant un certain temps, on a même soupçonné Érasme, qui s’était rendu à Bâle en 1518, d’avoir collaboré à la rédaction de ce recueil28. Mais même sans accorder foi à une collaboration directe d’Érasme, force est de constater l’influence humaniste. Ceci correspond bien à une datation tardive, en 1518, de la découverte réformiste de Luther. C’est surtout par son étude de la théologie du sacrement de la Pénitence, dans le cadre du combat contre les indulgences, que Luther a reconnu que le verbe de Dieu ne doit pas être appréhendé en tant que rhétorique, mais bien en tant que sacramentel29. L’assimilation de Luther à un disciple d’Érasme a conduit à négliger sa spécificité, même lorsque celle-ci devint plus évidente. Cette méprise demeura longtemps dans l’Église catholique. Lorsque le Concile de Trente condamna la conception protestante des sacrements, il visait en fait plus la doctrine d’Érasme que celle de Luther. Et quand Congar publia en 1950 Vraieetfausseréformedansl’Église, il est encore tributaire de la vision de Luther confinée à celle d’un disciple d’Érasme. Ce qu’il décrit comme l’ecclésiologie protestante est en fait la notion humaniste érasmienne de l’Église, qui présente en effet une nette tendance au «spiritualisme». Plusieurs réformateurs, à savoir Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, et dans une moindre mesure, Calvin, ont été fortement influencés par la théologie humaniste. Mais parmi tous les réformateurs, c’est Luther qui, en fin de compte, y déroge le plus. En 1983, l’année de Luther, Congar revient explicitement sur Vraieet fausseréformedel’Église dans un ouvrage sur la théologie et la réforme 27. La troisième édition de ce recueil de traités de Luther, imprimé à Strasbourg par Matthias Schürer, fut exposée en 2017 à la MSB. 28. K. BLOCKX, EenconflicttussenErasmusendeLeuvensetheologenin1519, dans DeGuldenPasser 47 (1969) 7-30. 29. E. BIZER, Fidesexauditu:EineUntersuchungüberdieEntdeckungderGerechtigkeitGottesdurchMartinLuther, 3., erw. Aufl., Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1966.

370

M. GIELIS

de Luther30, reprenant entre autres l’article «Luther réformateur. Retour sur une étude ancienne». Cette «étude ancienne» est la troisième partie de Vraieetfausseréformedel’Église. Bien que Congar reste généralement fidèle à ses anciennes conceptions théologiques sur la Réforme, il reconnaît maintenant, en tant qu’historien, la haute importance que Luther accorde à la Parole sacramentelle et extérieure de Dieu. La théologie de Luther est un témoignage de l’efficacité de cette Parole. Tout cela démontre que Luther était probablement plus un schismatique qu’un hérétique. Bien que son désir de réforme soit certainement motivé par la pastorale – son opposition au commerce des indulgences en est la preuve – et soit clairement basé sur le ressourcement à l’Écriture sainte et aux Pères de l’Église (surtout saint Augustin), il n’a peut-être pas montré suffisamment de respect envers l’autorité ecclésiastique (par exemple en brûlant la bulle papale en 1520) ni suffisamment de patience. À sa décharge, on relèvera cependant que la hiérarchie ecclésiastique a mis sa patience (trop) longtemps à l’épreuve, sans motif valable. Que les entretiens entre Luther et les représentants de l’Église «catholique romaine», par exemple à Augsburg en 1518 et à Leipzig l’année suivante, ont échoué, est à mettre au compte au moins autant, sinon (bien) plus, des adversaires de Luther, à savoir Thomas de Vio Cajetanus et Johannes Eck. Enfermés dans une théologie scolastique, ils ont considéré à tort cette théologie comme un dogme absolu et une doctrine bien définie. C’est un drame historique qu’il n’y eût pas de pape en 1521 comme le théologien et doyen louvaniste Adrien d’Utrecht, qui monta sur le trône de saint Pierre en 1522, et au nom de l’Église, fit exprimer l’année suivante par son nonce Chieregati envers la Diète de Nuremberg une reconnaissance de la responsabilité de l’Église elle-même du schisme de Luther31, mais 30. Y. CONGAR, Martin Luther, sa foi, sa réforme: Études de théologie historique, Paris, Cerf, 1983. 31. K. BLOCKX, ‘Siquaeculpa…’, dans ETL 40 (1964) 474-490. Cf. M. GIELIS, Adriaan vanUtrechtendehervormingvanKerkentheologie, dans A. DENAUX – A.P.H. MEIJERS (éds),PausAdrianusVI(1459-1523):Utrecht,Leuven,Rome, Bergambacht, 2VM, 2012, 9-32, pp. 26-27 à propos de la reconnaissance de dette d’Adrien à la Diète de Nuremberg. Dans la lignée du Concile Vatican II, Blockx a œuvré, dans les années 1960, à une appréciation plus équitable de la réforme de Luther. Peu après le Concile, il voulut publier un article dans DietscheWarande enBelfort sur la récente révision de l’image de Luther dans l’histoire de l’Église catholique. Mais en raison de son approche positive du réformateur, il dut faire face à une levée de boucliers de l’évêché, qui était alors conduit par le cardinal Suenens, l’une des figures clés du Concile. Le rédacteur de DietscheWarande en Belfort, Albert Westerlinck, ne voulut pas dépendre du bon vouloir de l’évêque pour obtenir ou non un ‘imprimatur’, mais le prêtre Blockx, très fidèle à l’Église, souhaita d’abord trouver un accord avec l’évêché avant de procéder à la publication. Après quelques entretiens et de légers amendements, l’article de Blockx put être publié: HetkatholiekeLutherbeeld, dans DietscheWarandeenBelfort 110 (1965) 310-327.

LES MOUVEMENTS RÉFORMATEURS DU XVIE SIÈCLE

371

mourut la même année. Il est aussi regrettable qu’aucun des autres théologiens louvanistes, qui s’étaient totalement consacrés à se ressourcer à l’Écriture sainte et à saint Augustin, par exemple Johannes Driedo, le fondateur de l’augustinisme louvaniste, qui fut, selon le mot de Blockx, l’adversaire le plus «congénial» de Luther, n’ait pas eu l’occasion de s’entretenir avec le réformateur comme Cajetanus ou Eck l’ont pu. À propos de la volonté de réforme d’Érasme, Congar se montre globalement assez positif dans Vraieetfausseréformedel’Église32, mais il ne parle pas de la conception de l’Église, assez inquiétante du point de vue catholique; en revanche, il se réfère à la différence de caractère entre Érasme et Luther. Son jugement positif sur Érasme est surtout dû au fait que l’humaniste, bien plus que Luther, ait respecté les critères d’une réforme sans schisme, critères qu’il avait établis dans la deuxième partie de Vraie et fausse réforme de l’Église33. Érasme est en faveur d’une réforme autre que celle de Luther – moins dans la lignée de saint Augustin, et plus dans celle d’Origène, avec tous les problèmes qui y sont relatés. Mais sa préoccupation de répondre aux besoins pastoraux de l’Église de son époque, et certainement de préserver l’unité de l’Église, est très authentique. Il n’est pas entaché d’une volonté de schisme et plaide face à Luther pour pratiquer la vertu de la patience. Lorsqu’Érasme déclare qu’en cas de schisme, il suivra Pierre (c’est-à-dire le pape!), cela ne veut pas dire qu’à l’instar de saint Pierre pendant le procès devant Anne et Caïphe, il reniera Jésus, mais qu’il considère l’aspiration à l’unité dans l’Église comme l’expression de l’amour évangélique et la reconnaissance de l’autorité ecclésiastique comme une condition essentielle pour préserver cette unité. Il est évident qu’Érasme vise un ressourcement à la Tradition par la publication dans la langue originale du Nouveau Testament et de toute une série de Pères de l’Église. Le problème est toutefois l’interprétation théologique de la Tradition et des traditions. Dans mes articles sur les conceptions du XVIe siècle sur l’Évangile gravé dans le cœur34, j’ai montré qu’Érasme s’efforce à établir Origène dans son état originel, et ce faisant, a provoqué une rupture dans la tradition de la foi, comme l’a démontré Cornelis Augustijn, éminent connaisseur d’Érasme35.

32. CONGAR, Vraie et fausse réforme (n. 3), p. 338: «le réformisme, parfois orienté d’une façon si intéressante, d’un Érasme». 33. Voir le jugement définitif de Congar sur l’aspiration de réforme d’Érasme: ibid., pp. 560-562. 34. Voir n. 16. 35. C. AUGUSTIJN, Erasmus: Vernieuwer van kerk en theologie, Baarn, Het Wereldvenster, 1967; ID., Erasmus, Baarn, Ambo, 1986.

372

M. GIELIS

Ceci m’amène à la conclusion que, si, en s’inspirant des mouvements réformateurs du XVIe siècle, on voulait appliquer une véritable réforme au sens où le comprend Congar, il faudrait agir en se basant sur la théologie de Luther (surtout celle d’après 1518), mais dans l’esprit et avec la mentalité d’Érasme! Korte Mermansstraat 71 BE-2300 Turnhout Belgium [email protected]

Marcel GIELIS

SENTIREECCLESIAM1 THE ROLE OF THE JESUITS IN DISSEMINATING THE SPIRIT OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IN FLANDERS (CA. 1958-CA. 1975)

In Flanders, a nucleus of Jesuits played an important role in disseminating the spirit and ideas of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)2. Father Piet Fransen, sj, for example, frequently reported on the events of the Council for the BRT (Belgian Radio and Television Broadcasting) and regularly contributed informative opinion pieces about developments in Rome to the newspaper, De Standaard3. A number of other Jesuits regularly published reflections on Vatican II in their monthly magazine Streven (1947-present)4 or in opinion pieces in De Linie (1946-1963)5. Because of the importance they attached to personal formation and discernment, they were closely involved in the events of the Council and their frequent communications distinguished them somewhat from other religious institutes (orders and congregations). Above all they stood out for the way in which they involved young people (secondary school pupils, university and third-level students) in the Council through the 1. Quotation of an introduction of father Louis Monden, sj, Hoogland-Dokumentatie, September 1962, p. 6. 2. On the history of Vatican II, see the standard work of G. ALBERIGO – J.A. KOMONCHAK (eds.), HistoryofVaticanII, 5 vols., Maryknoll, NY, Orbis; Leuven, Peeters, 19952005; J.W. O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII, Bruxelles – Paris, Lessius, 2011; M. LAMBERIGTS – L. DECLERCK, Het Concilie Vaticanum II (1962-1965), Antwerpen – Baarn, Halewijn, 2015. On the importance of the Council, see K. SCHELKENS – J.A. DICK – J. METTEPENNINGEN, Aggiornamento? Catholicism from Gregory XVI to Benedict XVI, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2013, pp. 127-161: “Vatican II: The Signs of the Times” and G.-R. HORN, TheSpiritofVaticanII:WesternEuropeanProgressiveCatholicismin theLongSixties,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015; for the reception of the Council in the Flemish community in Belgium, see: L. GEVERS, Kerkindekering: DeKatholieke GemeenschapinVlaanderen,1940-1980, Kalmthout, Pelckmans, 2014, pp. 203-438. 3. Piet Fransen, sj, 1913-1983. In the obituary for Fr. Fransen in De Standaard of 8 December 1983, Jan Grootaers wrote: “Among the central themes that drew Professor Fransen’s attention in the 1950s were, remarkably, the main items on the agenda of a Council that would commence ten years later: unity among Christians, the church as a community of faith and the significance of the office of bishop. As soon as the Second Vatican Council was convened, Piet Fransen recognised its importance” (my translation). 4. Luc Schokkaert. Streven (1947-present) (periodical). In ODIS. Record last modified date: 15 October 2008. Available on: http://www.odis.be/lnk/PB_9038. 5. Luc Schokkaert. DeLinie (1946-1963) (periodical). In ODIS. Record last modified date: 18 January 2013. Available on: http://www.odis.be/lnk/PB_5968.

374

J. DE MAEYER

monthly periodicals, Hoogland (1925-1987)6 and Hoogland-Dokumentatie: Maandelijkse dokumentatiebladen, in aansluiting op het maandschrift Hoogland bestemd voor leerkrachten, jeugdleiders of voor persoonlijkevorming(1958-1973)7. (Monthlyreportsattachedtothemonthly magazineHooglandandintendedforteachers,youthleadersorforpersonal formation). The monthly magazine Hoogland was the principal organ of communication. In the beginning, in 1947, it was subtitled Rijker katholiek leven (A richer Catholic life), and originated as an appendix for young people attached to the newsletter for members of the Sacred Heart Associations, DeBodevanhetHeiligHart(TheHeraldof theSacredHeart). The Jesuits wanted to use the devotion to the Sacred Heart as a way of leading as many lay people as possible – both men and women – to a life of personal prayer. The community support offered in the Sacred Heart Associations was intended to contribute to this. They also wanted to get young people involved in this life of personal prayer and devotion8. During the run-up to the Council, in August 1962 Hoogland was given the meaningful subtitle Tijdschriftvoorrijkerkatholiek leven (Magazine for a richer Catholic life) and in August 1965 the addendum Modern-ernstig-katholiek (The serious modern Catholic). In the spirit of the Council, the title was then changed in August 1966 to Hoogland: Religieus maandschrift voor jonge mensen. Modern-ernstig-katoliek.(Hoogland:Areligiousmonthlyforyoungpeople.TheseriousmodernCatholic)9.Apparently the new title still did not sufficiently address the conciliar spirit, because in August 1967 it was changed to Hoogland:MaandschriftvoorjongeKristenen (Hoogland:Amonthlyfor young Christians) and then in September 1970 it became Hoogland: Maandschrift voor en door jonge Kristenen (Hoogland: A monthly for andbyyoungChristians)10. The editorial team was composed of selected Jesuit college teachers centered on the director of the secretariat of the Sacred Heart Associations in Mechelen, Louis Sterkens, sj11. At the time

6. Luc Schokkaert. Hoogland (1925-1987) (periodical). In ODIS. Record last modified date: 17 February 2006. Available on: http://www.odis.be/lnk/PB_4291. 7. Luc Schokkaert. HooglandDokumentatie (1958-1973) (periodical). In ODIS. Record last modified date: 28 August 2007. Available on: http://www.odis.be/lnk/PB_4293. 8. On the cultural and historical background of the Sacred Heart Associations, see T. VAN OSSELAER, ThePiousSex:CatholicConstructionsofMasculinityandFemininity inBelgium,c.1800-1940, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2013. 9. “Katoliek” in the Dutch title is written deliberately without the “h”. Both magazines were written in the so-called progressive Dutch spelling of the 1960s. 10. Luc Schokkaert. Hoogland (1925-1987) (periodical). In ODIS. Record last modified date: 17 February 2006. Available on: http://www.odis.be/lnk/PB_4291. 11. Louis Sterkens, sj, 1920-2014.

SENTIREECCLESIAM

375

of Vatican II, these included the Jesuits J. Van den Broeck, Lode Arts, Jos Burvenich, Michel Verstraeten, Dolf Cauwelier, Roger Lenaers, Maurits Delbaere, Louis Monden and Luc Craye12. This team wanted to educate the youth in Jesuit colleges and in Catholic education generally to espouse a personal, intellectually based Christian faith. Hooglandand Hoogland-Dokumentatie provided young people with all sorts of texts and citations on well-considered topics which could be used in debates and discussion groups in class or in youth clubs. I. THE COUNCIL

UNDER

SCRUTINY

It is not surprising that these Jesuits, concerned as they were about the world around them, had long been convinced that there was an urgent need to modernise the Catholic Church. Their pastoral experience in colleges, retreat centres or in their traditional role as pastoral counsellors provided them with numerous signs that the future of the Church deserved serious reflection13. They were also very eager to bring the upcoming Council to the attention of young people. In February 1960 Lode Arts expressed his admiration for the initiative of Pope John XXIII (1881/1958-1963): “This ‘old man’ has amazing courage! That also gives him the right to ask us all to pray with him ‘so that modern Rome may remain the eternal and holy city, for the good of the Romans and for the honour of all Christians’”. He was referring to the Pope’s call to prepare Rome for “the honourable reception of the Ecumenical Council within the foreseeable future. That is why he is calling his diocese together this year for a diocesan synod to discuss the situation with his priests and to adapt pastoral care to the new needs of the modern city”14. A month later, Father Arts once again called for prayers for the success of the Council, and in striking words asked “for

12. Joseph Van den Broeck, sj, 1922-2002; Lode Arts, sj, 1901-1994; Jos Burvenich, sj, 1914-2002; Michel Verstraeten, sj, 1921-1984; Dolf Cauwelier, 1931. He left the Society of Jesus around 1970; Roger Lenaers, sj, 1925; Maurits Delbaere, sj, 1930; Louis Monden, sj, 1911-2002 and Luc Craye, sj, 1920-1988. 13. C. DE BORCHGRAVE – L. KENIS, Hetrijkeroomsejezuïetenleven:DeOudeAbdij alsvormingshuisvandeSociëteitvanJezus1837-1968, in J. DECAVELE – J. DE MAEYER – P. QUAGHEBEUR – P. TRIO (eds.), DeOudeAbdijvanDrongen:Elfeeuwengeschiedenis, Drongen – Leuven, Kadoc, 2006, 306-371, pp. 367-371; K. SUENENS – J. DE MAEYER, “L’ÉcoleduGrandChrétien”:Eenbekendretraitehuisca.1840–ca.1965,ibid.,373393, pp. 392-393; GEVERS, Kerkindekering (n. 2), passim. 14. Hoogland, February 1960.

376

J. DE MAEYER

light and strength for the theologians who are already preparing the difficult issues”15. The editors, however, did not just content themselves with calls for prayer. They realised that their readers were not so familiar with the rather complex details and procedures of a council, the nature of the preparations and the progress of the debates. So, in November 1960 Hoogland included a brochure with the telling title, Watmethetoecumenischconcilie? (Whatabouttheecumenicalcouncil?) which in a didactic way explained the procedures of the councils (topics presented by the national bishops’ conferences, thematic working groups in Rome, preparatory discussion documents). In this way the monthly periodical prepared readers for the opening of the Council on 11 October 196216. In preparing the readership, Lode Arts did not shy away from superlatives: “The work of the Council is superhuman”. In the January 1962 issue, he referred to the fact that no fewer than 828 bishops and theologians had been trying for months to distil an outline of the essential themes from the 2000 reports of the national bishops’ conferences. At the same time, Arts revealed his own great expectations: unlike earlier councils, Vatican II would not be merely reactive but would resolutely opt for the care of souls with the aim of returning “the radiance of youth” to the Church once again17. With that, the tone was set. In Hoogland-Dokumentatie of September 1961, before the Council had even opened, Luk Craye made very clear what its consequences would be: In Flanders we, together with our young people, are now faced with the task of moving from a religion based on practices and often feelings to one of belief and insight; from a religion supported by organisations and charities to a very individual commitment and experience18.

As a teacher at the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwecollege in Antwerp he knew all too well what was awaiting him19. The above-mentioned brochure eventually became a special issue of Hoogland-Dokumentatie which was published in January 1962. It was

15. Hoogland, March 1960. 16. Hoogland, November 1960. 17. On the preparations for the Council see: O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), pp. 32-36; LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, Het Concilie Vaticanum II (n. 2), pp. 22-23 and 33-51; P. CHENAUX, Le temps de Vatican II: Une introduction à l’histoire du Concile, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 2012, pp. 49-60; Hoogland,January 1962. 18. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, September 1961. 19. G. JANSSENS, Op school bij de jezuïeten van de Frankrijklei: Een verhaal van mijzelfenvanmijnklasgenotenRetoricaB1967–Onze-Lieve-VrouwecollegeAntwerpen, Leuven, Peeters, 2017, p. 80.

SENTIREECCLESIAM

377

supervised by the up-and-coming Jesuit talent Jan Kerkhofs who acted as a kind of guest editor for the occasion20. He was introduced as a sociologist of religion who had “studied the issues in connection with the ecumenical councils in the church” and whose “research on the distribution and actual representation of the participants in the Council (...)” had found favour in Rome. “His articles are included in and commented on in foreign journals”21. The challenging title Wat met het oecumenisch concilie?disappeared into the more sober Hettweedevatikaansconcilie. The issue was indeed very informative: the first part explained what a council was and gave an overview of the past 20 councils in church history; the second part focused on the 21st Council, Vatican II, examined Pope John XXIII’s view of it and stated that “its catholicity requires sustained engagement with the ever-changing political, societal, cultural, social and economic relations in the world, with which and in which she [the church] lives and grows”. Then, a kind of timeline was included that gave an overview of the various preliminary steps, again emphasizing the enormous amount of preparatory work (15 volumes of texts with the aspirations of the bishops, Roman congregations, ecclesiastical faculties and universities from all over the world). The analysis was based on the critical reflections of Jan Kerkhofs in Streven, published in 1961, which also dealt with the unequal distribution of the Italian, European and non-European Fathers invited to the Council. However, the fact that a correction was introduced into the representation from Asia, Oceania and Africa was seen as illustrating the catholicity of the Church: “The catholicity of the Church is thus perfectly expressed in this representation and a balance is provided for so that proportionately more representatives of the young churches than the old can participate in the Council”. In short, Kerkhofs and the editorial staff were optimistic about Vatican II22. 20. On the biography of Jan Kerkhofs (1924-2015), see http://keepupthespirit.be/ in-memoriam-jan-kerkhofs-sj; L. SCHOKKAERT – T. LAURENT, Jan Kerkhofs. In ODIS. Record last modified date: 16 December 2016. Available on: http://www.odis.be/ lnk/PS_5349. 21. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, December 1961. 22. The editors were not alone in their optimism: see O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), pp. 31-32 and 56-66; on the background of this optimism, see LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, Het Concilie Vaticanum II (n. 2), pp. 17-29 and G. ROUTHIER – P. ROY – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), La théologie catholique entre intransigeance et renouveau: La réception des mouvements préconciliaires à Vatican II (Bibliothèque de la RHE, 95), Turnhout, Brepols, 2011. On the special spirit or atmosphere of the Council, see SCHELKENS – DICK – METTEPENNINGEN, Aggiornamento?(n. 2), p. 144. For the most important expectations see M. LAMBERIGTS – L. KENIS, HetTweedeVaticaansConcilie(1962-1965):Een casus belli?, in IID. (eds.), Vaticanum II: Geschiedenis of inspiratie? Theologische opstellenoverhettweedeVaticaansconcilie,Antwerpen, Halewijn, 2013, 9-30, pp. 10-11.

378

J. DE MAEYER

Furthermore, the hope was expressed that non-Catholics would also be invited to participate as observers23. The main focus of attention, however, was on the chapter on “Issues that the Council is likely to deal with” and the revealing chapter on “Expectations of Catholics”, in which the underlying message was that the Church was in need of urgent renewal. The headings of the issues spoke volumes: “renewal”, “a reassessment of the office of bishop”, “no extension of centralisation, but emphasis on decentralisation”, “a broader understanding of liturgy and language”, “reform of canon law, the index and confessional practice”, “a planned redistribution of the clergy” and “a further implementation of the rights of the laity”. A remarkable amount of attention was given to the “Unity of Christians” with excerpts from statements by Cardinal Bea about striving for ecumenical dialogue24. In short, the Jesuit editors not only enlightened their readers, but also shared and supported the mounting expectations for renewal25. Once the Second Vatican Council opened, the editors of Hooglandand Hoogland-Dokumentatiemade a point of informing their readers about the progress and especially the content of the debates. In doing so, they clearly stressed certain points, thereby indicating what they considered to be important: 1) the absolute necessity of an aggiornamento della chiesa; 2) proactively promoting and establishing a personal faith among young people; 3) the collective task to build a Christian community where the renewal of the liturgy and the material expression in architecture and art would be seen as expressing the Church’s commitment to forming a contemporary community profile; 4) making a mission of ecumenism. II. VATICAN II: MODERNIZING THE CHURCH OR A GREAT “METTRE À JOUR” Hoogland and Hoogland-Documentatie supported Pope John XXIII’s often quoted appeal for an aggiornamento. In the eyes of the editors this aggiornamento should not turn into a kind of cultural revolution or an iconoclastic movement, but had to lead to an enthusiastic renewal of the Church, a mettreàjour. It had to be a carefully considered modernisation, 23. J. KERKHOFS, SpanningenbinnenhetConcilie, in Streven 14 (1961) 632-641. On the issue of the observers, see LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, HetConcilieVaticanumII (n. 2), pp. 57-59; CHENAUX, LetempsdeVaticanII (n. 17), pp. 70-73. 24. On the role of the Jesuit and cardinal Augustin Bea (1881-1968) see LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, HetConcilieVaticanumII (n. 2), p. 66; O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), pp. 162-164. 25. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, January 1962.

SENTIREECCLESIAM

379

an adaptation in the sense of an updating of “the eternal being and the enduring tradition” of the Church26. During the years prior to and during the Council, the editors of both periodicals would continually emphasise and promote the desire for a carefully thought-through renewal. The goal was to restore the ideal of sentireecclesiam, to revive the enthusiasm of lay people, priests and religious for the Church, and to encourage them to participate wholeheartedly in a Church that would henceforth be an emanation of “the pilgrim people of God”27. The editorial staff realised only too well that a successfully renewed Church was not a foregone conclusion. For that reason, they repeatedly emphasised that every member or part of “the pilgrim people of God” must regard it as a duty, more even as a calling or mission to actively participate in the aggiornamento. Hoogland-Dokumentatie quoted Father Piet Franssen who in De Linie pointed out that the renewal would not succeed if people waited for others and did not themselves contribute, however minimally: When we had the opportunity to present the Council to a very diverse audience, we were amused to note that many were very concerned about reforming the Church, but preferred to reform others. The clergy were concerned about the laity, the laity about the bishops, the diocesan clergy about religious, almost everyone about women religious, and all together about the Curia in Rome. In its turn, the Curia was convinced that much reform needed to be done outside of Rome (...). We do not have to see it as a tragedy that people rarely apply the reforms that are already possible to themselves. Instead of complaining sarcastically or bitterly about this, people would do well to put their own houses in order28.

Father Louis Monden expressed the editorial stance of Hooglandand Hoogland-Dokumentatie in stating that the Church now had to learn to deal with criticism from within. After all, constructive criticism could lead to thoughtful renewal. But first of all, the fundamental right of criticism in the Church had to be confirmed, after which it would be possible to reflect on what was just or unjust criticism. In addition, the Jesuit “art of discernment” here came into play: Criticism, this word means to make a distinction. So, there is critique and self-critique, as it is called, is particularly valuable. It is an effort to keep in

26. Hoogland, June 1961, January 1962, June-July 1962, August-September 1962; Hoogland-Dokumentatie, September 1961, January 1962. 27. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, January 1962; see SCHELKENS – DICK – METTEPENNINGEN, Aggiornamento?(n. 2), pp. 147-148. 28. P. FRANSEN, De Linie, 5 October 1962 in Hoogland-Dokumentatie, November 1962, p. 61.

380

J. DE MAEYER

touch with reality as it is reflected in action. It is the determination to reject everything that does not present itself as true. It is a study conducted in humility, prepared to acknowledge the good that has happened, but also motivated by an apostolic anxiety and a spiritual rigour that remains always vigilant29.

Hoogland-Dokumentatie stressed that this apostolic anxiety would lead not only to a “holy unrest” but also to a sense of what could be improved, to a confiteor about what had gone wrong in the past, a confiteor that could lead to purification and a new beginning30. On this issue, Hoogland included Flanders in its rather sharp critique: “When Flanders moves from a partially formalistic and closed Christianity to a greater and more authentic Christendom, it too will be obliged to examine its conscience”31. This examination of conscience and the conviction that all members or sectors were called to an aggiornamento brought Hoogland andHoogland-Dokumentatie first and foremost to call for a “re-evaluation of the lay person”32 and later for developing a new vision of the priest33. That the role of the lay person needed to be re-evaluated in some way was beyond dispute. The editors quoted the French-Canadian Cardinal PaulÉmile Léger: The lay person in the Church cannot just be the one who listens and remains silent, who is acted upon and does not him/herself act; here should also be added that nothing in the Church should be strange to the lay person. We cannot reduce the lay person’s role to merely one of carrying out unimportant work in the Church; he/she must be given the opportunity to reflect and to speak out about the great problems of this time. Lay people without an interest in doctrinal, apostolic and liturgical issues only partially fulfill their true role, and do so poorly even at that. This, unfortunately, all too often characterises the Christian people34.

However, the latter charge could not be levelled at the editors, because in their different issues they tried to encourage personal reflection and involvement among students and young people. They actually 29. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, November 1962, p. 63. Citation from H. DE LUBAC, Méditationsurl’Église, Paris, Cerf, 2003, pp. 217-221. 30. See also one of the conclusions of LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, HetConcilieVaticanumII (n. 2), p. 205: the majority of the council refused to condemn ideas or convictions like councils did in the past. 31. Hoogland,September 1962, pp. 2-3. 32. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, November 1962. 33. Hoezienwijdepriester?Betekenisentaak?, in Special issue of Hoogland-Dokumentatie, February-March 1967. 34. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, November 1962, p. 62; Paul-Émile Léger, 1904-1991. Archbishop of Montreal from 1950 to 1967, elevated to the rank of cardinal in 1953; on his role see O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), p. 165.

SENTIREECCLESIAM

381

made their own of the statement of the Cologne archbishop, Cardinal Frings: The question must therefore be asked as to how the participation of the laity in ecclesiastical offices should be understood. They participate in the priesthood through sharing in the service of worship. They are strictly excluded from participation in pastoral power. But the laity, the ligaments of God’s people, are not therefore stupid. How could they be, since according to the word of Paul they are no longer immature children (Eph 4,14). In Christ’s Church, even those who are not charged with governance should have their say and be heard35.

That the editorial team was serious about redefining the role of the lay person was also evident in the regular citations from the work of August Vanistendael, a prominent lay consultor at the Council36. In fact, it should not come as a surprise that the Jesuit editors did not pay any attention to the role of the priest until two years after the conclusion of Vatican II. If the Council had emphasised the joint responsibility of the laity in an up-to-date Church, this then raised the question of the “meaning and task of the priest”, the subtitle of the special issue on the subject published in February-March 196737. The starting point was quite correctly the ‘Decree on the office and life of the priest’ in the light of LumenGentium. Entirely in the spirit of “the pilgrim people of God” and the Council’s effort to revitalise the Bible, the special issue defined the role of the priest as that of a prophet. But, he had to be a prophet in the midst of the people and be endowed with a deep empathy: The priesthood as such demands distance, the prophet – in the broader sense meant here – closeness. This means that a greater knowledge of human beings and their motivations, and a greater skill in handling human relations is asked of the prophetic priest. It is precisely in order to be able to fulfill his office that he must be close to the people38.

By not shying away from any aspect of the contemporary problems of the priesthood, the editors here offered an exemplary discussion of the whole subject. 35. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, November 1962, p. 63. Josef Richard Frings, 1887-1978. Archbishop of Cologne from 1942 to 1969, elevated to cardinal in 1946; on his role see O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), pp. 164-165. 36. Hoogland, November 1962, p. 43, Hoogland-Dokumentatie, February-March 1966; See D. BOSSCHAERT, AugustVanistendael:EenvergetenBelgischelekenauditorop het Tweede Vaticaans Concilie, in Trajecta: Tijdschrift voor de Geschiedenis van het KatholiekLevenindeNederlanden22 (2013) 57-80; SCHELKENS – DICK – METTEPENNINGEN, Aggiornamento?(n. 2), p. 149. 37. Hoezienwijdepriester?Betekenisentaak? (n. 32). 38. Ibid., p. 138. LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, HetConcilieVaticanumII (n. 2), pp. 148-152.

382

J. DE MAEYER

Through various quotations readers were presented with questions about their perception of the priest on three levels: the religious function, the social function and finally what was called “negative appreciations”. But the core of the article was a reflection on the meaning and the task of the priest, in which his role as promulgator and witness of God’s word was explored in the context of the idea attributed to Augustine, “For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian”. The prevailing images of the priest were also discussed and in a fourth chapter the issue of celibacy was debated. The editors saw celibacy as an expression of freedom, but formulated their conclusions – in tune with the times – as follows: The celibacy of the priest is not in itself an immutable law. It is therefore not excluded that in certain countries and for certain situations married people could be ordained as priests. Nevertheless, celibacy has a deep meaning and an eschatological character, which is interpreted more positively and meaningfully, especially now that so many reactions have been forthcoming. In this area it is clear how celibacy for many had become merely a “law” without much content. Questioning it again immediately opens new ways to a “more convincing” and “evangelical” experience, “forthesakeoftheKingdomofGod”39.

III. PRO A PERSONAL FAITH All this makes clear the extent to which the editors argued for a personal faith. During the council years they constantly insisted that faith was no longer a matter of cultural traditions or social conventions. It was or had to become something personal, and believers had to bear witness to their personal convictions. They emphasised their endeavour by cartoons, which until then had not been used in Hoogland. The editors clearly realised that personal faith was not self-evident, that it could be accompanied by existential doubts and growing pains. It was up to the Church then to provide training and guidance. The editors argued that a systematic reading of the Bible, including the Acts of the Apostles, was key in the growth towards a more personal faith. Bible reading would lead to reflection, and reflection in turn to a greater personal evangelical awareness40. 39. Ibid., p. 160. 40. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, September 1959, March 1963 and a special issue on reading the Bible in February-March 1964. For the attitude of the council towards the Bible see LAMBERIGTS – KENIS, HetTweedeVaticaansConcilie(1962-1965):Eencasus belli? (n. 22), p. 24; O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), pp. 204 and 313.

SENTIREECCLESIAM

383

While the editors were clearly in favour of religious freedom, they emphasised that it was precisely in such a context of freedom that the development of young people’s religious personality was important. This was a huge challenge for HooglandandHoogland-Dokumentatie. Young people had to learn to bear witness to their beliefs, because personal testimony was regarded as the most effective way of defending the faith41. The image of an up-to-date Church would be best spread by young people personally bearing witness to their faith. Dolf Cauwelier, sj, explained the editors’ rejection of defensive apologetics. Rather, it were adults who had to show young people the way: In our view, nothing is so convincing to young people as the serene testimony of adults who keenly perceive the Church’s failings and yet are still fully committed to it – people who are ready to give witness to their words in their lives, and thereby “prove” that Christ is the real “happiness”42.

In this context, the editors again quoted August van Istendael writing in Streven: For too long we have lived in closed cenacles, like the apostles before the descent of the Holy Spirit. Are we so sure that the apostles were very brave when they heard the noise like that of many winds and ran outside? They probably became courageous only when, there, out of doors, they were suddenly confronted with their responsibilities, and never again retreated into seclusion. For too long we have dutifully gathered in such cenacles, testifying among ourselves, developing an apologetic religious education that convinced only ourselves and gave us an illusory self-certainty and a misguided aggressiveness.

In his view, it was now a matter of showing what the Church and especially Christians could offer the world43. IV. PRO COMMUNITY BUILDING However religiously developed young people may become in person, they cannot survive without a community around them. The editors of Hoogland andHoogland-Dokumentatie were convinced of this. The “pilgrim people of God” consisted of those who were searching for a fellow human being so that freed of their own selves they could become members of a community. Here the editors appropriately quoted Jan Grootaers’ 41. Hoogland, January 1963, pp. 119-120 and 125-142. 42. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, January 1962, p. 120. 43. Ibid., p. 139. On the ideal profile of the Christian see O’MALLEY, L’Événement VaticanII (n. 2), p. 423.

384

J. DE MAEYER

famous pronouncement that the “Church was awakened in the lay person”44. In the liberation offered by the Council lay the way to building a Church community: “It is exactly the same in this matter as in so many others: as Christians, we ourselves have to learn to figure out exactly what we have to do now, today”. In October 1966, Father Jean De Bruyn, sj, described this process as follows: People must experience their religion in community. Whereas we might well be sympathetic to reviving the long-misunderstood desire for the development of personality, we tend to see the stress on community as an obstacle! After all, it’s about me and not so much about the others, isn’t it? Perhaps we have not sufficiently thought about the fact that the Lord has called us “in fellowship”! – “The longer you are alone, the more clearly you realise what others mean to you”. These words of a prisoner may well give us food for thought ... if we are imprisoned within the walls of our own self45.

The editors were convinced that the Church too had to undergo a similar process of transformation: from being a hierarchical, feudal and above all judgemental Church, it had to become an empathetic community of believers with room for those in search of faith. The leadership of the Church had to give the lead in this process, for which the collegiality of the pope and the bishops was important. What is more, the renewed Church had to enter into serious dialogue with the laity. Henceforth this would mean forming a Church together, sentireecclesiam in a thoughtful way. Only in this way could Church and faithful be of service to the world, and be fully engaged in developing society46. It is interesting to read how the Jesuit editors presented the renewal of the liturgy and the material expression in architecture and art as a sign of the Church’s desire to develop a contemporary community profile. This probably was at least partially due to Geert Bekaert, a former fellow Jesuit and an inspired architecture critic, being involved in the special issues dealing with this subject47. Within a short time, the periodicals began to 44. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, December 1962, p. 71. On Jan Grootaers, see M. LAMDécèsJanGrootaers, in RHE111 (2016) 968-970. On the difficult interpretations of the idea of a community see P. DE MEY – K. SCHELKENS, Iscommuniodantochhet centrale kerkbeeld van Vaticanum II?, in LAMBERIGTS – KENIS (eds.), Vaticanum II: Geschiedenisofinspiratie? (n. 22),85-106. 45. Hoogland, October 1966, p. 33. Jean De Bruyn, sj (1935-2017), see http://www. jezuieten.org/nl/nieuw/in-memoriam-vlaamse-jezuieten-2016-2017. 46. Hoogland, December 1965, p. 192; ibid., p. 185; Hoogland-Dokumentatie, 1962, pp. 71-89. 47. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, April-May 1963, issue on Liturgie and ibid., April-May 1963 issue on LiturgieenKunst; Geert Bekaert (1928-2016) was active as a Jesuit between 1946-1971 and with K.N. Elno curated the exhibition Ars Sacrain Leuven. See further discussion below. BERIGTS,

SENTIREECCLESIAM

385

devote attention to the desired renewal of the liturgy. On the one hand, the aforementioned issues, which aimed to be highly informative, were primarily intended to inform young people about the topic. On the other hand, the editorial commitment to engage in this renewal was not tucked away – on the contrary! It was assumed that the liturgy was at the core of Christianity and that in the spirit of the Council the Church had to become a prayer community once again. Or put another way: the Church had to become once again a community at prayer. Liturgy was by definition a communal event, something the editors saw as an essential achievement, which had already been accepted by the Council Fathers48. Following their fellow Jesuit Josef Andreas Jungmann, they did not want to become bogged down in liturgical rules or classifications: “The current liturgical renewal is neither archaeological nor aesthetic nor determined by rubrics; its basic ideas are of a teleological nature and are given concrete form by the actual conditions of pastoral care”49. In this context, an often cited remark by Kirchgässner reveals much about the editors’ thinking: What is interesting about the liturgical renewal? That it is no longer driven by a small circle of enthusiasts but by missionaries, those with a special task, who can confidently assess the stance of the traditional Roman liturgy towards the contemporary world, and who approach problems not with the gastronomer’s tongue or the art critic’s eye, but with the heart of an apostle, concerned for the spiritual50.

The editors’ conclusion at the end of the section giving information about the Constitution on the Liturgy also spoke volumes: The following chapters on the mass, the sacraments and sacramentals, the divine office, the liturgical year, the sacred objects, art and music were treated according to “the general principles of the reform and promotion of the liturgy”. Detailed issues were not engaged; rather, the focus is on the spirit. This spirit shines through in its evangelical, pastoral and ecumenical facets. It is the long-awaited dew that refreshes a Church desirous of an authentic Christian life51. 48. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, April-May 1963, pp. 165-182. See CHENAUX, Letempsde VaticanII (n. 17),pp. 154-161 and M. LAMBERIGTS – J. GELDHOF, Devierendegemeenschap vandeliturgischebewegingtotvandaag:Hetverhaalvaneenonopgelostespanningtussen anabasisenkatabasis, in LAMBERIGTS – KENIS (eds.), VaticanumII:Geschiedenisofinspiratie? (n. 22),127-143; O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), pp. 181-196. 49. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, April-May 1963, p. 169. On the role of the German liturgist and Jesuit Jungmann (1889-1975), see LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, Het Concilie VaticanumII (n. 2), p. 66. 50. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, April-May 1963, p. 173; I found no further information on Kirchgässner. 51. Ibid., p. 176. See LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, Het Concilie Vaticanum II (n. 2), pp. 66-72 and 170-171.

386

J. DE MAEYER

The editors believed that this conciliar spirit also had to be translated into an adapted material culture: church architecture and religious art had to be the material expression or emanation of the spirit of renewal. The church building had to become a space of and for the community. It is here that we see the influence of Geert Bekaert and also of Ars Sacra at its strongest. Ars Sacra was a milestone in the history of the material culture of the Church in Flanders (Belgium). With a manifesto and an exhibition in St. Peter’s Church in Leuven, some liturgists at the University of Leuven concerned about liturgical renewal as well as a number of architects and visual artists expressed their disappointment with the Vatican pavilion Civitas Dei at the World Exhibition in Brussels in 1958; they wanted to demonstrate the potentiality of art and architecture to express what a few years later would prove to be the conciliar spirit52. In a certain sense, they were trailblazers. It is therefore all the more significant that Hoogland and Hoogland-Dokumentatie consciously took a stand on this history of renewal: Now it is indeed conceivable, and it does happen that the dialogue between religion and art breaks down because they both become alienated from their origins; art and religion are then institutionalised. They bind their experience to certain forms, which then ossify and die off. But there is no humanity without symbols. The new symbols created by a living art can no longer recognise an entrenched religion that with withered symbols builds its own world of forms, which has nothing in common with art except the name. It goes without saying that such a religion has not only destroyed art but also itself by banishing the living sacred values from itself. From such a conflict, the distinction arose in the nineteenth century between so-called religious art, which has nothing to do with art or religion, and living art that incarnates real values53.

Within the Northern Belgium province of the Jesuits, the editors were not alone in holding such views, as witnessed by architects and artists such as the stained glass artist Michel Martens or the architect Marc Dessauvage being commissioned to work on a new chapel in the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwecollege in Antwerp and on the Centre for Contemplation in Godsheide near 52. On Ars Sacra, see J. DE MAEYER, Espritdecomparaison:Lemouvementliturgique etsoninteractionavecl’artsacréenBelgiquedansuneperspectiveinternationale(19001980), in C. MAINGON – N. COUTANT (eds.), Modernitésacrée:Aspectsdurenouveaude l’art sacré en Normandie (1920-1960), Monte-Saint-Aigan, Presses universitaires de Rouen, 2017, 236-239; R. DEVOS, Het Civitas Dei Paviljoen op Expo 58, MA paper, University of Ghent, 2000; R. HERMANS, Civitas Dei: De Kerk op Expo 58, Leuven, KADOC/Expo I, 2008. 53. Ibid., p. 184.

SENTIREECCLESIAM

387

Hasselt (1969)54. Genuine architecture and art: for the editors this was what was at stake from now on! V. ECUMENISM: “BRIDGING CONTRADICTIONS, UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENCES” The Second Vatican Council was also devoted to engaging in dialogue with the Jewish tradition and the other Christian churches55. A delegation of more than 40 observers from these religious communities followed the Council’s activities, a development that was viewed positively by the editors of HooglandandHoogland-Dokumentatie56. Their testimonies or reports to their own supporters were also published in both magazines. The editors gradually became fervent proponents of ecumenism, as illustrated by the regular reports and reflections on the subject between 1958 and 196557. In fact, they made their own of the famous words of Pope Paul VI (1897/1963-1978) when he stated that in overcoming differences and striving for mutual understanding, the different denominations “were again coming to esteem one another”58. Paul VI’s many outreach gestures to other Church leaders – meeting the patriarch Athenagoras I in 1964 (in Jerusalem), in 1967 (in Istanbul) and in 1965 in Rome when both agreed to lift the mutual anathema between the Western and Eastern Churches resulting from the Great Schism of 1054; going on pilgrimage to the Holy Land (Israel and Jerusalem) in 1964; and meeting Archbishop Michael Ramsey, the head of the Anglican Church, in 1966 in Rome – were seen as communicating a very positive message. However, both periodicals highlighted even more fully the role of Cardinals Bea and Willebrands in the rapprochement of the churches. In Bea, the editors 54. Marc Dessauvage, architect, 1931-1984. See A. NEVEJANS – E. VAN REGENMORTEL – K. MAES, MarcDessauvage, in ODIS. Record last modified date: 20 September 2017. Available on http://www.odis.be/lnk/PS_12383; on Michel Martens, stained glass artist, 1921-2006, see Archief Michel Martens. 1939-2006. ODIS. Record last modified date: 4 August 2017. Available http://www.odis.be/lnk/AE_11365. 55. LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, HetConcilieVaticanumII (n. 2), pp. 113-119 and 160162; O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), pp. 265-272 and 289-309 and CHENAUX, LetempsdeVaticanII (n. 17), pp. 133-145; D.M. THOMPSON, Ecumenism, in H. MCLEOD (ed.), World Christianities c.1914-c.2000 (The Cambridge History of Christianity, 9), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014, 50-70, pp. 65-67. 56. See LAMBERIGTS – DECLERCK, HetConcilieVaticanumII (n. 2), p. 127. 57. Hoogland, April 1962, June-July 1962, November 1962, January 1963, May 1963, January 1965, May 1965; Hoogland-Dokumentatie, January 1962, December 1963, January 1964, May 1965. 58. Hoogland, December 1965.

388

J. DE MAEYER

saw evidence that the aggiornamento was not a question of age but of conviction59. Following a tried and tested model, Hoogland-Dokumentatie brought out a special issue on Ecumenism in January 1962 entitled “Christians on the road to unity”60. It was a very well documented issue, which inter alia introduced readers to a selection of books, including Roger Aubert’s Problèmesdel’Unitéchrétienne, Hans Küng’s TheCouncil,Reformand Reunion, and Roger Schutz’s L’Unité, espérance de vie61. The charismatic prior of the ecumenically oriented community in Taizé in France proved to be a welcome point of reference for the editorial staff, as evidenced by his being repeatedly mentioned in the periodicals62. For the editors – as expressed by Louis Monden, sj – what was at stake was putting the true ecumenical spirit into practice. In that context they cited Yves Congar’s Aspectsdel’œcuménisme: By “renewal” I understand returning to the great sources, examining again those sources that are above all the Scriptures, the Church Fathers and the liturgy. There are two ways of being Catholic and, I think, also of being orthodox. One may want to tenaciously adhere to the literal position of one’s Church, and to justify all of it; or one can also inject new life into the current viewpoints of one’s Church through contact with the great sources that we have in common. Divergent opinions will remain, but they will then be more differences than contradictions63.

Hoogland-Dokumentatie also advocated introducing the experience of ecumenism into the liturgy, and quoted the well-known priest and pioneer of ecumenism, Paul Couturier, in his plea for creating forms of communal prayer. Furthermore, the editors seemed to be rather sympathetic to lighting the so-called “Una Sancta candle” every Thursday. In the same 59. Hoogland, November 1962, January 1963, January 1965, May 1965, December 1965. Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, 1886-1972. On the anathema see O’MALLEY, L’ÉvénementVaticanII (n. 2), p. 395; Michael Ramsey, 100th Archbishop of Canterbury, 1904-1988; Johannes Willebrands, 1909-2006, secretary of the Secretariat for Christian Unity from 1960 and Cardinal Bea’s right-hand man; created cardinal in 1969; left Rome in 1975 to become archbishop of Utrecht where he remained until 1983. See SCHELKENS – DICK – METTEPENNINGEN, Aggiornamento?(n. 2), pp. 132-133 and 156-158. 60. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, January 1962. 61. R. AUBERT, Problèmesdel’Unitéchrétienne:Initiation,Paris – Chevetogne, Éditions de Chevetogne, 1961; H. KÜNG, The Council, Reform and Reunion, New York, Sheed and Ward, 1961; R. SCHUTZ, L’Unité,espérancedevie, Taizé, Les Presses de Taizé, 1962. 62. Hoogland, April 1962, January 1963, August-September 1970; Roger Schutz, 1915-2005. 63. Hoogland-Dokumentatie, January 1962, p. 104; Y. CONGAR, Aspectsdel’œcuménisme, Bruxelles, La Pensée catholique, 1962. Yves Congar, dominican father and influential theologian, 1904-1995.

SENTIREECCLESIAM

389

vein, the editors appended to the end of the special issue a proposed scheme for a “prayer vigil for unity”64. For both periodicals it was a question of making ecumenism an actuality in the future. VI. CONCLUSION: “HOLY UNREST” The editors of Hooglandand Hoogland-Dokumentatiewere taken up into the great expectations that the announcement of Vatican II on 25 January 1959 evoked. They were very enthusiastic about the attempted renewal of the Church, from which they hoped a great deal and about which they even showed a certain impatience. The nucleus of the Jesuits in question insisted on the actual implementation of the Council’s achievements. As long as these were not implemented, a “holy unrest” had to continue in the Church. Still, the periodicals disseminated more the spirit of Vatican II than the texts or the content of the Council’s constitutions. It is striking how after the closing of the Council on 8 December 1965, both publications continued to refer regularly to it until the end of the 1960s, but did not dedicate any more contributions to it. The attention of both youth-oriented periodicals from now on focused on ‘hot’ items such as the various facets of the cultural revolutions of the late 1960s, the sexual revolution and the emergence of new forms of personal relationships, the questioning of order and authority, the struggle for the emancipation of women and the call for a new world order. The Council’s concepts of justice and peace and especially the impression made by Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967) also demanded attention. The importance of Hooglandand Hoogland-Dokumentatielay mainly in their well-planned features that tried to make second- and third-level students believe in the many possibilities of Vatican II and in the conciliar spirit that would make possible the renewal of the Church. They therefore strove so that young people would permanently make their own of the ideal of sentireecclesiam. [email protected]

64. Ibid., pp. 105 and 113-115.

Jan DE MAEYER

LOUVAIN (1966-1968)

LE RÔLE DE MGR E.J. DE SMEDT, ÉVÊQUE DE BRUGES, DANS LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN UNE CHRONIQUE ENTRE 1966 ET 1968

I. INTRODUCTION Le 2 février 1968, Mgr De Smedt1 fit une déclaration retentissante dans une réunion des membres du «Boerenbond» [Alliance agricole] à Courtrai où il affirma qu’il n’était plus solidaire de la déclaration épiscopale du 13 mai 1966 – qui avait réaffirmé l’unité géographique de l’université – et que par conséquent il était favorable à un transfert de la section francophone de l’Université catholique de Louvain2 en territoire francophone. Cinquante ans après les faits on peut, grâce à l’ouverture des archives de Mgr De Smedt, du cardinal Suenens3 et de la Conférence épiscopale belge4, 1. Mgr. Emiel Jozef De Smedt, né à Opwijk le 30 octobre 1909, a obtenu le doctorat en philosophie et en théologie à l’Université Grégorienne à Rome. Ordonné prêtre du diocèse de Malines le 17 septembre 1933, professeur et président du Grand Séminaire de Malines, évêque auxiliaire de Malines en 1950 et évêque de Bruges de 1952 à 1984. Il est décédé à Bruges le 1 octobre 1995. Cf. M. VAN DE VOORDE, Mgr.DeSmedt,eenhartelijke bisschop,Tielt-Weesp, Lannoo, 1984 (surtout pp. 69-74); M. VAN DE VOORDE, Bisschop Emiel-JozefDeSmedt:Zijnwerkenzijnhoudinginkerkelijkeenmaatschappelijkeaangelegenheden, dans M. CLOET (éd.), HetbisdomBrugge(1559-1984), Brugge, Westvlaams verbond van kringen voor heemkunde, 1984, 529-546; R. HOUTHAEVE, Een man van Pinksteren:Mgr.EmielJozefDeSmedt, s.l., 1996 (surtout pp. 108-118); W.R. JONCKHEERE, SmedtEmielJ.de,dans NieuweEncyclopedievandeVlaamseBeweging, 3, Tielt, Lannoo, 1998, 2761-2763. J. FLORQUIN, Tenhuizevan…. Vijftiende reeks, Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1979, pp. 309-345. 2. Comme sigles on trouvera: UL: Université catholique de Louvain unitaire avant la scission de 1968. UCL: Université catholique de Louvain à Louvain-la-Neuve, érigée en 1968. KUL: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven à Leuven, érigée en 1968. 3. Léon Joseph Suenens (1904-1996), vice-recteur de l’Université catholique de Louvain en 1940, évêque auxiliaire de Malines en 1945, archevêque de Malines-Bruxelles et grand chancelier de l’UL de 1961 à 1979, cardinal en 1962. 4. Nous tenons à remercier Mgr H. Cosijns, secrétaire-général de la Conférence épiscopale belge et M. Gerrit Vanden Bosch, archiviste de l’archidiocèse de Malines-Bruxelles pour leur aide. Les documents provenant des archives De Smedt (Évêché de Bruges) sont indiqués: Fonds De Smedt. Les documents provenant des archives du cardinal Suenens (Archidiocèse de MalinesBruxelles) sont indiqués: Fonds Suenens. Les documents provenant du Secrétariat de la Conférence épiscopale belge (Bruxelles) sont indiqués: Fonds SCE.

394

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

examiner de plus près quel a été le rôle de l’évêque de Bruges – au cours des années 1966-1968 – dans cette scission5. Il faut se souvenir qu’avant 1968 les évêques résidentiels – et eux seuls – constituaient le Pouvoir Organisateur de l’Université catholique. Parmi eux De Smedt était l’évêque flamand le plus ancien dans sa charge. Il avait joué un rôle important dans l’Église non seulement par sa pastorale dynamique et missionnaire mais aussi par son engagement politique (notamment dans la guerre scolaire en Belgique de 1954 à 1958), et surtout au Concile Vatican II6. Son influence dans l’«affaire de Louvain» sera également importante. II. ESQUISSE DE LA PROBLÉMATIQUE 1. Il faut situer cette scission dans l’évolution des relations compliquées et mouvementées des deux communautés linguistiques, francophone et flamande, en Belgique7. Ajoutons que la région flamande plus rurale était traditionnellement plus attachée à l’Église tandis que la région wallonne était plus sécularisée par suite de l’ancienne industrialisation et de l’influence du socialisme. Dans une Note verbale, transmise lors de son audience du 11 juin 1966, Mgr De Smedt donne l’explication suivante au pape: «Depuis la fondation de la Belgique (1830), les milieux financiers, l’aristocratie et la bourgeoisie se sont toujours opposés aux revendications flamandes avec cette conséquence que la plus grande part du peuple flamand ne pouvait atteindre son plein épanouissement qu’au prix de l’abandon de ses propres traditions culturelles néerlandaises. Les Flamands ont proposé le bilinguisme mais les francophones l’ont refusé. Les catholiques flamands ont toujours eu l’impression que l’épiscopat avait partie liée avec les francophones. Ils étaient convaincus que les évêques s’étaient toujours 5. Dans le cadre de cet article, il nous est impossible de donner l’histoire complète de cette scission. Pour l’histoire détaillée, cf. W. JONCKHEERE – H. TODTS, LeuvenVlaams: SplitsingsgeschiedenisvandeKatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven, Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1979. C. LAPORTE, L’Affaire de Louvain, l’histoire du Walen buiten 1960-1968, Bruxelles, De Boeck, 1999. Voir aussi L.J. SUENENS, Souvenirs et Espérances, Paris, Fayard, 1991, pp. 135-136. 6. Pour le rôle de De Smedt au Concile Vatican II, cf. M. LAMBERIGTS, Mgr. Emiel JozefDeSmedt,bisschopvanBruggeenhetTweedeVaticaansConcile, dans Collationes 28 (1998) 281-326. 7. Histoire compliquée, qui présente des analogies – mais omniscomparatioclaudicat – avec l’histoire du peuple basque, catalan ou irlandais.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

395

opposés au progrès culturel de la partie la plus nombreuse et la plus chrétienne de la Belgique. Les évêques ont souvent invoqué l’unité du pays, l’unité du parti catholique, l’unité des chrétiens pour retarder certaines mesures et l’acceptation de revendications équitables …»8. Dans une lettre de fin juin 1966 au cardinal et à leurs collègues francophones, les évêques flamands essaient d’expliquer la réaction défavorable des Flamands à la Déclaration de l’épiscopat du 13 mai 1966: Nous croyons qu’il faut considérer cet état d’esprit à la lumière des antécédents et de la longue et pénible lutte du peuple flamand pour son émancipation. Il faut se souvenir du fait que jusqu’en 1925 environ les Flamands étaient commandés en français dans l’armée, jugés en français devant les tribunaux et que le Cardinal Mercier9 déclarait leur langue inapte à être utilisée dans l’enseignement supérieur etc. Les Flamands estiment que c’étaient là des situations qui criaient justice au ciel. Ils prétendent que les évêques ont toujours méconnu leurs aspirations légitimes et qu’ils ont toujours fait appel à l’obéissance pour prolonger des situations injustes. Ils répètent qu’ils ont dû conquérir leurs droits légitimes contre les évêques. Ils reprochent à ceux-ci d’avoir abusé de motifs religieux pour maintenir le peuple flamand dans une situation d’infériorité10.

2. Au 19e siècle et au début du 20e siècle, l’enseignement universitaire en Flandre se donnait uniquement en français. L’Université d’État de Gand, qui était en 1923 devenue une université bilingue, a donné tous les cours en néerlandais seulement à partir de 1930. L’Université Libre de Bruxelles a donné quelques cours en néerlandais à partir de 1950. Mais ce n’est qu’en 1969-1970 que la Vrije Universiteit Brussel a été érigée. À Louvain, quelques cours (de littérature néerlandaise et plus tard de droit) ont été donnés en néerlandais surtout à partir de 1890, mais ce n’est que vers la fin des années 30 que pratiquement la totalité des cours a été dédoublée. En 1960-61 encore on parlait uniquement le français dans les réunions des facultés. À partir des années 60 les Flamands ont exigé des structures unilingues et l’autonomie pour chaque faculté. Le problème des hôpitaux universitaires où des médecins traitaient des patients flamands sans connaître le néerlandais était posé avec acuité. De plus la communauté flamande craignait que les francophones de Louvain n’exigent un statut bilingue pour 8. Fonds De Smedt 86. 9. Dans des Instructions aux directeurs et aux professeurs des collège libres d’humanités (septembre 1906). Désiré Mercier (1851-1926), archevêque de Malines de 1906 à 1926, cardinal en 1907. 10. Fonds Suenens 570b.

396

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

cette ville (comme Bruxelles), ce qui pour eux aurait été une atteinte à l’intégrité territoriale et culturelle de la Flandre. Les francophones avaient évidemment un autre point de vue. Ils étaient d’avis que la communauté universitaire de Louvain était un exemple de symbiose de plusieurs cultures, et s’opposaient à l’idée que la Flandre fut une nation propre où régnerait d’abord le droit du sol. Ils ne comprenaient pas qu’en Belgique on puisse interdire à quelqu’un de parler sa langue et certains espéraient en effet que la région de Louvain obtienne le statut de région bilingue, comme c’était le cas à Bruxelles. D’ailleurs, comme université «libre» Louvain avait été pendant plus d’un siècle largement financée par des dons des fidèles catholiques, qui provenaient en grande partie des classes dirigeantes francophones. Le fait que la scission était imposée par des universitaires, censés être chrétiens, leur semblait un péché contre l’Esprit11. Inutile de dire que le slogan odieux «Walen buiten» («Les Wallons dehors», qui inévitablement rappelait le souvenir du «Juden raus» des Nazis) crié dans certaines manifestations des étudiants ajoutait à l’amertume des francophones. La scission de l’université catholique fut en effet d’abord une question politique et une étape importante qui s’inscrivit dans une longue histoire de communautarisation et de fédéralisation de la Belgique. 3. Mais dans cette crise, d’autres facteurs ont également joué. 3.1. La démocratisation de l’enseignement universitaire. Entre 1950 et 1970 se produisit une explosion du nombre d’étudiants. Ce qui eut pour conséquence qu’une ville moyenne, comme Louvain (environ 32.000 habitants) ne serait bientôt plus en mesure d’héberger 30 à 40.000 étudiants12. D’où la nécessité de transplanter certaines facultés ou de transférer des candidatures vers d’autres villes du pays (Bruxelles, Anvers, Courtrai, Namur, Mons, Hasselt). Il était donc assez logique de penser d’abord au transfert de candidatures francophones de Louvain en pays francophone ou à la transplantation de la faculté de médecine à Bruxelles13. Mgr De Smedt était, pour des motifs pastoraux, un grand partisan de l’érection de candidatures de Louvain dans son diocèse, 11. Cf. les propos de Mgr É. Massaux dans É. MASSAUX,Pourl’Universitécatholique deLouvain:Le«Recteurdefer».DialogueavecOmerMarchal, Bruxelles, Hatier, 1987, pp. 33 et 151-154. 12. Selon les prévisions de l’époque. En fait, à cause de la dénatalité qui débuta en Belgique à partir des années 1968, ces chiffres n’ont pas été atteints. 13. Notamment parce que, pour les futurs médecins francophones (souvent ignorant complètement la langue flamande), on devait disposer d’un nombre suffisant de patients francophones dans les cliniques universitaires.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

397

d’abord à Bruges, et puis – à cause de l’opposition des socialistes et de l’Université d’État de Gand – à Courtrai. 3.2. La sécularisation rapide de la société belge dans les années 60. De plus en plus on mettait en question l’existence d’un enseignement universitaire catholique et le «verzuiling» (cloisonnement – «pillarisation») des institutions. Certains, même parmi les membres du Parti Social-Chrétien, prônaient l’école pluraliste. Indice certain que l’influence de l’Église catholique était en déclin. 3.3. Au Concile Vatican II, le rôle du laïcat chrétien avait été fortement souligné notamment par les évêques et théologiens de la «squadra belga». Beaucoup se posaient donc la question de savoir s’il n’était pas anormal qu’une université fût encore gouvernée par un Pouvoir Organisateur, exclusivement composé par les évêques résidentiels et où toutes les fonctions dirigeantes (notamment: recteur, pro-recteurs, vice-recteurs) étaient réservées à des clercs. 3.4. Il faut aussi se souvenir que la révolte des étudiants flamands louvanistes en mai 1966, puis en janvier 1968, doit être située non seulement dans la ligne du mouvement estudiantin flamand mais aussi dans le mouvement général de contestation de cette période, qui fut parfois radicale et souvent d’inspiration marxiste ou maoïste. Partout «l’autorité» traditionnelle fut ébranlée. III. LA DÉCLARATION DES ÉVÊQUES DE BELGIQUE AU SUJET DE L’UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN, 13 MAI 1966 LA RÉACTION VIOLENTE EN PAYS FLAMAND 1. Pour faire face aux tensions de plus en plus vives entre les communautés linguistiques à l’université14, une commission épiscopale avait été érigée déjà en avril 1962 par le Pouvoir Organisateur15: Mgr De Smedt

14. Ces tensions devinrent plus vives après la loi du 30.7.1963, qui réglait l’emploi des langues dans l’enseignement (selon l’appartenance à la région flamande, wallonne ou bruxelloise). À l’exception de l’enseignement universitaire, l’enseignement devait être donné dans la langue de la région. Ce qui pouvait aussi impliquer qu’à l’avenir les écoles primaires et secondaires francophones à Louvain ne soient plus subsidiées par l’État. D’où une grande inquiétude des professeurs francophones de Louvain pour l’éducation de leurs enfants. Cf. W.R. JONCKHEERE, JanVerroken:VanHarmelcentrumtotHertoginnedal, s.l., 1992 (surtout pp. 247-251, 278-286, 323-334). 15. Cf. LeuvenVlaams (n. 5), p. 34.

398

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

en faisait partie, avec NN. SS. Daem16, Descamps17 et Musty18. Ainsi le 27 mai 1963, suite à une demande de De Smedt de lui soumettre quelques idées concernant une éventuelle intervention des évêques, Mgr Charue19 écrit une lettre à Mgr De Smedt et il propose de demander au législateur pour qu’il accorde aux francophones [de Louvain] toutes les facilités possibles20. Le 21 décembre 1965, les évêques font une Déclaration21 où ils affirmaient: 1° On doit maintenir l’unité de l’Alma Mater. 2° On doit affermir le fonctionnement autonome des deux sections et préparer l’essaimage territorial à Woluwé (médecine) et dans le canton de Wavre. 3° Pour étudier ces problèmes une commission sera érigée qui fera au Pouvoir Organisateur des propositions concrètes concernant la structuration des organes de direction et l’aménagement géographique des installations. Ce sera la commission Leemans22-Aubert23. 2. AvantlaDéclarationdesÉvêques(janvier-mai1966) Durant cette période De Smedt suit activement l’évolution de la situation. Il est bien sûr l’interlocuteur privilégié des milieux flamands. Mais le cardinal, le recteur Descamps et plusieurs représentants des professeurs francophones s’adressent aussi à lui comme la personne la plus autorisée du Pouvoir Organisateur. Voici un aperçu des principaux contacts de De Smedt avec des protagonistes de cette période, classés par ordre chronologique. 16. Jules Victor Daem (1902-1993), directeur général du Secrétariat national de l’Enseignement catholique (1957-1962), évêque d’Anvers (1962-1977). 17. Albert Descamps (1916-1980), professeur d’exégèse, évêque auxiliaire de Tournai 1960, recteur magnifique de l’UL (1962-1968), secrétaire de la Commission biblique pontificale (1973-1980). 18. Jean Baptiste Musty (1912-1992), évêque auxiliaire de Namur de 1957 à 1991. 19. André-Marie Charue (1898-1977), professeur d’exégèse au Grand Séminaire de Namur (1928-1941), évêque de Namur (1941-1974). 20. Fonds De Smedt 225. Charue ajoute: «Je pense que le moment est venu de déclarer sans ambages que nous réprouvons les manœuvres d’où qu’elles viennent qui tendent à chasser les francophones ou à leur rendre la vie impossible à Louvain». 21. Fonds De Smedt 54 (le Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique du 21.12.1965) et 86 (la Déclaration). 22. Edward Leemans (1926-1998), professeur de sociologie à l’Université de Nimègue de 1957-1965 et à l’UL en 1965, commissaire général de l’UL en 1966, sénateur en 1973 et président du Sénat de 1980 à 1987. 23. Xavier Aubert (1919-1998), chargé de cours en 1956 et professeur de physiologie à l’UL en 1960.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

399

a) Janvier 1966 – À la réunion des évêques du 15.1.1966, Mgr De Smedt communique qu’il a rencontré Mik Babylon (député de la Volksunie à Roulers)24, le prof. Z. Van Hee25, A. De Smaele26 (propriétaire du journal DeStandaard) et E. Van Cauwelaert27 (rédacteur en chef du journal HetVolk) afin de demander leur collaboration à l’apaisement des esprits. Il a reçu aussi une lettre des étudiants flamands demandant une entrevue28. – Le 21.1, Mgr Descamps demande des explications à De Smedt, qui aurait appelé Z. Van Hee et lui aurait dit que le déménagement des francophones commencerait en 1967 au plus tard29. – Le 25.1, A. De Vuyst30, à la demande de ses collègues francophones, transmet à De Smedt le texte de la motion des doyens de la section francophone du 24.1 où on lit «qu’à la date du 21 janvier 1966, un doyen de la section flamande [Z. Van Hee] a annoncé publiquement, en se réclamant d’un mandat émanant d’un évêque flamand [De Smedt], certaines réformes de structure internes et certaines décisions concernant le transfert en Wallonie de la section francophone»31. – Le 27.1, Suenens transmet à De Smedt une note confidentielle concernant les achats de terrains dans le canton de Wavre et il demande à De Smedt de lui transmettre par téléphone son accord32. – Le 27.1, le «Leuvens Studenten Korps» (Association flamande des étudiants) envoie une lettre aux évêques et au nonce apostolique Oddi33 dans laquelle ils affirment que De Smedt leur a assuré que les deux sections de l’université deviendront autonomes, que le budget sera scindé et qu’une partie de la section francophone sera transférée en 24. Mik Babylon (1935-2006), député pour la Volksunie de 1965 à 1978. Voir aussi HOUTHAEVE, EenmanvanPinksteren (n. 1), pp. 105-106. 25. Zeger Van Hee (1909-1971), professeur et doyen de la faculté de droit à l’UL. 26. Albert De Smaele (1921-2009), rédacteur et éditeur du journal De Standaard de 1947 à 1976. 27. Emiel Van Cauwelaert (1910-1982), journaliste, rédacteur en chef et directeur politique du journal HetVolk. 28. Fonds De Smedt 54, Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, 15.1.1966, p. 2. 29. Fonds De Smedt 233. La réponse de De Smedt ne se trouve pas dans les archives. 30. Albert De Vuyst (1906-1994), professeur de zootechnie à l’UL en 1943, fondateur puis président de l’Association des Anciens et des Amis de l’Université catholique de Louvain. 31. Fonds Suenens 570a. Suenens, qui avait reçu cette motion par le pro-recteur Massaux, a répondu le 28.1.1966. 32. Fonds De Smedt 233. 33. Silvio Oddi (1910-2001), nonce apostolique en Égypte en 1957, et en Belgique en 1962, cardinal en 1969, préfet de la Congrégation pour le clergé de 1979-1986.

400

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Wallonie. Mais – selon les étudiants – cette assertion ne correspond pas au communiqué de presse de Suenens ni aux déclarations du vice-recteur Devroede34. À cause de ces ambiguïtés ils donnent un préavis d’une grève d’avertissement pour le 28.135. – Dans une lettre du 28.1, G. Verbeke36, remercie De Smedt pour son exposé aux séminaristes concernant la situation à Louvain. Il demande en même temps que l’épiscopat donne des directives claires à la Commission Leemans-Aubert37. b) Février 1966 – Le 2 février, le nonce Oddi demande des explications à De Smedt38 concernant les déclarations qu’il aurait faites au «Leuvens Studenten Korps» (cf. leur lettre du 27.1). De Smedt lui répond dès le 3.2. Il a en effet donné un commentaire de la déclaration de l’épiscopat du 21.12.1965: les évêques veulent sauvegarder l’unité réelle de l’université et affermir le fonctionnement autonome des deux sections, ce qui implique la division du budget ordinaire. Les décisions déjà prises en ce qui concerne Woluwé et le canton de Wavre revêtent un caractère ferme. Les étudiants ont affirmé qu’ils comprenaient le bien-fondé de la position du Pouvoir Organisateur et ils ont promis de veiller à ce que la grève n’ait pas lieu. De Smedt envoie aussi copie de cette lettre à Suenens et aux autres évêques. Charue lui répond «qu’il y a une distance entre ce que vous y écrivez et ce qu’on vous a fait dire. J’étais convaincu qu’on avait trahi votre pensée et donc abusé de votre confiance». Daem aussi 34. Joseph Devroede (1915-1989), recteur du Pontificio Collegio Belga à Rome de 1949 à 1962, vice-recteur de la section francophone de l’UL puis de l’UCL de 1968 à 1980. 35. Fonds De Smedt 233. 36. Gerard Verbeke (1910-2001), prêtre du diocèse de Bruges, 1935, professeur de philosophie à l’UL de 1946 à 1978, président du séminaire Léon XIII à Louvain en 1948. 37. Fonds De Smedt 233. 38. Le nonce intervenait parfois dans cette question sans pourtant bien comprendre la complexité de la situation. On a aussi la nette impression qu’il est surtout informé par des milieux francophones. Ainsi le 9.2.1966, il a encore écrit une lettre confidentielle à Suenens où il dit que «la Sacrée Congrégation des Séminaires ne peut que s’associer à la condamnation des agitateurs exprimée par des catholiques de bon sens, qui estiment ‘absurde et criminel’ surtout au moment où le Concile s’est terminé dans un esprit d’œcuménisme et de collaboration, de séparer brutalement les enfants d’un même pays, parce qu’ils parlent une langue différente. … La S. Congrégation estime qu’il serait opportun, de la part de l’Épiscopat … de prendre une position qui soit de nature à empêcher efficacement la propagande publique de lutte raciale de la part de qui que ce soit …» (Fonds Suenens 570a).

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

401

remercie De Smedt et il est convaincu que le prof. Van Hee et l’étudiant Tom Swartelé39 ne méritent pas confiance. Daem croit qu’à Malines on ne dit pas toujours la vérité entière. Il est fort préoccupé par la situation40. – À la réunion des évêques du 14.2.1966, le cardinal explique que Mgr De Smedt a reçu des journalistes, des professeurs, des étudiants et des hommes politiques afin de «calmer le jeu». Nonobstant l’impression donnée par ces gens d’avoir bien compris, ils sont restés en fait sur leurs positions. Il y a eu abus des paroles de Mgr De Smedt par le prof. Van Hee. Devant la demande formelle du recteur de démettre E. De Jonghe41 comme secrétaire-général, Mgr De Smedt croit que d’autres qu’E. De Jonghe ont commis des indiscrétions. On dit que M. Woitrin42 passerait régulièrement des renseignements à LaLibreBelgique. De Smedt pense qu’il est dangereux d’éloigner De Jonghe en ce moment-ci: il ferait figure de martyr. On conclut que De Smedt dira à De Jonghe qu’il désapprouve son comportement43. En effet, De Smedt communique, le 23.2, à Suenens qu’il a écrit à De Jonghe une lettre extrêmement sévère, qu’il a reçu l’étudiant Julien Bulcke44 qui lui a promis de chercher à éviter la grève45, mais qu’il insiste également pour que les crédits destinés à Woluwé soient utilisés sans tarder (d’après une information de Descamps, à qui il a répondu que ce retard est inadmissible). Le cardinal lui répond, le 25.2, qu’il faudra inviter le recteur à la prochaine réunion du Pouvoir Organisateur46. c) Mars 1966 – Le 4.3, Descamps écrit à De Smedt et lui envoie une longue note technique: «Les projets de Louvain à Woluwé S. Lambert» (État de la question au 4 mars 1966) pour le tranquilliser47. De Smedt a transmis 39. Tom Swartelé, président du KVHV de 1964 à 1965, secrétaire du «Verbond Vlaamse Academici» en 1969. 40. Fonds De Smedt 233; Fonds Suenens 570a. 41. Eugeen De Jonghe (1922-1996), administrateur général de l’UL de 1962 à 1966. 42. Michel Woitrin (1919-2008), administrateur général de l’UL de 1963 à 1984, cheville ouvrière du nouveau campus universitaire et de la ville de Louvain-la-Neuve. 43. Fonds De Smedt 54. 44. Julien Bulcke (1943-), un des dirigeants des étudiants flamands qui a aussi été reçu par le nonce, ingénieur civil. 45. Le 28.1.1966 il y a eu une grève d’avertissement dans trois facultés. Les étudiants ont promis de faire de leur mieux afin que la grève ne soit pas généralisée (avec nos remerciements à J. Bulcke pour cette information). 46. Fonds Suenens 570a et Fonds De Smedt 233. 47. Fonds De Smedt 233.

402

–

–

–

–

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

confidentiellement cette note au chanoine Vanhagendoren48, administrateur-inspecteur des bâtiments de l’université, qui lui répond, le 9.3, qu’on a perdu déjà beaucoup de temps dans cette affaire et qu’il faudra être très vigilant pour que le timing soit respecté49. Et le 10.3, Vanhagendoren transmet à De Smedt une note pour le Conseil d’Administration et une nouvelle étude pour E. De Jonghe50. Le 7.3, Suenens transmet à De Smedt la copie d’une lettre adressée le 24 février 1966 par un magistrat au rédacteur en chef de La Revue Nouvelle. Dans cette lettre les «déclarations» de De Smedt au Prof. Z. Van Hee sont critiquées51. Le 15.3, De Jonghe envoie à De Smedt des documents avec des études sur les «Conséquences du programme gouvernemental sur l’expansion de l’U.L.» et il attire l’attention sur le fait que ces plans du PSC-CVP52 dans le gouvernement auraient comme conséquence une diminution des subsides pour l’université d’un montant de 566 millions de francs, ce qui mettrait en danger les crédits disponibles pour l’expansion universitaire. À la réunion des évêques du 16.3.1966, on reparle des constructions à entreprendre à Woluwé et des terrains à acquérir dans le canton de Wavre. Une circulaire a été envoyée aux séminaires et couvents interdisant la participation d’ecclésiastiques aux manifestations (cf. la lettre d’Oddi du 9.2.1966)53. Le cardinal Suenens écrit, le 25.3, à De Smedt: il a repris contact avec Leemans et le rapport de cette Commission lui sera remis pour Pâques. Pour plus de discrétion il fera polycopier ce rapport à Malines et l’enverra au cours de la semaine qui suit Pâques. Il propose alors une rencontre des évêques (avec Leemans et Aubert) pour le 23 avril. Lors

48. Emile Vanhagendoren (1911-1993), prêtre du diocèse de Malines-Bruxelles, administrateur du personnel et des bâtiments de l’Université. 49. Fonds De Smedt 233. Sur une feuille annexe De Smedt a traduit les conclusions de Vanhagendoren en français (probablement en vue d’une intervention à la réunion des Évêques du 16.3). 50. De Jonghe lui-même transmet également cette note à De Smedt par sa lettre du 13.3 (Fonds De Smedt 233). 51. Fonds De Smedt 233. 52. En août 1945 le parti social démocrate chrétien a été érigé. Ce parti était unitaire pour toute la Belgique. En Wallonie on l’appelait Parti Social-Chrétien (PSC) et en Flandre Christelijke Volkspartij (CVP). À partir des années 60, le parti unitaire était constitué de deux ailes: une flamande et une francophone mais toujours avec un président national. De plus en plus il est appelé «PSC-CVP». En 1968, à cause surtout de la scission de l’Université de Louvain, le parti s’est scindé en deux partis indépendants: le PSC et le CVP. Les partis socialistes et libéraux ont connu une évolution similaire. 53. Fonds De Smedt 54. Le 21.3, Descamps écrit une lettre aux évêques au sujet de ces manifestations: il est fort critique pour le scolasticat flamand des dominicains et les étudiants du Collège pour l’Amérique latine (Fonds De Smedt 86).

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

403

de la réunion du 13 mai on pourrait arriver aux conclusions définitives54. – Le 26.3, le prof. Derine55 transmet une copie de sa correspondance avec Descamps56 à De Smedt, qui à son avis est celui de tous les évêques qui comprend le mieux le point de vue des professeurs flamands. – Le 29.3, R. Royer57, dans une lettre à De Smedt, expose le point de vue de RénovationWallonne, qui plaide pour un transfert de la section francophone de l’Université de Louvain en Wallonie et à Bruxelles58. – Le 30.3, l’Association générale des Étudiants francophones de Louvain adresse une lettre ouverte à De Smedt pour se plaindre des incidents et des provocations qu’ils ont subies le 16 mars59. d) Avril 1966 – Le 7.4, A. De Vuyst transmet à De Smedt au nom des doyens francophones une lettre qui exprime la nécessité de maintenir à Louvain l’intégralité de la section française. Par contre ils n’attachent qu’une importance relativement secondaire au problème des structures internes de l’université60. – Le projet du rapport de la commission Leemans-Aubert, daté du 8.4.1966, se trouve dans les archives De Smedt61. – Le 13.4, De Smedt écrit à T. Swartelé qu’il a reçu le rapport de la commission Leemans. Après l’avoir étudié, les évêques prendront des décisions avant la fin du mois de mai, pour que les nouvelles structures puissent entrer en fonction dès le début de l’année académique prochaine62. – Dans une lettre du 20.4, G. Verbeke remercie d’abord pour l’entretien du 18.4 et expose quelques remarques au sujet du rapport de la 54. Fonds De Smedt 233. 55. Raymond Derine (1926-1987), professeur de droit à l’UL, président du Vereniging van Vlaamse Professoren de 1966 à 1968, échevin de la ville d’Anvers de 1965 à 1976. 56. Le 21.3, Descamps avait reproché à Derine son article dans DeStandaard (16.3) et le menaçait de sanctions éventuelles après la Déclaration des évêques en mai. Le 25.3, Derine a alors répondu à ces accusations. Dans sa réponse à Derine (10.4.1966) De Smedt regrette lui aussi que cet article soit paru le jour même d’une manifestation de la «Vlaamse Volksbeweging» et a ainsi semblé la cautionner. Il lui demande de collaborer à un climat plus serein (Fonds De Smedt 233). 57. Robert Royer (1906-1979), fondateur et secrétaire général de Rénovation wallonne en 1945. 58. Fonds De Smedt 86. 59. Ibid. 60. Ibid. 61. Fonds De Smedt 233. Ce rapport contient beaucoup d’annotations manuscrites de De Smedt, probablement faites après le 13.5 quand avec l’aide de Billiauw et de Leemans il a travaillé à un nouveau Règlement Organique. On y trouve aussi des remarques d’une autre personne sur ce rapport. 62. Fonds De Smedt 233.

404

–

–

–

–

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

commission Leemans. Il dit aussi que Schot63 est un partisan convaincu de la structure unitaire de l’université. Clement De Ridder64, secrétaire général du Davidsfonds envoie, le 20.4, le point de vue de pratiquement la totalité des associations et des mouvements flamands: la création d’une université flamande à Leuven et le transfert de la section francophone en Wallonie65. À la demande du cardinal Suenens, G. Deurinck66 envoie à De Smedt, le 21.4, un document sur les conséquences financières d’une scission éventuelle de l’université67. Lors de leur réunion du 23.4, les évêques nomment d’abord le comité des sages: Dequae68, Schot, de Schryver69, Adam70, Hayoit de Termicourt71 [qui refusera et sera remplacé par Hervé d’Oultremont72], Cool73. En présence de Leemans et d’Aubert ils discutent alors le rapport de la commission. Pour la question du déménagement de toutes les candidatures francophones, il n’y a pas eu d’accord dans la commission. À la fin de la réunion Descamps est invité par Suenens à rédiger un projet de communication que les évêques feront après la réunion du 13 mai74. Le 25.4, le nonce Oddi rappelle encore à Suenens qu’aussi bien le Secrétaire d’État que la Congrégation des Séminaires et Universités sont convaincus qu’il faut sauvegarder le caractère unitaire de l’université75.

63. Maurice Schot (1896-1979), docteur en droit, sénateur et député de 1946 à 1964. 64. Clement De Ridder (1920-2013), secrétaire général en 1964 et président du Davidsfonds de 1977 à 1986. 65. Fonds De Smedt 232. 66. Gaston Deurinck (1920-2000), ingénieur civil, licencié en sciences économiques, bachelier en philosophie thomiste, membre du comité de rédaction de LaRevueNouvelle. 67. Fonds De Smedt 86. 68. André Dequae (1915-2006), député de 1946 à 1977, ministre de 1950 à 1954, de 1958 à 1965. 69. August de Schryver (1898-1991), député de 1928-1965, ministre en 1935, 1937, 1939, 1959-1960, premier président du Parti Social-Chrétien de 1945 à 1949. 70. Ernest Adam (1899-1985), sénateur de 1950 à 1971, ministre du commerce extérieur et de l’assistance technique de 1965 à 1966. 71. Raoul Hayoit de Termicourt (1893-1970), avocat général à la Cour de Cassation en 1938. 72. Hervé d’Oultremont (1901-1972). Cf. lettre de Descamps à Suenens, 26.4.1966; Fonds Suenens 570a. 73. August Cool (1903-1983), président du CSC – ACV (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens – Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond) de 1946 à 1968, ministre d’État en 1973. 74. Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, Fonds De Smedt 54. 75. Fonds Suenens 570b. Suenens a envoyé une copie de cette lettre aux évêques (Fonds De Smedt 86). Le 11.5, Oddi avait encore reçu une délégation d’étudiants flamands (Carl Bevernage, Herwig Langohr, Roel Nieuwdorp et Julien Bulcke, qui n’étaient guère enthousiastes de la position du nonce (cf. LeuvenVlaams[n. 5], p. 154 et les informations nous données par J. Bulcke, le 27.5.2017).

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

405

Signalons encore dans les archives Suenens (570a) une note de W. Onclin76 (2 p.) et une autre d’A. Dondeyne77 (5 p.), qui défendent des solutions modérées78. e) 1-12 mai 1966 Avant la réunion du Pouvoir Organisateur du 13 mai, on constate que les interventions auprès de De Smedt s’intensifient: 1° Du côté francophone – Dans deux lettres du 4 et 9 mai à De Smedt, A. Gits79, qui a été reçu par De Smedt le 28.4, lui parle de ses contacts avec le collège échevinal de Wavre et des possibilités pour Louvain d’y acquérir des terrains80. – Guy Jonard81 transmet, le 5.5, à De Smedt «La Position de l’Association générale des Étudiants francophones de Louvain face à l’avenir de leur Université» (ils ne peuvent accepter la séparation des candidatures et des doctorats82). – Le 6.5, L.-H. Dupriez83, président de l’ACAPSUL (Association du Corps Académique et du Personnel Scientifique de l’Université de Louvain), envoie le compte rendu de l’Assemblée générale du 4 mai 1966 (ils ne peuvent accepter l’expulsion des candidatures francophones exigée au nom des seuls impératifs linguistiques)84. – Le Prof. L.-H. Dupriez a été reçu par De Smedt à l’évêché de Bruges le 12.5. Dans une lettre du même jour il exprime sa gratitude mais en même temps son étonnement qu’on ait annoncé cette visite à la radio. Dans une seconde lettre il dit avoir appris que la nouvelle venait d’une information de l’agence de presse Belga à Bruges. Il se demande si l’indiscrétion ne vient pas de l’entourage de Mgr De Smedt85.

76. Willy Onclin (1905-1989), prêtre du diocèse de Liège, professeur de droit canonique à l’UL. 77. Albert Dondeyne (1901-1985), prêtre du diocèse de Bruges, professeur et président de l’Institut supérieur de Philosophie de l’UL. 78. Fonds Suenens 570a. 79. Adolphe Gits (1911-1981), docteur en théologie, doyen de Wavre. 80. Fonds De Smedt 86. 81. Guy Jonard (1942-2015), psychiatre. À l’époque président de l’Assemblée générale des étudiants louvanistes. 82. Fonds De Smedt 233. 83. Léon-H. Dupriez (1901-1986), professeur d’économie à l’UL de 1930 à 1972. 84. Fonds De Smedt 233. 85. Ibid.

406

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

2° Du côté flamand – Le 6.5, Clement de Ridder envoie à De Smedt la prise de position du Davidsfonds (ils exigent le transfert complet en Wallonie)86. – De Smedt a également reçu l’accord, conclu le 10.5.1966, entre des représentants du personnel scientifique et des étudiants aussi bien flamands que francophones87. – L. Roppe88 et J. Vandenbroucke89 envoient aux évêques, le 11.5, la position des Vlaamse Leergangen te Leuven (autonomie totale des deux sections; transfert de toutes les candidatures francophones à Wavre)90. – G. Philips91 écrit à De Smedt, le 12.5.1966, qu’il a été blessé par l’interprétation que le Prof. Van Hee a donnée des paroles de Mgr De Smedt, qui revient à une approbation du «Walen buiten»; les étudiants des facultés ecclésiastiques doivent suivre beaucoup de cours dans d’autres facultés (droit, histoire, philologie, biologie, langues orientales …). Si ces facultés étaient séparées, on aboutirait au système des facultés théologiques en Italie ou en Espagne où sont formés des théologiens isolés du monde; le groupe des professeurs des facultés ecclésiastiques est trop restreint pour pouvoir être divisé; à Louvain, l’atmosphère est troublée non pas tellement par les étudiants, mais par la presse et par quelques professeurs des deux sections; un petit nombre de professeurs est également d’avis qu’une université catholique n’a plus de sens dans le monde actuel92. Signalons encore que dans une longue lettre personnelle du 9.5 à Suenens, Ch. Moeller93 exprime ses angoisses et inquiétudes; faire déménager les candidatures françaises donnerait l’impression et même la certitude à la majorité de la section française, que ceci serait une nouvelle étape 86. Fonds De Smedt 232. 87. Cf. LeuvenVlaams(n. 5), p. 149 et Fonds De Smedt 86. 88. Louis Roppe (1914-1982), député de 1947 à 1950, gouverneur de la province du Limbourg de 1950 à 1978. 89. Jozuë Vandenbroucke (1914-1987), professeur à la Faculté de médecine de l’UL en 1952, vice-président de la «Vereniging van Vlaamse Professoren». 90. Les archives De Smedt contiennent la version définitive de cette lettre (Fonds De Smedt 86) mais aussi une version avec des corrections manuscrites [d’une écriture inconnue] (Fonds De Smedt 233), qui ont été insérées dans le texte définitif. Aurait-on soumis à De Smedt une première rédaction de cette lettre? 91. Gerard Philips (1899-1972), professeur de théologie dogmatique à l’UL de 1944 à 1969, sénateur de 1953 à 1968, secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale de Vatican II. 92. Fonds De Smedt 233. 93. Charles Moeller (1912-1986), professeur à l’UL en 1949, sous-secrétaire de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi de 1966 à 1973, secrétaire du Secrétariat pour l’Unité des Chrétiens (1973-1981).

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

407

dans le déménagement complet; il parle d’un conflit racial; sa lettre n’est pas inspirée par le moindre dédain de la culture flamande94. 3. LaDéclarationdesÉvêquesdeBelgiquedu13mai196695 a) La préparation du texte Le 10 mai, Leemans envoie à De Smedt (comme il l’a aussi fait à Suenens96) le projet d’un communiqué à faire après la réunion du 13 mai (De Smedt a rédigé quelques notes sur ce texte97). Leemans propose notamment le transfert des candidatures francophones à Wavre. Mais on sait que ce texte n’a pas été utilisé. Comme les évêques le lui avaient demandé (cf. leur réunion du 23.4), Descamps envoie le 9.5 un premier projet de déclaration à Suenens et, le 10.5, il envoie une nouvelle version98. On y dit explicitement que les candidatures envisagées à Wavre ne seront pas un transfert mais bien un dédoublement. Le projet de Descamps a été remanié notamment par Suenens et en conséquence un Projet de Déclaration99 a été distribué aux évêques le 13 mai. Dans une nouvelle lettre (11.5)100 à Suenens, Descamps écrit encore qu’il a rencontré G. Eyskens101 et Mgr Philips qui lui ont dit qu’il faut faire quelque chose du point de vue de la «déconcentration» des francophones et que la solution envisagée dans son projet de Déclaration plaît beaucoup à Philips et semble acceptable à Eyskens. b) La réunion du 13 mai Le 13 mai, les évêques résidentiels et Mgr Descamps écoutent d’abord l’avis de chacun des «sages» sur le rapport de la commission LeemansAubert. Avis parfois discordant et sur la réforme des structures et sur les nouvelles implantations102. 94. Fonds Suenens 570b. Pour l’attitude de Moeller dans cette question, cf. aussi F. COLLEYE, CharlesMoelleretl’ArbredelaCroix,Paris, Publibook, 2007, pp. 474-477. 95. Cette Déclaration a été approuvée le 13 mai mais le texte définitif et la traduction néerlandaise n’ont été donnés à la presse que le 15.5.1966. 96. Fonds Suenens 570b. 97. Fonds De Smedt 86; Fonds Suenens 570b. 98. Fonds Suenens 570b. 99. Fonds Suenens 570b et Fonds De Smedt 233. 100. Fonds Suenens 570b. 101. Gaston Eyskens (1905-1988), premier ministre de 1949 à 1950, 1958 à 1961, 1968 à 1973. 102. Cf. le Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, Fonds De Smedt 54. Les archives De Smedt 86 contiennent aussi 4 pages de notes ms. de De Smedt sur la première partie de cette réunion.

408

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Après le départ des sages, la réunion se poursuit, toujours en présence de Descamps. Le cardinal dit qu’il faut absolument arriver à une décision et il distribue le Projet de déclaration. Le texte doit être une affirmation forte de l’unité et de l’autonomie des sections et des structures – cette partie a été rédigée après discussion avec Mgr Massaux103. Le cardinal termine par un appel très énergique au ralliement et demande avec insistance que le texte soit accepté, tout particulièrement quant au «dédoublement» (et non au transfert) des candidatures. Les évêques d’Anvers, Bruges et Gand se déclarent très inquiets quant à la formulation de ce texte et estiment qu’elle provoquera une réaction terrible; ils ont l’impression qu’un dédoublement à une distance de 15 km. n’est pas justifiable devant l’opinion publique et demandent de remplacer «dédoublement» par «extension du territoire universitaire au-delà de la frontière linguistique». Ils craignent que le texte tel qu’il est proposé soit compris comme donnant gain de cause aux Wallons et tort aux Flamands. Ils se trouvent devant un cas de conscience, étant donné la répercussion néfaste que cette décision aura sur l’opinion flamande et sur la foi des Flamands et leur respect de la hiérarchie. Finalement, les évêques flamands cèdent devant l’insistance du cardinal et se rangent à l’acceptation du texte proposé104. Le soir et la journée du samedi 14.5, Mgr Descamps a alors rédigé le texte définitif105 et a aidé à la traduction néerlandaise du texte faite 103. Édouard Massaux (1920-2008), prêtre du diocèse de Namur en 1944, professeur d’exégèse à l’UL en 1953, pro-recteur de la section francophone en 1965 puis recteur de l’UCL de 1968 à 1986. 104. Le rapport, rédigé après la réunion par Mgr Van Peteghem [le plus jeune évêque résidentiel faisait fonction de secrétaire] dans un français pas toujours impeccable, ne mentionne pas les nombreux changements qui ont encore été introduits dans le texte, comme on peut le constater par les corrections manuscrites de Suenens et De Smedt sur le texte, cf. Fonds De Smedt 23; Fonds Suenens 570b. 105. Rappelons brièvement les grandes lignes de cette Déclaration: 1° Structure interne: – maintenir l’unité de l’Alma Mater. On refuse d’envisager deux universités catholiques en Belgique. – reconnaître l’autonomie légitime des deux sections. 2° Implantations géographiques. En raison de l’accroissement des étudiants, de la conception nouvelle des candidatures et des nécessités de la recherche scientifique spécialisée, on décide de décongestionner Louvain par la voie non de transfert mais de dédoublement des candidatures et ceci dans les deux régimes linguistiques (pour le régime flamand à Courtrai, Anvers, Hasselt et pour le régime français à Namur, Bruxelles, Wavre). La décentralisation des candidatures ira de pair avec le transfert de la Faculté de médecine francophone à Woluwé. 3° Appel à l’opinion et aux membres de l’université. On demande à tous de se rallier à ces décisions, qui seront exécutées. Cet appel devient un ordre pour les membres du personnel académique, scientifique et administratif. La

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

409

surtout par Mgr René Ceuppens106, vicaire général du cardinal, et des personnes du secrétariat de l’archevêché107. 4. RéactionsàlaDéclaration Comme les évêques flamands l’avaient prévu et craint, la réaction dans le pays flamand fut violente, générale et pratiquement unanime108. On reprochait aux évêques d’abord le fait qu’on avait parlé de «dédoublement» et pas de transfert des candidatures. Et on contestait ensuite la dernière partie avec son rappel strict à l’obéissance, qu’on jugeait préconciliaire et clérical. Le cardinal Suenens surtout a été la victime de pamphlets et de manifestations odieuses même dans les cérémonies religieuses (où on criait parfois «Suenens buiten»). Les archives De Smedt contiennent plus de 180 lettres de protestation venant non seulement des professeurs et étudiants, des milieux politiques (également du CVP, l’aile flamande du Parti Social-Chrétien) et associations culturelles, mais aussi des mouvements d’action catholique et de ses prêtres et séminaristes. Même de simples fidèles ne parvenaient pas à comprendre l’attitude des évêques qui avait semé l’amertume dans beaucoup de cœurs. Pour illustrer cet état d’esprit, citons plus longuement deux lettres, une d’un ministre, une autre d’un père bénédictin. 1° Lettre de Renaat Van Elslande109, 17 mai 1966 (3 pages). Il est stupéfait d’abord qu’il n’y a pas une véritable scission entre les deux sections et qu’on n’a pas commencé le transfert des candidatures. liberté académique doit se concilier avec la soumission aux chefs responsables. Quant aux étudiants qui ne pourraient souscrire aux présentes dispositions, ils doivent tirer euxmêmes les conséquences de leurs options. 106. René Ceuppens (1911-1980), vicaire-général du diocèse de Malines-Bruxelles de 1962 à 1977. 107. Fonds Suenens 568b. La phrase de la p. 8 «Cet appel devient un ordre» a d’abord été traduite par: «Deze oproep wordt een bevel». Certains étant d’avis que «bevel» était trop autoritaire, on a finalement écrit: «Deze oproep wordt een verordening». Mais des critiques flamands ont dénoncé que «verordening» se référait directement aux «Verordnungen» des autorités allemandes pendant l’occupation. On doit donc constater que les évêques flamands ont quitté la réunion des évêques sans avoir vu ou approuvé la traduction néerlandaise du texte. Il faut remarquer que, parce que plusieurs évêques wallons ne comprenaient guère le néerlandais, la langue employée à la conférence épiscopale (et aussi la langue des rapports) était uniquement le français. 108. Cf. LeuvenVlaams(n. 5), pp. 155-169. À cause des manifestations et des grèves des étudiants, on a même dû terminer l’année académique le 20 mai. 109. Renaat Van Elslande (1916-2000), membre important du CVP, plusieurs fois ministre (culture, éducation nationale, affaires étrangères, justice) entre 1960 et 1980. Deux de ses frères étaient prêtres du diocèse de Bruges et lui-même donnait des cours au Grand Séminaire.

410

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Il regrette qu’on n’ait pas donné plus de responsabilités aux laïcs et qu’on ait uniquement nommé quatre conseillers. Il avait espéré qu’on aurait consulté des responsables catholiques de la vie politique, qui auraient à légiférer en la matière et qui ont toujours fait leur possible pour obtenir des subsides de l’État pour l’enseignement catholique en Belgique. Il ne comprend pas qu’on les ait ignorés complètement. Il craint une radicalisation et aussi que la déclaration des évêques donne des voix aux partis de la Volksunie et des libéraux. Ce qui affaiblira le CVP mais aussi la position de l’Église. Il s’excuse pour le ton amer de sa lettre mais estime qu’il devait l’écrire en conscience110. 2° Lettre de Dom E. Dekkers111, o.s.b. à De Smedt, 10.6.1966 (4 pages). Il commence par évoquer des souvenirs historiques de la méconnaissance par les autorités ecclésiastiques des aspirations légitimes du peuple flamand (le drame d’Adolf Daens, qui a été sanctionné parce qu’il prenait parti pour les ouvriers à Alost; la condamnation par l’épiscopat de l’AKVS [Algemeen Katholiek Vlaams Studentenverbond] dans les années 30; le pèlerinage de la KSA [Katholieke Studentenactie] à Rome en 1931 qui a été injustement réprimandé par Pie XI); il croit qu’à Louvain on a voulu préserver les privilèges de quelques centaines de familles de professeurs francophones (si on avait d’autres raisons il fallait les mentionner); il serait opportun que le cardinal révoque cette déclaration: certes, il y perdrait la face mais cela est moins grave que la perte de la foi chez tant de catholiques; les évêques devraient d’ailleurs passer la responsabilité de l’université à un curatorium112. Il faut évidemment aussi signaler que le cardinal Suenens a reçu, de la part des francophones, beaucoup de félicitations pour le résultat obtenu et d’encouragements dans les attaques qu’il devait subir113. 5. AprèslaDéclaration(mai-décembre1966) Pour apaiser la réaction de l’opinion flamande, on constate que De Smedt s’est tout de suite mis au travail pour rédiger le nouveau Règlement organique (prévu par la Déclaration mais en y introduisant la fonction de commissaire général, avec comme titulaire E. Leemans) 110. Fonds De Smedt 233. 111. Eligius (Jan) Dekkers, o.s.b. (1915-1998), abbé de la Sint Pietersabdij, Steenbrugge de 1967 à 1981, éditeur de la série patristique Corpus Christianorum, docteur honoris causa de la Katholieke Universiteit Leuven en 1968. 112. Fonds De Smedt 110. 113. Fonds Suenens 568b.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

411

et procéder à la nomination du pro-recteur flamand pour remplacer De Raeymaeker114, démissionnaire. a) 14-31 mai 1966 Dans une lettre émotionnelle du 17.5 à Suenens, De Smedt commence par dire que la réaction en pays flamand est très mauvaise. Contrairement à ce qu’il avait dit dans la réunion du 13 mai, il croit qu’il serait néfaste pour son autorité si le pape approuvait la Déclaration des évêques115. Maintenant il faut préparer d’urgence la restructuration. Il a été étonné que le cardinal ait demandé cela à Descamps, dont on sait qu’il est un mauvais administrateur. C’est à Leemans qu’il faut faire appel et il demande au cardinal de le convoquer d’urgence pour faire des propositions. Il faut aussi nommer un pro-recteur flamand. Le cardinal semble s’opposer à la nomination de candidats qui ont la confiance des milieux flamands et qui pourraient faire face à son collègue francophone Massaux, qui lui est un dur (Descamps était opposé à sa nomination). Il continue à défendre la Déclaration et c’est pourquoi il ose espérer que maintenant le cardinal l’écoutera. Il s’agit du catholicisme en Flandre, la partie la plus fidèle de l’Église en Belgique116. Dans une lettre du 17.5 à Suenens, Leemans lui aussi plaide pour la nomination d’urgence d’un nouveau pro-recteur flamand et pour l’installation du nouveau Conseil d’Administration117. Dès le 22.5, De Smedt soumet aux évêques un projet d’organisation interne de l’université118, qu’il a rédigé (après avoir obtenu l’accord du cardinal et des évêques d’Anvers et de Gand) sur la base du rapport Leemans-Aubert, avec la collaboration de Leemans et du chanoine Billiauw119. Dans son commentaire, il décrit la nouvelle fonction de commissaire général et propose qu’on nomme Leemans (un laïc soucieux du bien de toute l’université qui pourra rendre d’immenses services dans les 114. Louis De Raeymaeker, prêtre de l’archidiocèse de Malines, professeur de philosophie à l’UL de 1934 à 1965, pro-recteur de 1962 à 1966. 115. Signalons que Suenens avait envoyé la Déclaration à Rome. Garrone [pro-préfet de la Congrégation des Séminaires et Universités] en a loué la sagesse et la fermeté (21.5.1966), Dell’Acqua [substitut de la Secrétairerie d’État] (24.5.1966) le remercie, Oddi (30.5.1966) transmet les vives félicitations du préfet de la Congrégation des Séminaires et Universités qui prie pour que le Saint-Esprit éclaire les intelligences afin que l’unité de l’Alma Mater soit renforcée moyennant une attitude réellement ‘catholique’ et ‘œcuménique’; le Secrétaire d’État, Cicognani (31.5.1966) exprime la satisfaction du Souverain Pontife (Fonds Suenens 570b). 116. Fonds De Smedt 86. 117. Fonds Suenens 570b. 118. Fonds De Smedt 232 (avec un projet daté du 21.5.1966); Fonds Suenens 570b. 119. Jozef Billiauw (1913-2010), secrétaire de l’archidiocèse de Malines de 1943 à 1992, trésorier de l’UL de 1943 à 1969.

412

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

tractations avec le gouvernement et les partis politiques; il serait dommage de l’«enterrer» dans la section néerlandaise). Dans une lettre à Suenens du 23.5.1966, Descamps insiste encore pour que la Déclaration reste intacte et ajoute que De Somer120 a durci sa position121. Dans la réunion des évêques résidentiels du 24 mai, les évêques d’Anvers, Bruges et Gand expriment leur inquiétude et leur amertume: il est triste de devoir constater qu’il s’est produit en Flandre une opposition presque générale, un anticléricalisme assez violent qui constitue un grand danger pour la foi des jeunes. Ils se demandent s’il est justifié d’ignorer les lois de l’évolution sociologique et historique et de méconnaître les aspirations unanimes d’une population. La nomination de Leemans comme commissaire général sera rendue publique par un communiqué de presse (daté du 26 mai) rédigé sur base d’un projet proposé par Mgr de Bruges. Pour la fonction de pro-recteur flamand, on avance le nom de G. Verbeke. En vue d’apaiser les esprits du peuple flamand, il est inopportun de parler encore de «dédoublement» des candidatures. Mieux vaut parler de déconcentration, d’extension, d’essaimage. Il y a lieu de distinguer le principe et le fait. En principe les évêques n’ont pas admis le «Walen buiten» et le transfert des candidatures francophones. En fait, ils sont décidés à poursuivre la transplantation des candidatures122. Descamps, dans une lettre au cardinal du 26.5.1966 au sujet de la nomination d’un pro-recteur flamand, suggère les noms de Leemans et de Servotte123. Il maintient son veto contre Verbeke et il veut exclure aussi tout laïc, surtout le prof. De Somer; car la possibilité de former une équipe cohérente est une condition sine qua non pour l’avenir, et presque une dernière chance de salut124.

120. Pieter De Somer (1917-1985), professeur à la Faculté de médecine de l’UL en 1955, pro-recteur de la section néerlandophone en 1966, recteur de la Katholieke Universiteit Leuven de 1968 à 1985. 121. Fonds Suenens 570a. Le 26 mai, Descamps répétera encore à Suenens que la Déclaration doit être maintenue car elle est justifiée «en doctrine» (Fonds Suenens 570b). Sinon on sera confronté à une contre-offensive francophone. De même Massaux, dans une lettre du 28.5, met Suenens en garde contre l’impression que certains évêques regrettent la déclaration du 13 mai. Il ajoute combien il a peu apprécié les attaques dont Suenens a été l’objet, pas plus que les procédés qui ont été employés à Louvain et qui rappellent étrangement ceux qu’on a connus il y a 25 ans de la part d’un pays limitrophe [l’Allemagne] (Fonds Suenens 570 b). 122. Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, Fonds De Smedt 54. En fait cette interprétation ambiguë et différente de la Déclaration par les évêques flamands et francophones va mener à la crise de janvier-février 1968. 123. Herman Servotte (1929-2004), prêtre du diocèse de Malines-Bruxelles, professeur de philologie germanique à l’UL, vice-recteur de la KUL de 1971 à 1981. 124. Fonds Suenens 570b.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

413

A. Gits s’adresse, le 27 mai, à nouveau à De Smedt pour recommander le site de Wavre125. Le 27 mai L.-H. Dupriez envoie une motion de l’ACAPSUL pour soutenir la déclaration du 13 mai126. À l’occasion de la fête de Pentecôte De Smedt envoie, le 28 mai, un mot chaleureux de sympathie à Suenens: c’est lui qui doit porter la plus lourde croix … tandis que beaucoup attaquent et méprisent le cardinal, De Smedt lui exprime son attachement et sa solidarité127. b) Juin 1966 LanominationdeDeSomercommepro-recteur – Le 1.6, Leemans écrit à Suenens pour lui dire l’urgence de cette nomination. Il donne une évaluation des candidats possibles: Servotte: sympathique, excellent collaborateur mais probablement trop jeune et trop peu connu; Verbeke: le candidat de la majorité des doyens flamands; mais Descamps n’en veut pas et menace même de démissionner; De Somer: prestige et sympathie chez les professeurs flamands; Descamps serait plutôt opposé et aussi De Smedt serait moins favorable128. – Dans une lettre à De Smedt (et aux autres évêques flamands) du 3.6.1966, Descamps demande à être entendu avant qu’on ne procède à la nomination d’un pro-recteur129. – Dans leur réunion du 3.6 à Bruxelles, les évêques – en présence de Leemans – discutent d’abord le projet de restructuration de l’université, rédigé par Mgr De Smedt. Pour la nomination du pro-recteur, Leemans donne la liste préférentielle des doyens flamands: 1. De Somer; 2. Verbeke; 3. Servotte. Puis il présente les «pour» et les «contre» des candidats et mentionne spécialement la grande opposition de Descamps et de Massaux à Verbeke130. 125. Fonds De Smedt 233. 126. Ibid. On lit notamment dans cette motion que: «l’attitude des étudiants [flamands] rappelle étrangement l’explosion de furie anticléricale dans les milieux rexistes, lorsque le Cardinal Van Roey eut la clairvoyance et le courage de briser l’élan de ce mouvement séditieux par son intervention mémorable ... que le peuple flamand se condamnerait à la réprobation de l’Église universelle s’il provoquait la destruction de la plus grande université catholique, seule héritière encore vivante des nombreuses universités fondées par la chrétienté médiévale». 127. Fonds Suenens 570b. 128. Ibid. 129. Fonds De Smedt 233. 130. Dans une lettre – du 26.6.1966 – à De Smedt, Verbeke se plaint amèrement de ce veto, qui est maintenant connu par les professeurs et même par des journaux. Il mentionne aussi des critiques des professeurs flamands sur le projet de restructuration (Fonds De Smedt 233).

414

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Les évêques demandent à Mgr Himmer131 de rencontrer Descamps avant le lendemain soir pour voir s’il n’y pas moyen d’enlever l’obstacle de son opposition contre Verbeke132.. – Le 4 juin au soir, nouvelle réunion des évêques à Bruxelles133. De Smedt et Himmer ont vu Descamps, qui s’est prononcé pour De Somer qui est alors nommé par les évêques. De Smedt donne aussi une liste de personnes qui pourraient venir en ligne de compte pour la fonction de conseiller des évêques: A. de Schryver, I. Lindemans134, L. Roppe, P. Vandenbussche135, A. Cool, W. D’Havé136. Comme curateur il propose les noms de Dequae, Schot, Collin137, Snoy et d’Oppuers138, Hallet139. – Le 7 juin, Dupriez écrit à De Smedt pour réaffirmer les positions de l’ACAPSUL et proteste parce que des professeurs flamands demandent l’expulsion des francophones et que les doyens flamands se sont arrogés le droit d’intervenir collectivement au sujet de la nomination du pro-recteur flamand. Dans une lettre du 8 juin, il transmet la copie d’une lettre de l’ACAPSUL aux établissements francophones d’enseignement secondaire où il est dit que les jeunes n’ont rien à craindre en s’inscrivant à Louvain. Et le 15 juin, il proteste à nouveau chez De Smedt contre les déclarations de De Somer, qui aurait manifesté sans ambages sa volonté d’évincer les francophones de Louvain140. 131. Charles-Marie Himmer (1902-1994), évêque de Tournai de 1948 à 1977. 132. Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, Fonds De Smedt 54 et 86 (des notes ms. de De Smedt de cette réunion et aussi un projet de communiqué qu’il avait préparé, mais qui n’a pas été divulgué le 3.6). 133. Les évêques étaient tous invités à une grande manifestation la «Nuit du Heysel», organisée par le MOC-ACW [Mouvement Ouvrier Chrétien – Algemeen Christelijk Werknemersverbond] pour le 75ème anniversaire de l’encyclique RerumNovarum et clôturée par une eucharistie célébrée par Suenens. On avait craint des manifestations hostiles contre Suenens mais tout s’est passé sans incidents. Seulement au moment où dans un message vidéo le Pape Paul VI faisait l’éloge de Suenens il y a eu un silence total de la foule. Avant cette manifestation les évêques se sont réunis brièvement à la résidence du cardinal (570, Boulevard de Smet de Naeyer), qui était proche du Heysel. 134. Ignace Lindemans (1927-2009), directeur du Service d’études de l’ACW (MOC) de 1958 à 1988. 135. Paul Vandenbussche (1921-2011), directeur général et administrateur général de la «Belgische Radio en Televisie» de 1960 à 1986. 136. Willy D’Havé (1923-2002), docteur en droit, président de l’ACW de 1965 à 1988. 137. Fernand Collin (1897-1990), professeur de droit à l’UL en 1927, directeur puis président de la Kredietbank de 1938 à 1973. 138. Jean Charles Snoy et d’Oppuers (1907-1991), ministre des Finances de 1968 à 1972. 139. Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, Fonds De Smedt 54. Jean Hallet (1928) président des Mutualités chrétiennes de 1991 à 1993, membre puis président du Conseil d’Administration de l’UCL de 1966 à 1997. 140. Fonds De Smedt 233.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

415

AudiencedeDeSmedtchezPaulVI,le11.6.1966 Le 11.6, De Smedt a une audience de 45 minutes chez le pape. Pour cette audience il avait rédigé une Note verbale «Le Problème de Louvain»141 qu’il a donnée au pape et commentée. Résumons brièvement cette Note de 6 pages: I. Après la Déclaration des Évêques 1. Il décrit le mécontentement général en pays flamand: ton autoritaire inadmissible après le Concile; les évêques ont cédé devant la pression exercée par la presse francophone et les puissances financières du pays; les évêques ont dépassé leurs droits en imposant une «option politique». Les évêques risquent de devenir des généraux sans troupes. 2. On doit distinguer de ce mécontentement général les réactions extrémistes d’éléments perturbateurs qui excitent les étudiants et dont on ignore l’identité. 3. Certains milieux francophones prétendent à tort que la réaction flamande n’existe que chez une minorité. 4. Les parlementaires catholiques flamands (CVP-PSC) regrettent le ton et le contenu de la déclaration et craignent que le parti extrémiste flamand (Volksunie) ne prenne la situation en main. II. Nouvelles mesures prises par les évêques (25 [sic:= 24].5.1966) 1. Unité. Pour renforcer l’unité on a nommé un commissaire général. 2. Autonomie interne des deux sections. 3. Implantation en Wallonie de la section francophone. a) La solution «dédoublement» choisie par les évêques est devenue politiquement irréalisable. b) On commence à voir qu’il appartient aux hommes politiques et non aux évêques d’arrêter les mesures tendant à protéger l’unité culturelle du pays flamand. c) Du côté flamand, on se réconcilie avec l’idée que l’université doive conserver son unité institutionnelle et que l’implantation du campus français se fasse progressivement dans le canton de Wavre. d) Du côté francophone, on reste très opposé à toute implantation en dehors de Louvain, mais on commence à se résigner à la perspective du «dédoublement». 141. Fonds De Smedt 86.

416

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Il faut abandonner le «mythe» de l’unité géographique à Louvain même. Un réseau de candidatures établies dans différents centres du pays semble être le pas qui s’impose. III. Causes profondes de la réaction flamande142. De Smedt ajoute que beaucoup de Flamands ont également l’impression que les dicastères romains sont informés unilatéralement. La Note se termine avec une explication sur l’emploi du français dans les églises au littoral143. On ignore comment le pape a réagi. À la réunion des évêques du 16.6144, on passe en revue les modifications et amendements que le recteur145 et les pro-recteurs proposent d’apporter au projet de restructuration de l’université. On décide que Descamps rédigera un nouveau texte amendé et l’enverra aux évêques. De Smedt est prié de comparer minutieusement ce texte avec la proposition qu’il avait faite autrefois146. Les évêques sont invités à envoyer leur accord ou remarques au cardinal. De Smedt le fait le 25.6 et y ajoute les remarques que van Zuylen147 lui a fait parvenir148. Lettre des évêques flamands au cardinal et à leurs collègues francophones149 Les évêques ont d’abord l’intention d’informer leurs collègues de la situation créée en Flandre par la Déclaration du 13 mai et d’examiner 142. Cf. supra II. Esquisse de la problématique (pp. 394-395). 143. Depuis que le concile avait autorisé l’emploi de la langue du peuple pour la liturgie – au lieu du latin – certains curés avaient permis des messes en français au littoral pendant la saison touristique. Ce qui avait donné lieu à des manifestations et protestations flamandes. Cf. les directives de De Smedt «La pastorale du tourisme au littoral», qui interdisaient les messes en français à la côte (cf. la revue diocésaine Ministrando 2/9 [12.7.1966] 133-139). Directives qui à leur tour ont été contestées par les francophones. 144. Cf. le Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques, 16.6.1966 (Fonds De Smedt 54). 145. Pour ce texte, cf. Fonds De Smedt 233. 146. Dans ses archives on trouve encore des Projets de restructuration avec des annotations ms. de De Smedt du 16.6, du 7.7 et du 15.7.1966 (Fonds De Smedt 233). 147. Guillaume Marie van Zuylen (1910-2004), évêque de Liège de 1961 à 1986. Jusqu’en 1967 le diocèse de Liège comprenait aussi la province flamande du Limbourg. Avant cette date van Zuylen était donc l’évêque d’un diocèse bilingue ce qui explique sa modération dans ce débat linguistique. 148. Le 30 mai, Charue a aussi envoyé des remarques à Suenens, lui demandant d’en remettre une copie à De Smedt ou à Leemans. Et Van Peteghem – un peu en retard – transmet ses remarques, le 6.7 (Fonds Suenens 570b). 149. Un premier projet de cette lettre du 22.6, a été rédigé par Mgr Van Peteghem, probablement après une réunion des évêques flamands (Fonds De Smedt 86). Le texte définitif de 5 pages se trouve dans le Fonds Suenens 570b et ne porte pas de date. Elle doit être datée après le 22 et avant le 30.6.1966. Le contenu et le style de la lettre trahissent l’influence de De Smedt dans la rédaction.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

417

ensemble comment on pourrait sortir de l’impasse où ils se trouvent dans les diocèses flamands, et où l’agitation à Louvain risque de prendre des proportions catastrophiques. La réaction défavorable est quasi-générale et on regrette surtout le refus des évêques de tenir compte des exigences légitimes du peuple flamand. Suit alors un rappel historique des doléances flamandes150. Actuellement les Flamands se sentent devant le choix fondamental entre leur fidélité à l’Église et celle à la Flandre. Le soi-disant plan Woitrin de franciser le triangle Bruxelles-Louvain-Wavre les a provoqués. Récemment, il a été demandé aux dirigeants des œuvres sociales chrétiennes d’utiliser leur influence pour apaiser les esprits: il a été répondu qu’ils refusent même de prendre contact avec les évêques et qu’ils ne sont même pas prêts à désapprouver publiquement les manifestations sacrilèges dans nos églises; ils jugent qu’ils ne seront pas suivis par leurs membres. Ils demandent l’attention pour le caractère tragique de la situation et pour ses conséquences non seulement pour la Flandre mais aussi pour la Wallonie. Il s’agit d’abord du maintien ou de la perte de l’université catholique, si on ne tient pas compte des aspirations flamandes. Puis, si l’influence catholique en Flandre diminue très sensiblement, cela aura comme effet que le catholicisme wallon perdra l’appui fraternel et indispensable du catholicisme flamand. Le recul religieux aura aussi comme conséquence le recul de la politique catholique. La réduction du CVP en Flandre aura comme effet inévitable l’impuissance du Parti Social-Chrétien national pour défendre nos institutions catholiques: écoles, services médico-sociaux etc. On pourrait ainsi aboutir au fédéralisme, qui rendra plus précaire la situation des catholiques francophones dans une Wallonie à majorité de gauche. «Vous savez comment nous avons exprimé notre inquiétude devant la solution que proposait le texte du 13 mai et comment nous avons cédé devant l’insistance de Son Éminence et par déférence pour nos collègues … Nous ne pouvons accepter plus longuement la solution adoptée le 13 mai». Ils demandent alors une nouvelle déclaration où on laisse dans l’oubli toute formule de «dédoublement» pour la remplacer par celle d’implantation pure et simple des candidatures.

150. Cf. supraII. Esquisse de la problématique (pp. 394-396).

418

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Ils demandent à leurs collègues de conseiller une attitude positive dans la presse et l’opinion publique wallonne au sujet des implantations à Wavre. Et ils concluent: Éminence, Excellence, nous pouvons vous certifier que les Flamands n’ont rien contre les francophones wallons et bruxellois en tant que tels. Ils sont seulement farouchement opposés à la francisation de leur territoire ... La plupart des Flamands admettent l’unité institutionnelle et fonctionnelle des deux sections de l’université catholique. Mais après tout ce qui s’est passé pendant les longues années de notre histoire commune et surtout pendant les derniers mois beaucoup exigent que cette unité soit celle de deux sections situées chacune sur son territoire propre … Nous demandons à Votre Éminence de bien vouloir convoquer dans le plus bref délai une réunion des évêques résidentiels, qui aurait comme objet de rechercher ensemble la solution de nos problèmes urgents.

Après cette lettre dramatique De Smedt écrit, le 30 juin, une nouvelle lettre à Suenens où il proteste contre les déclarations de M. Parisis151 (président des députés sociaux chrétiens francophones), largement répercutées dans le journal LaLibreBelgique, qui accusent formellement les députés flamands catholiques de révolte contre leurs évêques. Ceci est inacceptable et pose à tort les députés flamands catholiques devant des problèmes de conscience152. Il demande alors au cardinal de publier un communiqué qui proteste contre les accusations de La Libre Belgique. Autrement, il serait peut-être contraint à publier lui-même une mise au point. Il ajoute encore que par leur Déclaration les évêques n’ont certainement pas voulu exercer leur autorité morale pour exclure qu’un jour la législation puisse être changée153. Le 3 juillet, Suenens a répondu qu’il trouve tout à fait inopportun de publier un communiqué qui serait interprété comme une intrusion dans la vie politique. Il déconseille formellement à De Smedt de publier luimême un communiqué: ceci mettrait en danger l’unité des évêques. 151. Albert Parisis (1910-1992), président du PSC de 1965 à 1968, ministre de la Culture française de 1968 à 1972. 152. On remarque qu’à plusieurs reprises De Smedt veut libérer la conscience des hommes politiques devant un «ordre» des évêques en matière politique. Probablement se souvenait-il des réactions que sa lettre pastorale du 25.5.1958, pour les élections du 1.6.1958 avait suscitées. Dans cette lettre il avait déclaré que voter pour le parti nationaliste flamand, la Volksunie, était un péché grave. Ceci parce que le parti catholique avait besoin des votes de tous les catholiques pour mettre fin à la guerre scolaire. Malgré le fait que cette lettre pastorale ait atteint son but, De Smedt a été impressionné par les critiques et après le concile il était lui-même d’accord pour convenir que cette lettre pastorale avait été plutôt un abus de l’autorité religieuse d’un évêque. 153. Fonds Suenens 570b et Fonds De Smedt 86.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

419

En plus, du côté francophone, on a très mal pris l’interdiction des messes francophones au littoral pendant les vacances. D’ailleurs il sait que le premier ministre Van den Boeynants154 fera au Sénat un effort pour apaiser les esprits. c) Juillet 1966 Le 4 et le 13 juillet, le Studentenaktiekomité (W. De Bock155) envoie encore plusieurs lettres à De Smedt au sujet du projet de restructuration de l’université et demande à être entendu156. Pendant le pèlerinage diocésain à Lourdes (4-6.7), De Smedt dans une homélie a dit que si les évêques s’étaient trompés avec leur déclaration du 13 mai, il demande alors pardon et qu’il reste fidèle à son peuple157. Lors de la réunion des évêques du 7 juillet158, le projet de restructuration est à nouveau discuté et le cardinal annonce que la demande pour acheter du terrain est envoyée à l’administration communale d’Ottignies. Les évêques flamands reparlent de la situation impossible où ils se trouvent et se demandent si les évêques peuvent faire quelque chose pour apaiser les esprits: réalisation de l’implantation à Wavre; faire une déclaration après la réunion du 15 juillet159. À la réunion des évêques du 15 juillet (en présence du recteur, du commissaire général, et des pro-recteurs) on approuve les derniers amendements au projet de restructuration et un communiqué de presse est préparé: le projet de restructuration se base sur les propositions de la commission Leemans-Aubert et garantit une réelle autonomie des deux sections. Il sera bientôt publié comme nouveau Règlement organique160. Les évêques demandent que les problèmes universitaires à répercussion politique soient dorénavant traités par l’Autorité académique. Ils ont confiance que ces problèmes puissent être résolus dans un dialogue entre 154. Paul Van den Boeynants (1919-2001), député de 1949 à 1985, président du PSCCVP de 1961 à 1966, premier ministre de 1966 à 1968. 155. Walter De Bock (1946-2007), journaliste du journal DeMorgen en 1979. 156. Fonds De Smedt 233. 157. Cf. HOUTHAEVE, Een man van Pinksteren (n. 1), p. 111. Cette nouvelle n’a été publiée dans De Standaard que le 18.7. Cf. VAN DE VOORDE, Bisschop Emiel-Jozef De Smedt (n. 1), p. 543. 158. Voir le Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, 7.7.1966 (Fonds De Smedt 54). 159. Les archives de De Smedt contiennent plusieurs projets d’une déclaration (dont une manuscrite) où on dit clairement, que comme autorité religieuse les évêques ne s’opposent pas à des initiatives parlementaires pour modifier la législation linguistique (allusion à la proposition de loi de Verroken déposée en mai). Ces textes, rédigés pour la réunion du 15 juillet, n’ont pas été utilisés (Fonds De Smedt 232 et 233). 160. Voir Extrait du Moniteurbelge, 7.10.1966.

420

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

l’Autorité académique et les instances politiques, compte tenu de leurs implications techniques et culturelles161. Le 21 juillet, le prof. Derine peut alors envoyer à De Smedt une motion du Vereniging van Vlaamse Professoren, qui exprime sa satisfaction pour les décisions des évêques du 15 juillet. Il est d’avis toutefois qu’un transfert progressif de la section française en Wallonie est l’unique solution réaliste162. d) Septembre-décembre 1966 Le 3 septembre, De Smedt écrit à Daem et à Van Peteghem163 pour proposer encore quelques modifications au Règlement organique, qui seront partiellement approuvées lors de la Réunion des Évêques du 5 septembre164. L’interviewdeDeSmedtdu8.10.1966àlaTVflamande165 Le 25.9, De Smedt écrit au cardinal que Julien Peeters166 avait insisté pour qu’il donne une interview. De Smedt ajoute qu’il n’a dit à personne comment la réunion du 13 mai s’est passée et qu’il a toujours pris ses responsabilités. Il demande maintenant au cardinal de ne pas lui interdire de prendre ses responsabilités et il envoie un projet de texte pour l’interview. Sur cette lettre De Smedt a noté de main propre la réponse (probablement téléphonée) du cardinal: c’est utile, il est d’accord et propose deux modifications. Le 28 septembre, De Smedt envoie au cardinal une nouvelle version de son texte, modifié à la suite d’une suggestion de Peeters. Le jeudi 29.9, De Smedt écrit à Daem et à Van Peteghem qu’on lui a demandé une interview et que le cardinal avait d’abord trouvé cela 161. Fonds De Smedt 54 et 233 (communiqué de presse avec des annotations ms. de De Smedt). 162. Fonds De Smedt 86. Derine ajoute encore qu’il s’est efforcé à ce que la fête de RerumNovarum du 4.6 au Heysel se passe sans incidents. 163. Leonce Albert Van Peteghem (1916-2004), évêque de Gand de 1964 à 1991. 164. Fonds De Smedt 233 et 54 (Rapport de la Réunion des Évêques de Belgique, 5.9.1966). 165. Fonds De Smedt 86, 233 (qui contient aussi les versions successives du texte); Fonds Suenens 578. 166. Julien Peeters (1927-2002), journaliste de la BRT (Belgische Radio en Televisieomroep). Il était connu comme catholique et était chargé de faire un reportage télévisé (avec la participation de Leemans, De Somer, un étudiant) pour l’ouverture de l’année académique de l’Université de Louvain, le 8.10. Peeters qui avait été séminariste, avait connu De Smedt comme président du grand séminaire de Malines entre 1949 à 1951, ce qui explique sa grande bienveillance.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

421

inopportun. Puis J. Peeters a insisté et De Smedt a alors envoyé son texte au cardinal, qui maintenant a marqué son accord. Il demande si Daem ou Van Peteghem désirent encore faire des suggestions par téléphone. En effet, ils doivent se presser car l’enregistrement se fera le 1.10 et il doit encore avoir le temps de mémoriser son texte167. Résumons les parties essentielles de l’interview. 1° La déclaration du 13 mai n’avait certainement pas l’intention de ne pas respecter les aspirations légitimes du peuple flamand (il renvoie à son sermon à Lourdes). 2° Le ton autoritaire s’explique par les conflits persistants entre les différents partis, qui continuent à s’attaquer. Finalement les évêques ont été contraints de faire appel à leur autorité. 3° Les évêques n’ont pas voulu mettre en question l’intégrité territoriale et culturelle du Brabant flamand. 4° Les évêques n’ont pas voulu se mêler de la politique. Mais la question de Louvain comporte inévitablement des aspects politiques, que le législateur doit résoudre. Leurs déclarations du 26 mai (nomination de Leemans) et du 15 juillet le reconnaissent explicitement. C’est dorénavant à l’autorité académique qu’il incombe d’organiser les négociations avec le gouvernement. Et à Ottignies on a acheté un terrain de 200 hectares. 5° L’épiscopat souhaite la plus grande autonomie au plan académique et financier des deux sections mais aussi une collaboration entre les deux sections autonomes sur le plan académique et scientifique. L’université sera décentralisée et cela sera un enrichissement. Le 9 novembre 1966, le KVHV (Katholiek Vlaams Hoogstudenten Verbond) invite De Smedt à participer à un débat «La Hiérarchie de l’Église et le Peuple de Dieu». De Smedt refuse, parce qu’il est d’avis que le débat comportera inévitablement des implications politiques et que, par leur déclaration du 15 juillet, les évêques ne veulent plus se mêler des implications politiques de la structure de l’université168. Pendant le mois de décembre De Smedt reçoit encore des lettres de l’ACAPSUL, des Vlaamse Leergangen et aussi une lettre de Descamps qui annonce la démission d’E. De Jonghe comme administrateur général

167. Le 29.9, L. Declerck, secrétaire de De Smedt, fait parvenir le texte à Peeters (Fonds De Smedt 233). 168. Lettre de L. Declerck à H. Langohr (†2008), vice-président KVHV, 15.11.1966, juriste, professeur INSEAD Business School Fontainebleau (Fonds De Smedt 110).

422

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

et secrétaire général, démission ratifiée par les évêques lors de leur réunion du 12.12.1966169. Pendant l’année académique 1966-67 et le premier trimestre de 196768, les nouvelles structures se mettent difficilement en route. La méfiance règne des deux côtés. Et les points de vue, également du monde politique, restent irréconciliables: les Flamands exigent à long terme le déménagement complet; les Francophones prétendent rester à Louvain et n’envisagent qu’une implantation partielle à Woluwé et Ottignies. Toutefois, selon les dispositions du nouveau Règlement organique, les évêques sont beaucoup moins directement impliqués dans les négociations courantes. Ce qui diminue aussi fortement le rôle de De Smedt pendant cette année. IV. LA CRISE

DE JANVIER-FÉVRIER

1968

ET SES CONSÉQUENCES

Le 20 décembre 1967, il y a un blocage au conseil d’administration par la section flamande qui refuse d’approuver les crédits pour la modernisation de la Sedes, une pédagogie francophone, aussi longtemps que la section francophone n’a pas soumis son plan global pour l’expansion. Le 14.1.1968, ce plan est rendu public et on y exige «la garantie préalable du maintien à Louvain d’une Section française complète, maîtresse de ses propres destinées et libre de s’y développer sans entraves, à la mesure de ses besoins tels qu’ils seront définis par ses propres autorités»170. Tout de suite la révolte éclate du côté flamand, avec des manifestations violentes surtout à Louvain171. Le problème est évidemment renvoyé au Pouvoir Organisateur (les évêques) et aux instances politiques. Le premier ministre Van den Boeynants est d’ailleurs bien conscient qu’il s’agira de la survie de son gouvernement. Le Pouvoir Organisateur (parfois avec des représentants de l’université et même des responsables politiques) se réunit le 22, 24, 28 janvier et le 3 février. Le 2 février, De Smedt fera une déclaration à Courtrai, 169. Fonds De Smedt 232, 86 et 54; Fonds Suenens 578. 170. Fonds De Smedt 235. 171. Cf. LeuvenVlaams(n. 5), pp. 277-284. Déjà en mai 1966, pour un certain nombre de dirigeants des étudiants, il ne s’agissait d’ailleurs plus d’une question linguistique ou culturelle, mais d’une réforme radicale de la société et bien sûr des structures de l’Église. En janvier 1968 ces positions étaient partagées par une majorité des dirigeants étudiants (cf. L. VOS, Idealismeenengagement:Deroepingvandekatholiekestuderendejeugdin Vlaanderen(1920-1990), Leuven, Acco, 2011; surtout pp. 251-297). Il y avait aussi des campagnes orchestrées de lettres et de motions. De Smedt a reçu dans cette période 57 lettres pour le transfert et 98 contre (Fonds De Smedt 260).

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

423

où il affirme de ne plus soutenir la Déclaration des évêques du 13 mai 1966. Notons d’abord que, le 19.1, Daem a écrit Suenens: à Louvain on doit à nouveau se parler. Van Windekens172 a dit en présence des dirigeants des étudiants qu’Onclin a vu le cardinal, qui aurait affirmé que la Déclaration du 13 mai reste valable173. Essayons maintenant de décrire le rôle de De Smedt dans cette période cruciale174. 1. Réunion du Pouvoir Organisateur du 22 janvier 1968 (Bruxelles, à  15h.)175 (de 15h. à 16h.45, en présence de P. Van den Boeynants, premier ministre et son chef de cabinet, J. Grauls176) Van den Boeynants a d’abord mis l’accent sur le sérieux de la situation: désordres, danger pour l’existence de l’université catholique, danger pour l’Église, danger que le gouvernement tombe. Avec l’accord de Houben177, président du PSC-CVP, il propose un plan en 7 points178: 1° Plus de nouvelles constructions à Louvain pour Louvain francophone. 2° Dans l’avenir toutes les extensions universitaires se feront dans le respect des lois linguistiques. 3° À Woluwé St-Lambert il y aura une faculté de médecine complète. 172. Albert Joris Van Windekens (1915-1989), doyen de la Faculteit Wijsbegeerte en Letteren, Université de Louvain. 173. Fonds Suenens 578. Dans la réunion des évêques du 24.1.1968, Suenens dira qu’il a parlé à Onclin, peut-être lors du Synode [à Rome, octobre 1967] mais qu’il ne se souvient pas. Comme Suenens logeait au collège belge pendant ce Synode et qu’Onclin y logeait aussi pour ses travaux sur le nouveau Droit canon, ceci est bien probable. Depuis cet incident, Suenens n’a plus eu confiance dans la discrétion d’Onclin. 174. De ces 4 réunions des évêques il n’existe pas des rapports officiels, qui n’ont pas été rédigés par manque de temps. Toutefois L. Declerck, directeur du Secrétariat de la conférence épiscopale, a pris beaucoup de notes, qui par après ont été dactylographiées par sa secrétaire Marie-Thérèse Van Cauwenberge (1927-2017) et conservées dans ses archives (12 p. pour la réunion du 22.1; 11 p. pour la réunion du 24.1; 29 p. pour la réunion du 28.1; 26 p. pour la réunion du 3.2). 175. Outre les notes de L. Declerck, De Smedt a lui aussi fait 2 pages de notes de cette réunion (Fonds De Smedt 235). 176. Jan Grauls (1912-1995), directeur général de l’enseignement technique, puis chef de cabinet du premier ministre. 177. Robert Houben (1905-1992), sénateur de 1952 à 1974, président du CVP-PSC de 1966 à 1972, ministre de la santé publique en 1958. 178. Feuille distribuée pendant la réunion (Fonds De Smedt 235 et Fonds Suenens 579).

424

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

4° Un postgraduate flamand en médecine dans la région bruxelloise. 5° À Ottignies: implantation d’une faculté de sciences ou de sciences appliquées. Quand la faculté sera complètement installée, son pendant à Louvain aura disparu. 6° Développer à Saint-Louis [Facultés universitaires] des sciences humaines complètes avec section française et flamande. 7° Transformer l’I.C.E.C. [sic: = I.C.H.E.C. Institut Catholique des Hautes Études Commerciales, Bruxelles] en des facultés économiques flamandes et françaises. Il croit possible d’obtenir une majorité politique pour ce plan, qui doit rester totalement secret. De plus ce plan doit être proposé avec l’accord des évêques, responsables de l’Université de Louvain. Sinon il n’y aurait plus d’université libre. Les évêques posent quelques questions au premier ministre179 et le cardinal le remercie en lui disant: Louvain devrait vous donner un doctorat honoris causa! Puis ils discutent un texte, élaboré par Mgr Daem, à envoyer éventuellement aux membres de la commission qui doit se réunir ce soir180. Et ils décident de se réunir à nouveau le 24 janvier. Par après, Descamps a fait parvenir aux évêques une note où il informe de la réunion du 22 janvier [à 20h.] avec le recteur, le commissaire général, les conseillers du Pouvoir Organisateur et les curateurs. Il n’a pas publié de communiqué mais a demandé au commissaire général (éventuellement entouré de de Schryver, Oleffe181, Collin et Godeaux182) de rencontrer diverses autorités et personnalités183.

179. Dans cette discussion, le cardinal dit notamment: «Dans notre Déclaration du 13 mai on n’a pas parlé de transfert, mais c’était dans notre intention». Alors Charue a protesté en disant: «Non, on a parlé de dédoublement» [En effet le texte du 13 mai dit explicitement: «non par voie de transfert mais de dédoublement des candidatures»]. On constate que Suenens, qui avait dû faire face à des insultes et à des attaques ignominieuses après le 13 mai, était dorénavant bien décidé à ne plus affronter directement l’opinion flamande. 180. Il s’agit peut-être du texte dans les archives De Smedt 235 et Fonds Suenens 578: «Nous tenons à rappeler que le Pouvoir Organisateur …». 181. André Oleffe (1914-1975), président du Mouvement Ouvrier Chrétien 1950 à 1973; président de la Commission bancaire de 1973 à 1974, ministre des affaires économiques de 1974-1975. 182. Jean Godeaux (1922-2009), directeur de la Banque Lambert en 1955, gouverneur de la Banque Nationale de Belgique de 1982 à 1989. 183. Fonds De Smedt 235; Fonds Suenens 578.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

425

2. Réunion du Pouvoir Organisateur du 24 janvier 1968 (Bruxelles, à 15h.) Le 23 janvier, Charue184 a écrit une lettre au cardinal et aux évêques, qui dit son sentiment185: 1° Il faut reprendre le dialogue. 2° Dans la Déclaration du 13 mai le mot «dédoublement» ne signifie pas un pur transfert. Il a été entendu qu’on ne reniait pas le sens de la Déclaration du 13 mai. 3° Les projets d’implantation à Ottignies rencontrent une forte opposition dans la région wallonne proprement dite. Implanter une faculté tout entière avec la suppression de cette même faculté à Louvain, serait considéré pratiquement comme le commencement du déménagement. 4° La raison du transfert à Woluwé n’est pas d’ordre linguistique mais d’ordre académique et scientifique. 5° Il apparaît, si la question de Louvain était résolue, que l’attaque portera sur l’agglomération bruxelloise. 6° On ne peut trop insister sur la gravité de l’émotion ressentie en région francophone et qui n’a fait que croître à l’occasion de la campagne «Walen buiten». Charue ajoute qu’il respecte très sincèrement les préoccupations pastorales des évêques flamands, mais qu’il doit aussi se préoccuper des conséquences pastorales dans la partie francophone du pays. À la réunion du 24.1, De Smedt prend tout de suite la parole pour répondre longuement à Charue: – On a déjà perdu la masse des ouvriers parce que la hiérarchie a choisi le côté des patrons. Maintenant nous sommes en train de perdre les masses flamandes. L’animosité profonde contre l’épiscopat n’est pas le fait d’une minorité d’excités mais de toute la communauté chrétienne. – On n’a jamais révoqué la Déclaration du 13 mai. On a espéré en Flandre que le transfert se réaliserait en douce. Mais le plan d’expansion du 14 janvier 1968 est une provocation. Ce plan fait appel au 13 mai et la déclaration attribuée à Onclin a encore augmenté l’indignation. – Il se déclare solidaire et est aussi préoccupé de la répercussion dans la partie francophone du pays. Mais on doit aussi examiner ensemble les 184. À la fin de la réunion du 22.1, Charue avait dit qu’il ne pourrait assister à la réunion, le 24.1. Mais vu l’importance de la réunion il fut quand même présent le 24.1. 185. Fonds De Smedt 235; Fonds Suenens 578.

426

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

difficultés dans la partie flamande du pays et il souligne l’aspect pastoral des difficultés en pays flamand. – Il demande qu’on se mette d’accord sur l’attitude à prendre vis-à-vis de la Déclaration du 13 mai: adintra: la considérer comme révoquée de telle manière que plus personne d’entre nous ne la considère comme une décision qui continue à être maintenue par les évêques. ad extra: d’examiner ensemble si d’une manière ou d’une autre nous pouvons faire savoir publiquement que la décision du 13 mai est révoquée. Pour le moment cela lui semble encore un peu prématuré186. Dans la discussion, les autres évêques flamands soutiennent la position de De Smedt. Le cardinal dit qu’il a souligné «dédoublement» parce qu’il s’opposait au «Walen buiten», mais que cela ne voulait pas dire que les candidatures resteraient à Louvain. Les évêques wallons, surtout Charue, maintiennent leur interprétation de la Déclaration du 13 mai mais deviennent conscients que le dédoublement est politiquement impossible à réaliser et Himmer propose alors qu’on fasse des propositions à partir des possibilités. Et Charue insiste pour qu’il y ait un dialogue avec les deux conseils académiques. Le cardinal propose encore un projet de lettre à Van den Boeynants pour lui demander de recevoir Leemans et de «chercher des solutions au plan pratique», mais la lettre ne sera pas envoyée187. Finalement on décide que, le 25 janvier, Leemans fera une brève Déclaration: J’ai reçu mission du Pouvoir Organisateur partant des possibilités de fait de rechercher la meilleure solution réalisable avec possibilité d’envisager toute solution équitable188. 3. Réunion du Pouvoir Organisateur 28 janvier 1968 (Bruxelles à 9h.30)189  (en présence de Leemans et pendant la dernière partie de Houben) Notons d’abord qu’entre temps, le 25.1, Dupriez, au nom de l’ACAPSUL a encore écrit une lettre au cardinal pour protester contre les manifestations 186. De Smedt a préparé son intervention en français par un texte manuscrit (avec beaucoup de ratures et corrections) de 4 pages (Fonds De Smedt 235). Nous avons résumé cette intervention à partir des notes ms. de De Smedt et des notes de Declerck. 187. Pour le texte de cette lettre, cf. Fonds Suenens 578. 188. Fonds De Smedt 235. 189. Cf. les notes de L. Declerck et deux pages de notes ms. de De Smedt (Fonds De Smedt 235).

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

427

d’ecclésiastiques et aussi d’élèves de l’enseignement secondaire catholique qui hurlaient le «Walen buiten». Il affirme que le public se rend de mieux en mieux compte que le démantèlement de Louvain mène au séparatisme190. À la réunion, Leemans a d’abord fait rapport de tous ses contacts ces dernières semaines avec les milieux universitaires et politiques (notamment avec Houben et Van den Boeynants, qui a réaffirmé que le gouvernement ne prendra pas d’initiative mais attend une lettre du Pouvoir Organisateur sinon on mettrait en danger la liberté d’enseignement en Belgique). Finalement il propose: 1° de réaliser les candidatures à Ottignies, mais pas de dédoublement et donc un transfert. 2° de réaliser à Woluwé la faculté complète de médecine. Mais Woluwé ne peut être une excuse pour ne rien faire à Ottignies. 3° on ne fera plus de grands investissements à Louvain pour la section française. Cette hypothèse serait valable pour 10 ans. On n’y parle pas de principes. Puis le cardinal a fait rapport de ses entretiens avec de Stexhe191, Oleffe et Godeaux (samedi à 16h.) et avec Van den Boeynants, Houben et Grauls (27.1 à 9h.). Van den Boeynants lui a soumis le scénario suivant: 1° Leemans fait un rapport aux évêques. 2° Les évêques en délibèrent et transmettent secrètement leur avis au gouvernement. 3° Le gouvernement délibère le même jour et publie ce plan. Avec l’accord du gouvernement Houben se présente au PSC et espère obtenir gain de cause, le même jour. 4° Les évêques ratifient publiquement le même jour les projets du gouvernement. Comme Van den Boeynants part à l’étranger et revient le 5.2, les évêques doivent prendre contact avec lui le 6 ou le 7.2. Pendant la discussion Charue répète qu’il tient à «dédoublement» et De Smedt affirme qu’il n’est plus d’accord pour des motifs de pastorale. Il ne reconnaît plus le 13 mai et dit qu’il est d’abord évêque et ensuite seulement membre du Pouvoir Organisateur. De Smedt est rejoint par 190. Fonds Suenens 578. 191. Paul de Stexhe (1913-1999), sénateur pour le PSC de 1958 à 1981, ministre de la Culture française de 1965 à 1966.

428

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Heuschen192, Van Peteghem et Daem. Et le cardinal dit que pour lui, le 13 mai, des candidatures dédoublées voulaient dire transfert en douce. Charue ajoute qu’on ne peut pas prendre une décision sans un accord des Sections193 et qu’il ne peut pas prendre une décision qui va heurter sa population. Si ce n’est pas avec une participation des laïcs, il ne marche pas194. Entre 12 et 13h., Charue, Himmer et van Zuylen se réunissent à part pendant une vingtaine de minutes et en leur nom Charue dit qu’ils ne sont pas d’accord pour parler de transfert et propose qu’on dise que les évêques ne sont pas d’accord entre eux. La population flamande saura alors que leurs évêques ne tiennent plus à la Déclaration du 13 mai. Puis Daem, Himmer et Leemans, font un projet de communiqué195 dans lequel les évêques disent qu’ils ne sont pas d’accord sur la question de savoir si les implantations dans le canton de Wavre doivent se faire par voie de dédoublement ou de transfert. Entretemps Houben a été convoqué par le cardinal et rejoint la réunion à 16h. et il insiste pour que le Pouvoir Organisateur fasse des propositions au gouvernement. Et Leemans téléphone encore à De Somer. De Smedt demande à nouveau qu’on accepte les propositions de Leemans, qu’on avait formulées le 24.1. Mais Charue ne partage pas l’interprétation de De Smedt de ce texte196 et ne veut pas prendre de décision sans avoir consulté quelques personnes, notamment Massaux. De Smedt regrette alors qu’il y ait si peu de solidarité de la part de ses confrères wallons. Finalement on fera une nouvelle réunion le 4 février197 et on demande à Leemans de faire un avant-projet de lettre pour le premier ministre.

192. Jozef Heuschen (1915-2002), évêque auxiliaire de Liège en 1962, premier évêque de Hasselt de 1967 à 1989. 193. À plusieurs reprises en ces jours Charue avant de prendre n’importe quelle décision se réfère aux Sections. En fait il voudra toujours consulter d’abord Massaux avant de s’engager. 194. On constate que Charue manifeste sa ténacité, qui fut aussi sa force dans la commission doctrinale pendant le Concile Vatican II. Cf. Y. CONGAR,MonJournalduConcile, Paris, Cerf, 2002, I, p. 521: «Charue, vraiment accrochant et courageux: un vrai fantassin qui est accroché au terrain!» et L. DECLERCK – A. HAQUIN, MgrAlbertPrignon.Journal conciliairedela4eSession (Cahiers de la RTL, 35), Louvain-la-Neuve, Publications de la Faculté de Théologie, 2003, p. 223: «En ce moment-là, Mgr Charue s’est fâché et il est redevenu le Charue des grands jours: Monsieur ‘Njet’». 195. Fonds De Smedt 235. Ce communiqué ne sera pas publié. 196. Dans ce texte Leemans avait déclaré qu’il avait reçu mission de rechercher la meilleure solution avec possibilité d’envisager toute solution équitable. Pour De Smedt cela impliquait la possibilité du transfert; Charue l’interprétait comme dédoublement. 197. En fait cette réunion se fera le 3.2, pour échapper aux journalistes. De même, le lieu de la réunion sera gardé secret, elle se fera à la Rue de la Bonté, 9 à Bruxelles, dans une maison de formation des Auxiliaires de l’Apostolat. Mais le 3.2, à 13h., la radio annonçait déjà que les évêques étaient en réunion dans un lieu inconnu.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

429

4. Du29janvierau1erfévrier1968 Notons d’abord que pendant les dernières semaines de janvier De Smedt est accablé de pétitions, de motions et de lettres pour exiger le transfert de la section francophone198. Le 31.1, dans une lettre De Smedt fait une dernière tentative pour convaincre Mgr Himmer199 et il y ajoute un projet de déclaration200. Le 1er février, les évêques flamands se réunissent entre eux à Anvers chez Mgr Daem201. On n’a pas trouvé de rapport de cette réunion. Seulement un projet de déclaration [daté du 1.2.1968] pour la réunion du 3.2, rédigé par De Smedt dont Mgr Daem a dit qu’il n’avait aucune chance d’être accepté par les évêques francophones202. De Smedt a aussi dit à

198. Fonds De Smedt 233. 199. Voici de larges extraits de cette lettre (Fonds De Smedt 235): «Les propos que j’ai tenus dimanche dernier [28.1] vous ont fait de la peine. … Je le regrette profondément … Je ne suis pas partisan du ‘Walen buiten’ et j’ai toujours fait tout ce que j’ai pu pour aider mes collègues francophones. Ce me fut un sacrifice énorme d’accepter la Déclaration du 13 mai. Je m’y suis résigné par égard pour vous autres et aussi sous la pression de Son Éminence. Je me permets de vous rappeler tout ce que j’ai fait pour faciliter le passage de Mouscron à Tournai [l’arrondissement de Mouscron-Comines a été transféré du diocèse de Bruges au diocèse de Tournai en 1967] et pour obtenir que tous les prêtres (flamands inclus) y continuent de grand cœur leur ministère. J’avais espéré que vous au moins auriez compris combien il nous est nécessaire de pouvoir conserver ou regagner la confiance de nos ouailles… Au fond, que veut-on actuellement du côté flamand? Uniquement qu’on admette ‘le principe’dutransfert. Une fois ce principe admis, on causera et je suis sûr qu’on ne rendra pas la vie dure à la section française. On s’entraidera. Alors je me demande s’il n’y a tout de même pas moyen de trouver une déclaration sur laquelle on pourrait se mettre d’accord [il communique un projet de déclaration] … Si je m’adresse à vous, cher Monseigneur, c’est en raison de notre bon voisinage, mais aussi parce que je suis persuadé que la présence de quarante prêtres flamands et de milliers de fidèles flamands dans votre diocèse vous rend plus sensible au point de vue des régions flamandes». 200. Fonds De Smedt 235, texte daté du 31.1.1968, où on dit en substance que les évêques flamands et wallons ont des vues divergentes. Mais qu’ils acceptent en principe que l’implantation de chaque section autonome dans sa propre région linguistique peut se faire sans compromettre l’unité fondamentale de l’UL. … Pendant la période de transition, à chaque instant, les deux sections doivent disposer des moyens qui leur sont nécessaires pour poursuivre leur tâche d’enseignement et de recherche. La section flamande doit indemniser en toute justice et équité la section francophone pour tous les bâtiments et les instruments de travail qui lui seront cédés. 201. LeuvenVlaams(n. 5), p. 296. 202. Fonds De Smedt 235, avec une note ms. de De Smedt. Dans ce texte on disait en substance que: – L’unité organique de l’université sera conservée dans l’avenir mais ceci ne coïncide pas nécessairement avec l’unité géographique. – Pendant la période de transition, les deux sections autonomes doivent disposer de tous les moyens nécessaires.

430

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Heuschen qu’il devait parler à Courtrai le 2 février. Heuschen lui a conseillé de se tenir à la Déclaration de Leemans du 25.1. Le 1er février, Himmer répond à De Smedt203: il comprend que De Smedt cherche loyalement une solution à la situation difficile, mais il ne lui paraît pas souhaitable de faire une déclaration à moins d’y être acculé. Dans lecontexteactuel se prononcer pour le principe du transfert serait s’engager sur le plan politique. Le problème culturel tel qu’il se pose actuellement à Louvain à savoir l’obstacle que constituerait pour la culture néerlandaise la présence sur le territoire flamand de la section francophone est lui aussi impliqué dans la politique. Une position de principe des évêques sur ce point ne lui paraît pas possible pour le moment. «Il faut que nous arrivions le plus tôt possible à nous mettre d’accord sur des décisions d’ordre pratique et nous en tenir à cela». Après cette lettre, arrivée probablement le matin du 2 février, De Smedt prendra la décision de parler à Courtrai204. 5. LaDéclarationdeDeSmedtàCourtrai,le2février1968205 À la grande surprise des auditeurs (et par après de la presse et des évêques), De Smedt a dit publiquement qu’il se désolidarise de la Déclaration du 13 mai et qu’en l’approuvant, il s’était lourdement trompé. D’abord certains avaient pensé que, pris par l’émotion des dernières semaines, De Smedt avait improvisé cette intervention. Or – les archives en donnent la preuve – il n’en était rien car il avait préparé son discours par un texte manuscrit de 5 pages, avec beaucoup de ratures et de corrections206. – La ville de Louvain restera le centre de l’unique université catholique et des organes administratifs centraux. – Les facultés et instituts de la section francophone seront progressivement transférés. – Les facultés ecclésiastiques resteront à Louvain. 203. Fonds De Smedt 235. 204. Dans les archives Suenens (Fonds Suenens 579) se trouve aussi une note confidentielle et intéressante de 6 pages, rédigée le 31.1.1968 par Mgr Prignon pour le substitut de la Secrétairerie d’État [Benelli, ami personnel de Suenens] après un coup de téléphone de R. Houben, qui déconseille formellement une intervention du Saint-Siège et puis explique longuement la prise de position du premier ministre et du Parti Social-Chrétien [Prignon était conseiller ecclésiastique de l’Ambassade de Belgique auprès du Saint-Siège et recteur du Collège belge à Rome, où à ce moment Jan, le fils de Houben, était étudiant envoyé par le diocèse de Bruges]. 205. Le 2 février 1968 à 15.45h. avait lieu la réunion annuelle de 500 membres du «Boerenbond» [Alliance agricole] de l’arrondissement de Courtrai dans le Vormingsinstituut de Courtrai, où comme d’habitude De Smedt devait tenir une allocution de caractère religieux. 206. Fonds De Smedt 235.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

431

Résumons maintenant cette déclaration qualifiée de «fracassante» par LeSoirdu 5.2.1968207. – Il s’est gravement et grossièrement trompé en approuvant la Déclaration du 13 mai. En tout cas il n’avait nullement l’intention de freiner l’émancipation du peuple flamand ou de mettre un obstacle à l’intégrité culturelle du Brabant flamand. – Après le 13 mai on a érigé deux sections autonomes et on a commencé le transfert vers Ottignies et Woluwé. Cela impliquait de fait que la Déclaration du 13 mai n’était plus viable et serait impayable. Mais du côté francophone, on a abusé de cette Déclaration en disant qu’elle liait les fidèles en conscience. – Puis la section francophone a publié, le l4.1.1968, son plan d’expansion arrogant et idiot qui est totalement inacceptable. – Il assure qu’il fera tout son possible pour le développement culturel du peuple flamand. Et il renvoie à son interdiction des messes francophones au littoral, faite pour préserver l’intégrité du sol flamand. – Il assure les auditeurs que, comme fils du Brabant flamand, il reste préoccupé de ne pas mettre en danger l’intégrité linguistique de cette région et qu’il restera fidèle au peuple flamand. Il est évident qu’un discours pareil a tout de suite fait la une au journal télévisé du soir et des journaux du 3 février et a suscité des réactions violentes d’enthousiasme ou de désapprobation. Mais De Smedt lui-même a fait, le 10 février 1968, une longue évaluation «autocritique» de ce discours dans une note de 4 pages208, qui vaut la peine d’être résumée: Pourquoi avoir parlé? – La situation est intenable dans nos instituts et dans le pays où on s’oppose aux évêques. Il y a danger pour une perte de la foi. – On ne peut plus soutenir que la Déclaration du 13 mai 1966 lie les consciences.

207. Il n’existe pas de texte officiel de ce discours. Il y a la préparation ms. de De Smedt; mais on sait que De Smedt a improvisé certains passages; il y a des notes assez complètes du journaliste Paul Raes dans l’hebdomadaire HetWekelijksNieuws (cf. HOUTHAEVE, EenmanvanPinksteren [n. 1],pp. 113-114) et puis il y a dans les archives De Smedt une version dactylographiée (avec des corrections ms. de De Smedt). Mais cette version semble être rédigée après coup et De Smedt y a adapté quelques passages (Fonds De Smedt 235). 208. Document manuscrit (Fonds De Smedt 235).

432

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

– Le 28.1, les évêques wallons n’acceptent pas de révoquer en principe cette déclaration (également Himmer, qui est le plus modéré; cf. sa lettre du 1.2), même s’ils sont conscients qu’en pratique elle n’est plus réalisable. – Les évêques flamands se sont mis d’accord qu’avant d’approuver une quelconque solution (par ex. le plan Van den Boeynants), il faut d’abord révoquer le 13 mai. – Il a demandé à Daem de parler, qui a préféré attendre. Heuschen aussi lui a conseillé de se limiter au communiqué de presse de Leemans du 25.1. – Il n’est pas convaincu que le plan Van den Boeynants a des chances de réussir. Les évêques ne peuvent pas lier leur prestige pastoral ou la fidélité des croyants à l’Église à la question de Louvain. – Il a décidé de parler pour diminuer les tensions en Flandre afin qu’on puisse trouver une solution. Quedire? 1° Le 13 mai est dépassé; le dédoublement n’est pas réalisable, mais ne pas parler du plan Van den Boeynants. 2° Essayer de regagner la confiance des fidèles dans les évêques, qui n’ont pas voulu mettre en question l’intégrité linguistique du Brabant flamand. 3° Souligner la complexité du problème: pour les uns les évêques doivent parler, pour les autres ils doivent se taire. Que faire alors? Commentlediscourss’est-ilpassé? – Il pensait qu’il n’y aurait pas de journalistes dans la salle et qu’on y aurait fait allusion seulement dans les journaux du 5.2 (donc après la réunion du Pouvoir Organisateur). – Pendant son allocution, il était un peu ému, mais relativement calme. – En cherchant ses mots, il a finalement dit que le plan d’expansion francophone était arrogant et idiot. Cette expression était trop forte. – À la fin, il a dit qu’il était un fils du Brabant flamand et pour prouver son attachement il a parlé de l’interdiction des messes françaises au littoral et, ne trouvant pas l’expression appropriée, il a parlé alors du sol flamand209.

209. Expression qui, pour les adversaires de De Smedt, a été liée à la théorie raciste «Blut und Boden» de l’idéologie nazie.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

433

En quittant la salle, le doyen de Courtrai lui a demandé: peut-on publier votre déclaration dans la presse? Et il a répondu: oui, mais pas trop vite: par ex. lundi, après la réunion des évêques. Considérationsfinales – Il n’a pas eu l’intention de mettre ses collègues devant le fait accompli, mais seulement de regagner la confiance des fidèles dans les évêques (surtout le cardinal et Mgr Daem). Il a agi «ex caritate» pour sauver leur prestige. – Il n’a pas voulu saboter le plan Van den Boeynants. Au contraire, il était convaincu que ce plan n’avait pas des chances d’être accepté et que l’épiscopat perdrait toute crédibilité si on ne disait pas nettement que la déclaration du 13 mai était dépassée. – Certaines parties et quelques expressions de son allocution étaient des erreurs: 1° la qualification du plan francophone d’expansion comme arrogant et idiot était mal choisie et pouvait être comprise comme une insulte; 2° l’allusion à «bodem» (sol) était malencontreuse et a fourni l’occasion à des interprétations racistes; 3° mettre en rapport la problématique de Louvain et le problème des messes en français au littoral était malheureux et mauvais. – Il s’est trompé en croyant que son discours ne serait pas rendu public avant le lundi 5 février; il aurait pu savoir qu’il y aurait des journalistes dans la salle la veille de la réunion du Pouvoir Organisateur. – Finalement le discours a été un événement heureux au plan pastoral. Une déclaration commune des évêques flamands aurait été trop faible (comme preuve, il cite les déclarations de Daem et de Van Peteghem qui étaient très mitigées) et n’aurait pas renversé la situation. – Du côté francophone, son discours a été mal reçu et a eu des effets négatifs sur le plan pastoral. Mais si les évêques flamands avaient fait une déclaration commune au sujet du 13 mai, l’effet aurait été le même. Sur le plan politique, une déclaration commune des évêques flamands aurait encore accentué la division des évêques et eu des effets négatifs pour l’unité du pays. – Du côté flamand, son discours a détendu l’atmosphère mais est venu trop tard pour pouvoir encore empêcher la revendication d’un transfert complet de la section francophone. – Conclusion: bénéfique pour restaurer la confiance dans l’Église. Tous les évêques [flamands] en profiteront. Au plan politique son discours a eu des effets négatifs: du coté wallon les esprits sont encore devenus plus excités et plus intraitables.

434

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

6. LaréunionduPouvoirOrganisateuràBruxelles,le3février1968,à  9h.30210 (les évêques diocésains, Descamps, Leemans, Collin, de Schryver, Godeaux, Oleffe et dans l’après-midi Massaux, De Somer et D’Havé) De 9h.30 à 10h. les évêques se réunissent entre eux, probablement pour exprimer leur étonnement face à la déclaration de De Smedt211. Notons aussi que pendant toute la journée De Smedt, contrairement à son habitude, n’est pratiquement pas intervenu. Il a dû estimer que sa déclaration du 2 février avait suffi. À 10h., la réunion commence par un rapport de Leemans; puis on commence la discussion de la Première esquisse de déclaration des évêques212. Ensuite Descamps et Leemans quittent la réunion mais reviendront l’après-midi avec Massaux, De Somer et D’Havé. Pendant l’échange de vue qui s’ensuit il devient bien vite évident que les évêques wallons et flamands n’arrivent pas à se mettre d’accord au sujet du transfert de la section francophone213. À 13h.50, la réunion est interrompue pour un repas et on reprend alors la réunion avec Massaux, qui vient d’arriver et qui est bientôt rejoint par De Somer et D’Havé. Massaux fait quelques déclarations dures: le droit du sol n’est pas une valeur chrétienne et (en attaquant la Déclaration de De Smedt): nous ne voulons pas mourir ni dans une ambulance ni dans un crématoire214. Malgré de longues discussions, le désaccord entre les évêques persiste. Finalement Oleffe et Godeaux rédigent la dernière version du Mémorandum 210. La veille au soir, De Smedt avait déposé un message urgent sur le bureau de son secrétaire privé E. De Zeine: «Demain je rends une visite à ma famille pour me reposer. C’est la version officielle. En réalité je serai à Bruxelles, Rue de la Bonté 9, mais personne ne peut le savoir. Je ne pourrai pas célébrer la messe à Torhout à 4h. Cherchez un remplaçant (G. Danneels?) … Et priez pour moi» (Fonds De Smedt 235). 211. Voir les notes de L. Declerck. Daem et Heuschen ont dit à Declerck qu’ils étaient surpris par la déclaration de De Smedt, parce que les évêques flamands s’étaient mis d’accord de ne pas prendre publiquement position avant la réunion du 3.2. 212. Un document de 4 pages. Cf. Fonds Suenens 578; Fonds De Smedt 235; Fonds SCE. 213. Mgr Daem a alors lu un texte où ce désaccord est noté. Cf. Fonds De Smedt 233. 214. Notes Declerck, pp. 18, 22. Massaux a été particulièrement blessé par le slogan «Walen buiten», qui lui rappela le nazisme pendant la guerre. En fait, Massaux qui était étudiant à Rome a dû quitter l’Italie en mai 1940 (après la déclaration de guerre de l’Allemagne à la Belgique, il était mobilisé). Lorsqu’au mois d’août – après de longues pérégrinations en France – il a pu rejoindre son village natal, il a appris que ses deux parents étaient décédés à La Panne début juin par un bombardement allemand; son père sur le coup et sa maman dix jours après du tétanos, faute de soins, les Allemands refusant qu’on passe la ligne de feu pour aller chercher le sérum antitétanique (cf. MASSAUX, Pourl’Universitécatholique [n. 11],pp. 241-242). On comprend qu’il en a gardé un traumatisme.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

435

(accompagné d’une Note financière) pour le premier ministre et Leemans et de Schryver rédigent un communiqué de presse. On y dit notamment: «Les délibérations ont permis de constater un accord complet sur les principes de base de l’Université catholique de Louvain et sur la solution de nombreux problèmes. Cependant sur le point de savoir si toute implantation future de la section française, hors Louvain doit ou non, avoir le caractère d’un dédoublement, une divergence de vue subsiste au sein du Pouvoir Organisateur»215. La réunion s’est terminée vers 19h.45. Vers 21h., Van den Boeynants est reçu par le cardinal dans sa résidence à Bruxelles pour y apprendre le désaccord persistant entre les évêques ce qui aura comme conséquence la chute de son gouvernement la semaine suivante. Van den Boeynants et le Cardinal font encore quelques légers changements dans le texte du communiqué de presse et du Mémorandum216. 7. QuelquesréactionsàlaDéclarationdeDeSmedtdu2.2.1968 Déjà le soir du 2 février, B. Rigaux217 écrit une lettre à De Smedt pour lui exprimer son accord218. De même A. Gits écrit le 3.2 à De Smedt, qu’il le comprend et il parle alors à nouveau du site de Wavre219.

215. Communiqué à la presse le 4.2 à 10h.10. Cf. Fonds De Smedt 235; Fonds SCE. 216. Cf. Fonds SCE. Le Mémorandum a été officiellement communiqué au premier ministre le 5.2.1968. Les changements apportés dans le texte après la réunion ont encore causé un incident avec LaLibreBelgique, qui a écrit que le Mémorandum avait été tronqué. Ce qui prouve qu’un des participants à la réunion du 3.2 a transmis le texte du Mémorandum à ce journal avant qu’il ne soit officiellement remis au premier ministre. Le 8.2, le Secrétariat de la Conférence épiscopale a alors publié une mise au point (cf. Fonds De Smedt 233). 217. Béda Rigaux, o.f.m. (1899-1982), condisciple de Mgr Charue au Petit Séminaire de Floreffe, professeur d’exégèse à l’UL de 1956 à 1969. Rigaux était un ami de Descamps et de Charue et aussi de Constant De Smedt (1922-2018), le plus jeune frère de Mgr De Smedt, et de son épouse Jeanne Van Ginderachter (1924-2018). 218. Rigaux écrit notamment: «Elle [la déclaration de De Smedt) est pour moi un soulagement incroyable. J’admire votre courage et je suis certain qu’il n’y avait pas d’autre issue … L’enjeu était tellement grave que je m’en sentais oppressé. Le peuple le plus chrétien d’Europe allait-il se livrer à des actes d’anticléricalisme qui menace toute sa fidélité à l’Église de Dieu? J’aime trop l’Église, où qu’elle soit, pour ne pas trembler devant cette perspective. J’espère, Monseigneur, que vous mettrez votre autorité et votre sincérité au service de la réalisation de ce transfert pour maintenir l’unité de l’université qui seule peut sauver la section francophone …. J’ai osé vous confier ces sentiments sans réserve. Ma situation serait intenable et mon action stérilisée si cette lettre ne mourait pas sur votre bureau et dans votre cœur … Demain samedi je dîne chez Constant et Jeanne. Je serai heureux de leur dire combien je suis à vos côtés» (Archives L. Declerck). 219. Fonds De Smedt 260.

436

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

Inutile de dire que cette déclaration a fait la une dans la presse. Les journaux francophones parlent du «schisme de Bruges» (PourquoiPas, 8.2.1968) et disent aussi que De Smedt a mis publiquement en cause l’unité de l’épiscopat (LeSoir, 5.2.1968). Il y a aussi une correspondance abondante: 102 télégrammes et 110 lettres ont félicité De Smedt. Mais aussi 18 télégrammes et 420 lettres lui ont été adressées pour protester220. Il y a aussi une correspondance intéressante avec Mgr Charue221: – Le 13.4.1968, Charue écrit une carte à De Smedt pour lui présenter ses vœux de Pâques: «Après les mois pénibles que nous avons vécus et au cours desquels vous avez dû personnellement souffrir, je tiens à vous adresser mes vœux affectueux de saintes Pâques et de joie pascale, la seule qui se dégage des vicissitudes d’ici-bas. Que Dieu vous aide …». – Le 22.4.1968, De Smedt lui répond longuement222: «Vos vœux affectueux de Pâques m’ont fait un grand plaisir … J’y vois la confirmation de ce que j’ai toujours continué à croire pendant les douloureux événements du mois de février, à savoir que vous ne m’avez pas exclu de votre affection fraternelle. J’ai même toujours nourri l’espoir que, le temps et la réflexion aidant, vous cesseriez un jour de voir dans votre collègue de Bruges un pasteur infidèle à la norme que vous avez exprimée dans votre homélie du 11 février 1968: ‘Nous ne pouvons lui substituer ni le sang, ni la race, ni quelque valeur temporelle que ce soit’. Si à Courtrai j’ai prononcé des paroles, dont certaines sont malheureuses et regrettables, j’espère que vous admettrez que ma seule intention était d’éviter une catastrophe pastorale imminente et de regagner pour l’Église et pour tous ses pasteurs la confiance ébranlée de nos fidèles flamands. Sincèrement, je ne crois pas que je substitue le sang, la race ou quelque valeur morale aux droits de Dieu, du Christ ou de la Parole de Dieu. Je puis vous garantir que je considère les valeurs divines comme ‘le seul absolu de la vie pastorale’. J’espère, 220. Ibid. Évidemment un grand nombre de ces lettres ne comportent que des injures [«fossoyeur de Louvain», etc.]. Mais il y a aussi de simples fidèles qui ne comprennent pas comment un évêque peut se dédire ou sembler approuver les manifestations odieuses contre les Wallons. On lui reproche d’avoir parlé du droit du sol, de ne pas avoir une attitude œcuménique et de ne pas respecter la liberté religieuse [De Smedt, membre et vice-président du Secrétariat pour l’Unité des Chrétiens avait été au concile le champion de cette Déclaration et venait de publier en 1967 son livre Pour un climat de liberté], d’avoir agi sans consulter le laïcat, d’avoir manqué aux valeurs suprêmes de l’Église, de l’humanisme et d’un véritable esprit universitaire. 221. Fonds De Smedt 235. 222. Cf. Archives Évêché de Namur, A. 158. Avec nos remerciements au chanoine D. Meynen.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

437

cher Collègue, que cette affirmation vous rendra plus facile de croire à la pureté de mes intentions et de me considérer comme un frère qui partage vos préoccupations apostoliques. Quant à moi, je n’ai pas hésité un instant à exclure de mon cœur tout sentiment d’amertume. Le Seigneur m’a aidé paternellement à porter ma croix. Celle-ci m’a été rendue plus légère par la visite que vous avez faite à maman223 et, maintenant, par vos souhaits de Pâques…»224. – Nouvelle réponse de Charue à De Smedt, le 23.4.1968: «J’ai accueilli avec gratitude et avec joie la lettre qui m’est arrivée ce matin même. Oui, nous avons vécu des jours douloureux et plaise à Dieu que l’avenir soit plus serein. Mais tout de même, je puis vous dire que je n’ai jamais jugé vos intentions de façon tellement péjorative. Longtemps, j’ai hésité à parler jusqu’au jour où je me suis rendu compte que les fidèles étaient profondément troublés et ne comprenaient pas notre silence dans la partie francophone du pays. Il ne pouvait être question de recourir au Cardinal, dont la situation était celle de la corde raide. J’ai cru devoir prendre sur moi seul la responsabilité d’une déclaration [11.2.1968] tout en la situant sur le plan strictement religieux. Je sais bien qu’il y a la phrase sur le seul absolu qui est Dieu. Là, franchement, sans vous mettre spécialement en cause, j’ai estimé opportun qu’il soit dit que là est l’absolu; et non pas dans la race ou la langue. Je suis convaincu que les esprits sont à redresser à ce point de vue dans les attitudes linguistiques. Mais, je le répète, je n’ai pas cru que votre intention fût affectée par une telle conception erronée. C’est l’ensemble du climat qui est à considérer. Quoi qu’il en soit je suis heureux de cet échange de correspondance …»225. Le 20.12.1984, à l’occasion de la retraite de De Smedt comme évêque de Bruges, Jean Jadot226 lui écrit encore: «Je suis un de ceux qui pensent 223. Jozef De Smedt (1875-1968), le père de Mgr De Smedt, était décédé le 23 mars 1968. Mgr Charue s’est rendu à Opwijk pour présenter ses condoléances à la mère de Mgr De Smedt, Sophie Coeckx (1883-1969). 224. Il est intéressant de citer un passage du brouillon de cette lettre, que De Smedt a par après ôté: «Je croyais tout de même que mon passé avait prouvé suffisamment, verbo et opere, combien j’aime la patrie et, en particulier, mes compatriotes wallons. Étant vicaire général à Malines, les prêtres et les fidèles du Brabant wallon ont toujours constaté avec joie que je me rendais chaque semaine dans cette région où l’on disait qu’avant moi «on ne voyait jamais personne de Malines». Ici, avant leur départ pour Tournai, les habitants de la partie wallonne du diocèse de Bruges étaient convaincus que j’avais pour eux une véritable prédilection» (Fonds De Smedt 235). 225. Cf. Archives Évêché de Namur, A. 158. 226. Jean Jadot (1909-2009), prêtre du diocèse de Malines-Bruxelles, délégué apostolique à Washington de 1973 à 1980, président du Secrétariat pour les non-chrétiens de 1980 à 1984.

438

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

que l’histoire vous donnera raison dans l’affaire de la division de l’Université de Louvain»227. 8. Defévrieràoctobre1968:lascissionestdécidée Relevons d’abord qu’un projet d’une déclaration collective des évêques flamands a été rédigé par De Smedt, qui n’a pas été publié228. Puis après le désaccord des évêques du 3.2, plusieurs évêques ont publié des déclarations ou de lettres pastorales: Suenens, le 7.2.1968229, Daem, le 5.2.1968230, Himmer, le 10.2.1968231, Heuschen, le 14.2.1968232, Charue, le 11.2.1968233. Signalons encore quelques notes personnelles du card. Suenens dans ses cahiers234: 1° Le 3.3.1968, il note: «Depuis lors c’est la plongée dans les ténèbres d’une politique belge et universitaire: véritable cauchemar où chaque mot est interprété de travers, ou personne n’écoute personne et où l’on est aux antipodes du plus élémentaire sens chrétien». 2° Le 9.3.1968, il écrit: «J’ai passé en Amérique à la mi-février pour parler à l’Université de Berkeley et à celle de Stanford … Ce fut une rude décision à prendre: fallait-il décommander ou non en raison de la crise politique? Je savais que les dés étaient jetés, que nous, évêques, ne pouvions plus rien en la question. Mais le public l’ignorait et l’évêque de 227. Jugement répété dans sa lettre de condoléances pour le décès de De Smedt (2.10.1995): «Contrairement à beaucoup de francophones dans notre pays, j’ai rapidement apprécié le courage et la clairvoyance de Monseigneur De Smedt dans la question du dédoublement de l’Université Catholique de Louvain. Je sais qu’il a souffert des critiques acerbes qui lui ont été adressées à ce sujet. Mais l’histoire lui fera justice» (Archives L. Declerck). On constate ainsi l’évolution de Jadot, qui, le 17.5.1966, avait encore écrit à Suenens au sujet de la Déclaration du 13 mai 1966: «Permettez-moi de vous dire combien la décision prise fait plaisir … On se réjouit d’abord parce que l’avenir de l’Université est assuré; ensuite et surtout pour le souffle qui anime le document et les vues si dynamiques, ouvertes sur l’avenir, remettant en question des méthodes académiques surannées. L’autorité s’affirme d’une manière aussi ferme que sereine; l’esprit de coopération se manifeste à plusieurs reprises.» (Fonds De Smedt 233). Et encore à Suenens, le 30.5.1966: «… quelle tristesse devant la manière dont cette jeunesse s’exprime, sans le moindre respect du sacré. Nous sommes dans la ligne du nationalisme échevelé et proches du national socialisme allemand de 1935» (Fonds Suenens 568b). 228. Fonds De Smedt 233. Cf. FLORQUIN, Tenhuizevan… (n. 1), p. 326. 229. Fonds Suenens 579, et aussi publié dans la revue diocésaine de Bruges, Ministrando 4/4 (13.2.1968). 230. Fonds Suenens 479. 231. Fonds De Smedt 235. 232. Ibid. 233. Ibid. et Versl’Avenir, 12.2.1968. 234. Fonds Suenens, Archives personnelles, boîte 10, Cahier I, II, p. 45 et 46.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

439

Namur avait réclamé ma présence en ces temps troublés. J’ai opté finalement, après 3 téléphones en Amérique reculant la décision en raison du œcuménique en cause [sic]». 3° Lors de son audience chez le pape le 16 mars 1968, surtout consacrée aux problèmes du Birth Control, Suenens a parlé brièvement de Louvain: «Je ne sais comment nous sommes arrivés alors sur Louvain. Il [Paul VI] n’en a pas dit grande chose, seulement en répétant que Louvain devait rester fidèle à la grande tradition d’autrefois, donnant des directions de pensée, il songeait certainement au Louvain du cardinal Mercier. Je lui ai parlé alors de la valeur de l’Institut de Philosophie, avec un Dondeyne et un Ladrière235, de la valeur de notre Faculté de Théologie… Il n’a pas touché au problème controversé et brûlant de l’expansion universitaire, sauf pour dire qu’il était toujours prêt à faire une déclaration si je la jugeais opportune, mais déjà d’avance c’était la 8e fois qu’il me disait cela, sachant d’avance la réponse … et il a glissé un moment sur Mgr De Smedt et le littoral, disant que vraiment là il ne comprenait pas son attitude»236. * * * Après la chute du gouvernement Van den Boeynants237 et les nouvelles élections législatives du 31 mars, le gouvernement Eyskens a prévu dans sa déclaration gouvernementale la possibilité du transfert de la section francophone238. À partir de ce moment le rôle des évêques, comme Pouvoir Organisateur, dans les problèmes politiques devient secondaire. Et Mgr De Smedt n’est plus spécialement intervenu. Signalons que dans une réunion du 6.7239, surtout grâce à l’influence d’A. Oleffe, le principe du transfert a été accepté par les francophones. Dans les réunions du Pouvoir Organisateur du 16.7, 18.9, 4.10 et 17.10, le plan des implantations de la section française a été accepté

235. Jean Ladrière (1921-2007), professeur de philosophie à l’UL depuis 1950. 236. Fonds Suenens, Archives personnelles, boîte 13. 237. Après une interpellation de J. Verroken à la Chambre le 6.2, le premier ministre a présenté sa démission au roi le 7.2. Cf. JONCKHEERE, JanVerroken (n. 14), pp. 330334. 238. Par leur résistance acharnée au transfert, les responsables de la section francophone ont pu faire accepter – non sans raison – ce déménagement comme une expulsion injuste, pour laquelle ils ont exigé et obtenu des dédommagements, qui ont été octroyés par le gouvernement et aussi par Leuven-Nederlands. 239. Étaient présents: de Schryver, de Stexhe, Oleffe, Cool, Godeaux, Descamps, Leemans, Massaux, De Somer, Houberechts, Van Windekens, Declercq, Woitrin (Leuven Vlaams[n. 5], pp. 325-326).

440

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

et le nouveau Règlement Organique (qui prévoyait l’élargissement du Pouvoir Organisateur avec des membres laïcs) approuvé240. Le déménagement, qui sera étalé sur 10 ans, pouvait commencer. Grâce surtout à l’influence politique d’A. Oleffe et à la ténacité, la capacité de travail et l’esprit d’initiative de Massaux et de Woitrin une nouvelle université et une nouvelle ville ont vu le jour. V. CONCLUSION La question de Louvain a focalisé les tensions linguistiques en Belgique dans les années 1966-1968 et a été une étape importante dans le processus d’une fédéralisation progressive de la Belgique depuis les années 60 jusqu’à nos jours. C’était évidemment surtout un problème politique, qui dépassait de loin l’autorité et la compétence des évêques, Pouvoir Organisateur de l’Université. 1. Entre 1966 et 1968 on a pu constater que De Smedt était un des membres les plus actifs et les plus compétents parmi les membres de ce Pouvoir Organisateur. Cela était à attribuer à plusieurs facteurs: – Il était l’évêque flamand le plus ancien en fonction241. – Il avait une grande capacité de travail, c’était un orateur doué (parfois avec des qualités de tribun) et un auteur prolifique. – C’était un excellent administrateur avec les qualités d’un chef d’entreprise. – Il avait noué des contacts excellents avec le monde politique – non seulement avec les partis chrétiens242 – et syndical, notamment pendant la guerre scolaire en Belgique entre 1954-1958. – Et finalement, pendant le Concile Vatican II, il s’était fait une solide renommée à Rome et était connu par l’épiscopat mondial. Il ne fallait donc pas s’étonner qu’aussi bien ses collègues que les instances universitaires et les autorités politiques et culturelles se soient adressés à lui pour résoudre les problèmes, qui se posaient à l’Université de Louvain ou pour défendre leur point de vue. 240. Fonds De Smedt 54. 241. De Smedt depuis 1952; Daem depuis 1962; Van Peteghem depuis 1964; Heuschen depuis 1967. 242. Notamment avec des hommes politiques socialistes Achiel Van Acker (18981974, premier ministre 1945-1946,1954-1958, président de la Chambre de 1961-1974), Paul Henri Spaak (1899-1972, ministre 1936-1949, 1954-1958; 1961-1966, secrétaire général de l’OTAN 1957-1961) et Lode Hancké (1934-, député 1977-1981 et 1981-1995, sénateur 1981-1983).

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

441

2. On doit aussi constater l’évolution inattendue et très rapide de cette question et l’inflation des exigences flamandes. En 1962, le Pouvoir Organisateur croit encore pouvoir apaiser l’opinion flamande en accordant l’autonomie aux facultés francophones et flamandes et en donnant un pro-recteur, un vice-recteur, un administrateur général et un conseiller scientifique à chacune des deux sections. En 1966, on prévoit l’implantation (par dédoublement ou transfert) des candidatures. En 1968, le déménagement complet de la section francophone, qui devient une nouvelle université autonome, est décidé. De Smedt lui aussi a connu cette évolution: en 1966, il demande seulement le transfert des candidatures; et même le 1.2.1968, il propose encore que l’unité organique de l’université soit conservée et que la ville de Louvain reste le centre de l’unique université catholique. Et, si les facultés et instituts de la section francophone doivent progressivement être transférés, les facultés ecclésiastiques doivent rester à Louvain. On doit bien constater que De Smedt n’a jamais été le grand protagoniste des exigences flamandes, qu’il n’a suivies qu’avec un retard certain. 3. Pourtant, beaucoup en Wallonie et aussi à l’étranger se sont étonnés de l’attitude de De Smedt – jugée unilatérale ou flamingante – dans le transfert de la section francophone. Quelques éléments pourraient expliquer sa position: – Il est vrai que De Smedt, dès sa jeunesse, se sentait flamand comme d’ailleurs à cette époque une majorité de ses co-étudiants. Toutefois il n’a jamais été un nationaliste, ni un flamingant fanatique, comme le prouve sa lettre pastorale de 1958 qui défendait de voter pour la Volksunie, le parti nationaliste flamand243. Il était par ailleurs parfaitement bilingue et bien vu des catholiques du Brabant wallon lorsqu’il fut évêque auxiliaire de Malines et par les habitants de Comines-Mouscron en tant qu’évêque de Bruges. – Les premières années de son épiscopat à Bruges étaient encore fortement marquées par ses efforts pour garder dans son diocèse mais aussi en Flandre un état de «chrétienté»244, avec des écoles et des cliniques catholiques, des partis politiques et des syndicats catholiques, des mouvements sociaux et culturels catholiques. Ce n’est que quelques années après le concile qu’il a admis pleinement une société pluraliste et de plus en plus sécularisée. Il fut un évêque très social, qui voulait 243. Pour lui, les intérêts de l’école catholique primaient largement sur les préoccupations nationalistes. 244. Cf. E. MOUNIER, Feulachrétienté, Paris, Seuil, 1950.

442

L. DECLERCK – M. LAMBERIGTS

être présent à son peuple245: innombrables furent ses visites aux paroisses, aux écoles, et même chez les travailleurs saisonniers en France ou chez les mineurs flamands du Borinage, en Wallonie. Dans cette perspective il a aussi obtenu l’érection de candidatures de l’université catholique dans son diocèse à Courtrai. – On comprend dès lors qu’il lui était intolérable d’être considéré comme un évêque qui serait «décroché»246 de ses fidèles. D’autant plus qu’au 19e et au début du 20e siècle plusieurs évêques en Flandre appartenaient à l’élite francophone de la société tandis que les «petits vicaires» s’étaient rangés du côté des ouvriers et des gens simples247. Si dans la question de Louvain l’évêque de Bruges a parfois défendu des idées et des positions assez radicales, ce n’est pas à attribuer à un extrémisme flamingant ou à des positions racistes, mais bien à son sens social et à son souci pastoral. ÉPILOGUE – Vers la fin des années 1970, Mgr De Smedt a fait un don important pour la construction de l’église Saint-François à Louvain-la-Neuve, église qui ne pouvait être financée avec des subsides de l’État248. – En 1979, le cardinal Suenens a présenté sa démission comme archevêque de Malines-Bruxelles. Certains milieux de la nonciature et du Vatican ont pensé alors à De Smedt pour lui succéder. Mais on leur a fait comprendre qu’après «l’affaire de Louvain» il n’était plus pensable de nommer De Smedt primat de Belgique249. 245. Déjà dans les années 40 De Smedt avait donné beaucoup de conférences et récollections aux membres de la JOC de Cardijn, dont il était d’ailleurs un ami. Et Livine (29.3.1919-14.5.2009), la sœur de De Smedt, était propagandiste de la JOC féminine en Allemagne. Ce qui montre que la famille De Smedt, appartenant plutôt à la bourgeoisie (son père était brasseur et bourgmestre de sa commune), était très engagée sur le plan social. 246. Dans une lettre émouvante à Suenens, le 7.2.1968, Guy Malengreau (1911-2002), administrateur général de l’UL de 1961 à 1963], a écrit: «Les Évêques de Belgique ne peuvent pas ‘décrocher’ des fidèles. C’est la seule excuse que je donne à Monseigneur De Smedt» (Fonds Suenens 575b). 247. On ne peut oublier que dans cette période le mouvement flamand a aussi été une lutte d’émancipation sociale. 248. Cf. MASSAUX, Pourl’Universitécatholique (n. 11), p. 230. Massaux mentionne qu’une personnalité flamande d’Église a fait un geste pour la construction de cette église mais qui a demandé qu’on n’en parle pas. En fait, il s’agissait de Mgr De Smedt. 249. Selon L’OsservatoreRomano, le nonce apostolique de Belgique, I. Cardinale, a été reçu en audience par le Saint-Père, le 23.11.1979 et le cardinal Suenens, le 12.12.1979.

MGR DE SMEDT ET LA «SCISSION» DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE LOUVAIN

443

– Au début des années 80, quelqu’un roulait en voiture avec Mgr De Smedt de Bruxelles à Namur et lui montrait à droite de l’autoroute les imposantes nouvelles constructions de Louvain-la-Neuve. Avec un sourire malicieux, il répliqua: «Un jour, je serai nommé citoyen d’honneur de cette ville». – En 1993, à l’occasion du 25e anniversaire de la scission de Louvain, la Radio Télévision Belge Francophone a consacré plusieurs programmes à cet événement, notamment une longue interview avec le Prof. Woitrin, administrateur général et un des grands réalisateurs de Louvain-la-Neuve. Non sans humour celui-ci termina son interview en disant: «Et si, après tout, Mgr De Smedt avait eu raison». Faculté de Théologie et Sciences Religieuses KU Leuven St.-Michielsstraat 4/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgique [email protected] [email protected]

Leo DECLERCK Mathijs LAMBERIGTS

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL THE PROCESS OF SEPARATION AND RENEWAL AT THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN

Fifty years ago, in 1968-1969, the Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University of Leuven underwent a revolutionary change. In the wake of the Second Vatican Council a drastic reform of theological education was mandatory. An even more challenging urge for renewal came from within the University itself. The tensions between the language groups finally resulted into a definite separation. Out of the one bilingual institution two independent Catholic Universities took shape, one French-speaking in Louvain-la-Neuve in the Walloon part of the country and one Dutchspeaking remaining in the Flemish university city of Leuven. In the next few pages we will examine how the Faculty of Theology was actively involved in and yet also affected by this process of break up and renewal. We will focus in particular on the coming into being of an autonomous Dutch-speaking theological faculty within the KU Leuven1. By doing so, we want to cast light on a particularly turbulent phase in the recent history of the Leuven Faculty of Theology. As such our study may be conceived as an homage to our colleague and friend Professor Leo Kenis who was and is a prominent scientist in this research field. I. THE FACULTY OF THEOLOGY ON THE EVE OF THE 1960S In 1932, due to the new Roman constitution DeusScientiarumDominus,the curriculum of the Leuven theological faculty had been reorganized2. The backbone of its training program was the Schola Maior, 1. Based on L. GEVERS, Naar een nieuwe faculteit, in EAD. – L. KENIS (eds.), De Faculteit Godgeleerdheid in de K.U. Leuven 1969-1995 (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 39), Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1997, 3-29; also L. GEVERS, Kerkindekering: De katholieke gemeenschap in Vlaanderen, 1940-1980, Kalmthout, Pelckmans, 2014, pp. 177-202. 2. The actual Faculty of Theology originates from the founding of the Catholic University of Leuven in 1834; see F. NEIRYNCK (ed.), DeTheologischeFaculteit1919-1969 (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 17), Leuven, KU Leuven Faculteit Godgeleerdheid, 1970; L. KENIS, De Theologische Faculteit te Leuven in de negentiende eeuw 1834-1889 (AWLSK, 1992, 143), Brussel, Paleis der Academiën, 1992;ID., TheLouvainFacultyof Theology in the Nineteenth Century: A Bibliography of the Professors in Theology and

446

L. GEVERS

a four-yearly doctoral program containing a one-year bachelor’s degree, a two-year licentiate degree and one doctoral year. On top of that the most ambitious could strive for the title of magister in theology. The admission requirements to the Schola Maior were strict. Only students having received six years of training – two years of philosophy and four years of theology – at a diocesan seminary or another theologicum were accepted. On condition of an additional exam, candidates could possibly be admitted to the bachelor’s program as well, after having finished their third year of theology, and thus after five years of seminary training. Since the 19th century the Leuven University also organized a cursus minor theologiae or Schola Minor. Much like the diocesan priestly seminaries it offered a four-year course of basic training in theology. The program was intended in particular for the formation of the seminarians of the American College where the classes were organized as well. The American College had been founded in 1857 in order to prepare European priests and seminarians for their future missionary work in North America. After the First World War the College had been transformed into a training house for American priest-students. Since 1960 the ScholaMinor provided two supplementary degrees. On condition of some additional exams, graduates of the four-year theological program could be qualified as Magister Artium, or as Baccalaureus. The latter degree offered a direct access to the licentiate program of the ScholaMaior. In addition to both theological programs, the University housed also the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences (HIGW, Hoger Instituut voor Godsdienstwetenschappen – Institut supérieur des Sciences Religieuses). Founded in 1942, the Institute was closely linked to the Faculty of Theology via its professorial corps. However, until the middle of the 1960s, it maintained an autonomous position within the University. During the first decennia of its existence it underwent several transformations. First, it evolved from an extracurricular activity for students interested in further religious schooling to a training program for members of religious orders, male and female, who were to be involved in religious instruction. After 1958, however, a fully-fledged curriculum was established for the formation of teachers in religion in primary and secondary schools, lay people as well as religious. Finally, in 1962 the program of the Institute was further enriched with the foundation of the Center of Catechetical CanonLawwithBibliographicalNotes (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 34), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1994; GEVERS – KENIS (eds.), DeFaculteitGodgeleerdheidin deK.U.Leuven1969-1995(n. 1).

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

447

Research, enlarged in 1968 to the Center of Catechetical and Mission Research3. II. THE TURNING OF THE 1960S Since the beginning of the 1960s the University of Leuven was affected by a question of language in an increasing way. Due to the fast-growing number of Dutch-speaking students as well as the general strive for a unilingual Flemish region, more and more people in Flanders contested the existence of a bilingual University in the Flemish city of Leuven. Yet in 1935, in the wake of the Dutchification of the State University of Ghent, also a large number of the university classes in Leuven had been duplicated, thus offering lectures in both French and Dutch. Since than those classes were organized into two separate language groups. However, the University as a whole remained a unified bilingual institution with an actual strong Francophone superiority. In 1962, on the initiative of the bishops, the Leuven University was thoroughly reorganized in order to cope with the rapid growth of the student numbers as well as with the increasing tensions between the two language groups. In addition, Msgr. Honoré van Waeyenbergh, who had presided over the university for more than twenty years, had reached the retirement age of 70 years and thus was replaced as rector by Msgr. Albert Descamps. The new rector would be assisted by a double team of administrators according to language: two Pro-Rectors (Msgr. Louis de Raeymaeker for the Flemish section and Msgr. Édouard Massaux for the French-speaking section), further on two vice-rectors, two scientific advisors and two general administrators. In line with this reform, in 1963 the faculties were split in two separate language groups. In the next few years the course of events was further complicated by the problem of University expansion and by Flemish student activism. On May 13th 1966 an episcopal admonition, stating that the Catholic University would remain united and undivided, evoked fierce student protest and, in addition, further concessions of the authorities. In the summer of 1966 two laymen, known for their sympathy for the Flemish cause, were promoted to leading university positions: Pieter De Somer became Pro-Rector of the Flemish 3. L. GEVERS, VijftigjaarHogerInstituutvoorGodsdienstwetenschappen1942-1992, in M. LAMBERIGTS – L. GEVERS – B. PATTYN (eds.), HogerInstituutvoorGodsdienstwetenschappen:FaculteitderGodgeleerdheidK.U.Leuven1942-1992.Rondomcatecheseen godsdienstonderricht (Documenta Libraria, 13), Leuven, Bibliotheek van de Faculteit Godgeleerdheid, 1992, 3-58; EAD., Kerkindekering (n. 1), pp. 125-176.

448

L. GEVERS

section, Edward Leemans Commissioner-General of the University as a whole. Moreover, the new organic regulations of 1966 confirmed the principle of internal autonomy of the language communities. Both sections, Leuven-Dutch and Louvain-French, got their own management bodies: an Academic Council presided by the Pro-Rector, a Bureau of the Academic Council and fully differentiated Faculty Boards4. In this development the theological faculty had a separate position. In the Schola Maior, Latin remained the official language of the majors until 1968: Exegesis, Ethics, Systematic Theology, Patristics, and Sacramentology. In reality, those classes became more and more taught in French, for a new generation of theologians was less and less fluent in Latin. In addition, some courses like auxiliary Sciences and History, who often belonged to the Faculty of Philosophy and Arts (Department of History or the Interfaculty Institute for Oriental Studies) were designed and taught in a modern language. Here, too, French for a long time retained a predominance because of the presence of a large number of foreign students5. The Schola Minor was split in 1965. The students of the American College attended the classes of the French-speaking section. The Dutch section was mainly populated by about twenty students of the Latin American College, founded in 19576. In the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences the classes were already from the start, in 1942, classified in a Dutch- and French-speaking regime with its own teaching staff (apart from a few who taught in the two regimes) and student body. In 1965, the Institute also implemented a partial decentralization of the administration with the appointment of an independent administrator and secretary in both language sections. The Management Committee remained common though7. The organic regulations of decentralization of the university structures were implemented in 1966. An exception was made for the so-called Ecclesiastical Faculties, in particular the Faculties of Theology, Canon 4. H. TODTS – W. JONCKHEERE, Leuven Vlaams: Splitsingsgeschiedenis van de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Davidsfonds, 1979, pp. 189-199; E. LAMBERTS – J. ROEGIERS (eds.), De Universiteit te Leuven 1425-1985, Leuven, Universitaire Pers, 1988, 225-231. 5. Survey of the courses in NEIRYNCK (ed.), TheologischeFaculteit (n. 2).See further in the yearly Course guide of Leuven University. 6. University Course guide; Note F. Neirynck, 22 January 1969, attachment to the Academic Council, 27 January 1969, AKUL (Archives K(atholieke) U(niversiteit) Leuven), Rectoral Archive; NEIRYNCK (ed.), TheologischeFaculteit(n. 2), pp. 11-15. 7. GEVERS, Vijftigjaar (n. 3), pp. 5-6, 26; EAD.,Kerkindekering (n. 1), pp. 128-129, 148.

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

449

Law, the Higher Institute of Philosophy and the Higher Institute of Religious Sciences. Those study programs retained a unitary status and were directly posted under the authority of the Rector and the unified Board of Directors of the University. An umbrella organization was founded, a ‘Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties’, to which the Deans and the Presidents of the above mentioned faculties and institutes belonged. Until the end of the academic year 1968-1969 it organized monthly meetings under the presidency of Rector Descamps. Apart from that, the ecclesiastical faculties and institutions held, as before, monthly meetings of their own (Faculty) Council, the Faculties of Theology and Canon law jointly, the Institute of Philosophy and the Higher Institute of Religious Sciences separately. From 1966 onwards, the reports of those policy bodies were alternately either in French or Dutch, the two national languages8. But the separate unitary structure for the ecclesiastical Faculties had something artificial. It could, so would still turn out, hardly endure at a further growing apart of the two language sections of the University. Gustave Thils, professor of dogmatic theology and future Dean of the theological faculty was well aware of the problem. On 2 March 1967, he proposed to Rector Descamps to put on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties the problem of coherence of the classes of theology with the other university courses: “Des hommes politiques ont, à diverses reprises, parlé du maintien de la Faculté de théologie à Louvain, en cas de transfert de la section française. Il semble nécessaire de se rendre compte que le travail de la Faculté de théologie est conditionné par des disciplines appartenant à d’autres facultés. La question se pose d’ailleurs pour l’ensemble des facultés ecclésiastiques”9. The next two years would be decisive, both for the future of the University as well as for that of the theological faculty.

8. Reports of the Council Ecclesiastical Faculties and of the common Faculty Councils Theology and Canon Law, AKUL, Descamps, 156, 157, 158, 449; see also NEIRYNCK (ed.), TheologischeFaculteit(n. 2), p. 11; TODTS – JONCKHEERE, LeuvenVlaams (n. 4), pp. 189-199; GEVERS, Vijftig jaar (n. 3), pp. 34-35; EAD., Kerk in de kering (n. 1), pp. 156-157. 9. “Politicians have repeatedly talked about the retention of the Faculty of Theology in Leuven, in the case of a transfer of the Francophone section. It seems necessary to realize that the work of the Faculty of Theology is conditioned by disciplines belonging to other faculties. As a matter of fact, the question regards the whole of the ecclesiastical faculties”; G. Thils to A. Descamps, 2 March 1967, AKUL, Descamps, 156.

450

L. GEVERS

III. FIRST STEPS TOWARDS RENEWAL Apart from the linguistic problem also the developments in the Church contributed to a reorganization of ecclesiastical studies in Leuven. In the wake of Vatican II, the Roman Congregation of Seminaries and Universities elaborated new standards for theological training. To this end, it submitted on 7 October 1966 a number of questions to universities and ecclesiastical faculties. On 20 May 1968 the revised norms were laid down. In line with the Leuven proposals they allowed for more freedom in the implementation of the Roman rules, underlined the importance of a theological training on an academic level and opted for a more contemporary approach, including in language use. The theological institutions were expected to adjust their statutes to the new standards before 1 September 196910. However, the Leuven Faculty of Theology had not awaited the new standards in order to start a thorough reorganization of its curriculum. The first reforms were introduced in 1967-1968. At the request of the bishops a new master program was then established next to the Schola Maior. Students who had followed four years of theological studies in the ScholaMinor, a seminar or another theological training (i.e. a priest two-year training of philosophy and four years of theology) could achieve henceforth in one year a licentiate degree in either Moral and Religious Sciences or Catechetical Sciences and, from 1968-1969 on, also the master degree in Mission Sciences. With this reform the Faculty was hoping to attract priests who cherished no scientific ambitions but still wanted to crown their doctrinal and pastoral formation with a master’s title. Obtaining these degrees was partly or fully referred to the program of the Higher Institute of Religious Studies. So, the reform meant a certain rapprochement to the Institute11. The program of the Schola Minor was now clearly integrated in the program of the Theological Faculty as a substructure for both the newly introduced licentiate programs and the ScholaMaior12.Moreover, since the end of 1966 a renewal of the program of the ScholaMaior was also 10. A. Descamps to F. Van Steenberghen, 11 June 1968; F. Van Steenberghen to A. Descamps, 12 June 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/1; Normae quaedam ad Constitutionem Apostolicam Deus Scientiarum Dominus de studiis academicis ecclesiasticis recognoscendam,Città del Vaticano, Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1968. 11. Council Ecclesiastical Faculties, 16 October 1967, AKUL, Descamps, 156/1; GEVERS, Vijftigjaar (n. 3), pp. 35-37; EAD., Kerkindekering (n. 1), pp. 157-158. 12. In the Course guide of the University there was a change in rank order. Until then the ScholaMinorwas placed after the ScholaMaior.From 1967-1968 onwards the Schola Minorwas mentioned first, then the ‘special licentiate degrees’ and then the ScholaMaior.

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

451

intensively discussed. The reformed curriculum was introduced from October 1968. The bachelor’s degree in Theology, where the classes until then largely coincided with those of the licentiate degree in Theology, now received a separate program and in the licentiate program a far-reaching specialization per discipline (Bible, Dogma, Ethics, History) was put through. Also, the requirements for the final examinations were revised. In addition to the written dissertation required for the licentiate degree in Theology, a public lecture on a theological subject was now required, in place of the traditional thesesquas, the defence of fifteen theses13. The doctoral exam had to be accompanied henceforth by only three theses, rather than twenty. These exam reforms were already deployed from the end of the academic year 1967-196814. In the meantime, the unitary structure of the Faculty became more and more questionable. The so called ‘special licentiate degrees’ introduced in 1967 immediately received a private secretary according to language section: Maurits Sabbe for the Dutch speakers and Joseph Havet for the Francophones15. In the course of October 1967, a similar duplication in the administrative structure was carried through for the Schola Minor, with Albert Van Roey as the head of the Dutch-speaking and Jean Giblet as responsible for the French-speaking section16. Starting from this academic year the professors of the ScholaMaior were also administratively classified according to their language17. In addition, the students became rebellious. In view of the Faculty Council of 15 December 1967 the French-speaking students, united in the Cercle International de Théologie (International Circle of Theology), and the Dutch-speaking students, united in the Vlaamse Theologische Kring (Flemish Theological Circle), prepared a joint note concerning the use of language at the Faculty. They stated that Latin as the officially required teaching language caused more and more problems for both students and professors, that it also hindered a smooth connection to current events and, moreover, that it ‘scared off’ students from other faculties. They insisted on the introduction of a Dutch and French-speaking 13. Those theses were based on subject matter of the classes. Thus, they are an excellent source for the study of the course content; KENIS, DeTheologischeFaculteit (n. 2), pp. 136-139. 14. Common Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 13 October 1967, 17 November 1967, 15 December 1967, 12 January 1968, 16 February 1968, 15 March 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449, 156/1, 156/2. 15. G. Thils to A. Descamps, 20 July 1967, AKUL, Descamps, 449. 16. Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 13 October 1967, AKUL, Descamps, 449. 17. Note F. Neirynck to the Academic Council, 22 January 1969 (note 6).

452

L. GEVERS

section in the Faculty. In order to put pressure on their professors the Dutch-speaking students already for some time demanded that there would be taught effectively in Latin instead of, as usual, in fact in French. By doing so they embarrassed a number of professors who themselves no longer spoke Latin fluently18. On a special Faculty meeting of 12 January 1968, the professors then elaborated an advisory proposal concerning the use of languages in the Faculty. In the ScholaMaior, according to this proposal, the colleges from now on could be taught in Latin, French, Dutch or any other modern language, dependent on the judgment of the Faculty board. Starting the following year, the classes in Special Dogmatic Theology, which now were led jointly by two professors, would be taught by the one in Dutch and by the other in French. The Faculty of Canon Law decided to maintain a status quo for the time being. This proposal by the Faculty Council was submitted to the University authorities as well as to the Bishops19. Shortly thereafter, the Faculty was not untouched by the January revolt of 1968 at the University of Leuven. When the French-speaking Academic Council announced its expansion plans in January 1968, which showed that the French-speaking university community was determined to stay in Leuven, Flemish students fiercely strengthened their claim for transfer of the French section to Wallonia. They went on strike and boycotted the French speaking classes. The unrest kept on for weeks. In the meanwhile, the content of the student protest shifted to a demand for democratization of the University and to a global left-wing social criticism. The issue ‘Leuven Flemish’ became a divisive force not only for the University, but also for the episcopate and for the political world as a whole. It caused the collapse of the Belgian Government in February 196820. Of course, in the Faculty, those events increased the tensions between the language communities. In a once more extraordinary Faculty Council of Theology and Canon Law on 30 January 1968 it was decided that, given the autonomy of the Ecclesiastical Faculties, there would be no possibility for suspension of the courses by order of the French- or Dutch-speaking Academic Council21. Flemish students of the Faculty reacted with protests 18. Note regarding the use of languages in the Faculty of Theology submitted to the Faculty Council of 15 December 1967, AKUL, Descamps, 156/1. 19. Advisory note on language usage in the classes of the common Council of the Faculties of Theology and Canon Law, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2; Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 16 February 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2; Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 15 March 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449; Council Ecclesiastical Faculties, 12 February 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2. 20. LAMBERTS – ROEGIERS (eds.), DeuniversiteitteLeuven (n. 4), pp. 207-208. 21. AKUL, Descamps, 156/2.

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

453

in the classes. Their French-speaking colleagues on the other hand, a few weeks later, expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that some colleges in the last few weeks had been suspended anyway22. French-speaking theology students protested also against pending proposals to the tearing apart of the Ecclesiastical Faculties (‘Faculté de théologie et les instituts apparentés’, Faculty of Theology and annexed institutions) from the other French-speaking faculties as a whole. As they stated, those faculties could only function in a proper way in an interfaculty environment23. The professors of Theology had a same concern. In line with his request a year earlier to the Rector Magnificus, the Dean of Theology, Thils, on a meeting of the Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties, drew attention to the interfaculty coherence of the theological studies and to the organic link of the academic staff of the Faculty with that of other non-ecclesiastical faculties. His colleagues Albert Dondeyne (of the Institute of Philosophy) and Willy Onclin (of the Faculty of Canon Law) shared his opinion. Dondeyne insisted that, in case of a transfer, the Faculties of Humanities and Social Sciences would stay as long as possible in Leuven. However, rector Descamps was afraid that an official position on the matter could be taken wrongly24. On the next joint Faculty Council of Theology and Canon Law the issue showed up again: “One will as far as possible ensure that those responsible become better aware of this factual nexus between the faculties”25. IV. THE SEPARATION PROCESS The transfer was, however, inevitable. On 17 July 1968, the bishops declared themselves in favor of the transfer of the French-speaking section to Wallonia. On 20 September 1968 a similar announcement by the French-speaking Academic Council followed. As a result, the new academic year started with two autonomous universities. Only the Board of Directors and the Ecclesiastical Faculties were to remain in 22. Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 16 February 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2. 23. Motion of the Francophone students of theology, signed by their representative Paul Gérardin, approved by common consent by the Council of the Assemblée générale des étudiants francophones (Assembly of Francophone Students), 12 February 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2. It is not clear whether the motion was sent to the Faculty Council of Theology or to the Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties. 24. Council Ecclesiastical Faculties, 11 March 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2. 25. Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 15 March 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449.

454

L. GEVERS

common26. However, at the first meeting of the Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties on 15 October 1968, President Descamps announced that the French-speaking Academic Council had declared itself in favor of a split of the Ecclesiastical Faculties as well, while the Academic Council of Leuven-Dutch took a neutral stand with regard to the matter. The Council took also note of the decision of the bishops that the Faculties of Theology and Canon Law should join the French- and Dutch-speaking sections of the University without delay27. In the light of these events the representatives of the Ecclesiastical Faculties considered what should be done. The Faculty of Canon Law, which in itself was too small to be split, saw three possible ways: appending to a single University, an association with the Faculty of Theology, or an association with the Law Faculty. It chose for the latter. The theological faculty opted instead for separation and the formation of two autonomous faculties. In the transitional period the Dean would be assisted by two Pro-Deans, each having a seat in the Academic Council of their respective Universities. The Institute of Philosophy took a similar position. The transitional period could, as one might imagine, last for many years. New statutes, soon to be issued, would define the qualifications of a still common administrative Council that was to be established. It should take care of current affairs and insure the management of the patrimony and the joint services. The budget, which was still common in 1968-1969, would be split from the next year on28. The decision of the bishops in connection with the integration ‘without delay’ in both universities was communicated at the first (still unified) meeting of the Faculty Council of Theology and Canon Law of the new academic year, on 18 October 1968. At that common meeting a statement was read in which the French-speaking professors, referring to the declaration of both the bishops and the French-speaking academic authorities, expressed the desire to immediately organize separate meetings according to language system and to entrust the current affairs to an ad hoc Committee29. Frans Neirynck, who had been Academic Secretary of the Faculty from 1964 to 1967 and who would be the future Dean of 26. TODTS – JONCKHEERE, LeuvenVlaams(n. 4),pp. 325-329. 27. Report of W. Onclin of the meeting of the Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties of 15 October 1968 submitted to the Faculty Council of Theology and Canon Law, 18 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449. 28. Council Ecclesiastical Faculties, 15 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2. 29. Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 18 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449; F. Neirynck to G. Thils, 25 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps 156/2; Interview F. Neirynck in DeStandaard,12 March 1969.

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

455

the Dutch-speaking Faculty, expressed a few months later, in an interview with the Catholic newspaper DeStandaard, how that communication was received by his Dutch-speaking colleagues: “We (were) somewhat surprised but certainly not in a panic. We all were convinced that within ten years the Ecclesiastical Faculties would be split, but no one could think that the process would gain momentum so quickly”30. A week after that special Faculty Council, on 25 October 1968, the Dutch-speaking professors addressed a letter to the Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Gustave Thils. They stated that “under the circumstances, the necessity of an autonomous development of a Dutch-speaking Faculty of Theology has become evident and that, by analogy with the other faculties in the University of Leuven-Dutch, it should integrate in the University in question”. Further on the professors proposed to set up an advisory committee consisting of three representatives of each language group, which would make arrangements for future cooperation between the two autonomous Faculties31. On the 31st of that eventful month of October 1968 still another extraordinary meeting of the joint Faculty Council of Theology and Canon Law took place in order to reach a common position in the given context. It was laid down in a conclusive note, drawn up in both languages. According to this note, the joint Council confirmed by unanimity the existence “of two academic Faculties of Theology”. The declaration was signed by Gustave Thils, as Dean of the Faculty of Theology, and Albert Houssiau, as Secretary of the Faculty Council32. It was addressed to Rector Magnificus Descamps and Commissioner-General Leemans, who were the representatives of the remaining unitary governing bodies, as well as to the Pro-Rectors and General Managers of the two universities. Henceforth, both newborn Faculties went their own way. In November a Contact Committee was set up to guide the separation process33. Its 30. DeStandaard,12 March 1969. 31. F. Neirynck to G. Thils, 25 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps 156/2. Neirynck signed the letter on behalf of his colleagues A. Dondeyne, L. Janssens, A. Van Roey, V. Heylen, J.M. De Smet, M. Sabbe, J. Ghoos, K. Blockx, M. Caudron, A. Schoors and E. van Eijl. Not all of those professors were equally convinced of the viability of an autonomous Faculty of Theology in the KU Leuven: “... colleague Van Roey ... had his doubts about the chances of a theological faculty. Due to his good relations with colleagues of the Faculty of Arts he believed that the theologian-patrologist had to look for his future in that direction”, F. NEIRYNCK, Albert Van Roey: Patrologieprofessor te Leuven 1949-1983, in C. LAGA – J.A. MUNITZ – L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), AfterChalcedon:StudiesinTheologyandChurch History offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 18), Leuven, KUL. Departement orientalistiek, 1985, p. XVIII. 32. Extraordinary meeting Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 31 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449. 33. F. Neirynck to A. Descamps, 14 November 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449.

456

L. GEVERS

members were to agree on the allocation of certain financial resources such as for colloquia, the Chair Adrian VI, books and magazines34. For some time, the Faculty had been planning the establishment of seminar rooms and corresponding libraries. An accommodation had been found in a newly purchased so-called ‘House of Theology’ at the Geldenaaksevest 8. Until further notice, both faculties moved to the property in November 1968, each of them occupying one floor. Apart from the Contact Committee, for the time being, also the Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties still offered a common framework for consultation. Until December Gustave Thils still acted as a representative of Theology there. In a letter of 1 January 1969 to Rector Descamps, he resigned though, abandoning his seat to the Deans of both autonomous Faculties35. As it turned out, the Council of Ecclesiastical Faculties was also abolished at the end of the academic year. For a good start, the Dutch-speaking Faculty of Theology could count on strong support and firm guarantees on behalf of Pro-Rector Pieter De Somer and General Manager Guido Declercq36. On 13 november 1968, the Faculty got its own directory board. Frans Neirynck was elected Dean and Maurits Sabbe became Secretary37. The other members of the Bureau were Louis Janssens for the Schola Maior, Karel Blockx for the Schola Minor and Victor Heylen as President of the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences. From now on the Dutch Faculty of Theology had its own meetings, without the Faculty of Canon Law. The integration of the Faculty of Theology in the Dutch-speaking University of Leuven was sealed by the inclusion of Dean Neirynck in the Academic Council on 25 November 196838. V. REORGANIZATION In the meantime, the dynamic duo Neirynck and Sabbe set up the new Dutch-speaking Faculty of Theology. After the split a number of problems had to be solved: the shortage of professors, the small number of 34. Faculty Council Theology and Canon Law, 18 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449; Council Ecclesiastical Faculties, 18 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2. The Chair Adrian VI was installed in 1960 for lectures on the relationship between the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches. 35. G. Thils to A. Descamps, 1 January 1969, A. Descamps to G. Thils, 8 January 1969; AKUL, Descamps, 449. 36. GEVERS, Naareennieuwefaculteit (n. 1), p. 16. 37. Their Francophone counterparts were: Philippe Delhaye, Dean, and Jean Giblet, Secretary, Letter A. Houssiau, 23 October 1968, AKUL, Descamps 449. 38. F. Neirynck to A. Descamps, 14 November 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449; Academic Council, 25 November 1968, AKUL, Rectoral Archive.

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

457

students, the impending demise of the international dimension with the departure of the Francophone community, and the lack of buildings and scientific infrastructure39. In order to address the first two problems a stronger concentration of theological studies was opted for at the University of Leuven. Both the new approach of the training of priests as promoted by Vatican II and the decline of priestly vocations was resulting into a reorganization of the ecclesiastical education programs in Flanders. Since 1967 a number of male congregations had initiated a pooling of their theological training in the so-called Center of Ecclesiastical Studies (CKS), which was established in Leuven40. Still other plans were in circulation. The bishops were looking for ways to break through the confines of the classical priestly education. To that end, in the course of 1967-1968, a proposal was put forward and discussed to set up in Leuven an inter-diocesan philosophical Institute for seminarians, possibly in cooperation with the Higher Institute of Philosophy41. In that same year, contemplative orders sounded out the possibility of establishing an Institute for Monastic Studies at the University of Leuven42. The Faculty of Theology, aware of the future changes, took the necessary measures in order to be prepared for further extension and integration. The reform of the program in October 1967, with the establishment of the ‘special licentiate degrees’, implied, as mentioned, a rapprochement with the Higher Institute for Religious Sciences43. The admission requirements were changed so that also graduates of the Institute of Religious Sciences – male and female lay people – could be admitted to the ScholaMaior. In the spring of 1968 the Faculty entered into negotiations with the newly established Center of Ecclesiastical Studies as well, on a

39. Note F. Neirynck, 22 January 1969 (note 6). 40. In 1969 the Center of Ecclesiastical Studies (CKS) organized a training program in Philosophy and Theology for a number of religious congregations, in particular for the Chaplains of Labor, the Assumpsionists, the Augustinians, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Jesuits, the Capuchins, the Lords of the Cross, the Carmelites, the Steylist missionaries, the Montfortians, the Norbertines, the Oblates, the Olivetans, the Passionists, the Picpuss fathers, the Salesians, the Salvatorians and the Scheutist missionaries. Next to CKS, until 1969 there existed as well the smaller Leuven Institute of Ecclesiastical Studies (LIKS) as a common training center for the Chaplains of Labor, the Missionaries of the Holy Heart, the Priests of the Holy Heart, the Josephites and the Redemptorists. In 1970 LIKS merged with CKS, Katholiek Jaarboek voor België, Brussel, LICAP, 1969, p. 792; 1970, p. 792. 41. Deliberation with some presidents of Philosophica, 11 October 1967, Council Ecclesiastical Faculties, 8 April and 20 May 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 156/2. 42. J.M. De Smet to A. Descamps, 1 Juni 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 436. 43. See p. 450.

458

L. GEVERS

possible cooperation with the religious congregations. From those talks it emerged that the principle of exchange would be accepted for the Schola Minor: with the approval of the Council of the Schola Minor students would be allowed to attend some elective courses at the CKS. For the ScholaMaior the consultation on a possible exchange would be postponed to the next academic year44. The split of the Faculty was a major new incentive to pursue an overall Dutch-speaking ‘theological fusion’45 at the University of Leuven. From 21 November 1968 the newly elected Dean Neirynck, assisted by the professors Maurits Sabbe and Karel Blockx, entered into negotiations with the Jesuits and with the CKS. “That we reached an agreement in such short delay is certainly due to the CKS-negotiators, the fathers [Olav Emiel] Van Outryve [Dominican], [Piet] Fransen [Jesuit] and [Julien] Vandevoorde [father of Scheut/Congregation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary]”, the Dean testified a few months later, in his interview with DeStandaard. “It all went very smoothly. They as well were for a long time yet in favor for the design of one large Faculty with a real reputation”46. During the Christmas holidays 1968-1969 Neirynck went to visit the Flemish Bishops one by one in order to submit to them the merger plans, including the problem of the appointment of regular (non-secular) priests as professors to the theological faculty. The Bishops on their account promised to do a special effort to send their competent priest students for advanced studies to Leuven after their seminary training. Neirynck felt particularly encouraged by Cardinal-Archbishop Leo-Jozef Suenens and by his proper Bishop of Brugge Emiel-Jozef De Smedt47. On 8 January 1969, the design of the agreement between the Catholic University of Leuven and the ‘higher superiors’ of CKS (superiors of the religious orders and congregations) with a view to a merger of the section theology of the CKS with the Faculty of Theology was for approval to an extraordinary Faculty Council of Theology. The Leuven Institute for Ecclesiastical Studies (LIKS) and the diocesan seminary of Mechelen joined as well in the agreement48. Those institutions recognized the 44. Faculty Theology and Canon Law, 17 May 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449. 45. As phrased in DeStandaard,12 March 1969. 46. DeStandaard,12 March 1969; Note F. Neirynck, 22 January 1969 (note 6). 47. Ibid. 48. F. Neirynck to the Rector Magnificus and the Flemish Bishops, 9 January 1969. In attachment proposal of the new program and design of the agreement between the KU Leuven and the Religious Superiors of CKS, 8 January 1969; AKUL, Descamps, 432; Faculty Council, 17 January 1969; Archives Faculty of Theology (AFT); Council Ecclesiastical Faculties, 10 February 1969, with attachments (Appointment procedure, Agreement KU Leuven ‒ CKS, Agreement KU Leuven ‒ Religious Superiors), AKUL,

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

459

program of the Faculty as the regular theological training for their priest students. However, the religious superiors retained the right to continue to organize a non-academic priestly training for students not capable of university studies. In return, a number of teachers of CKS were to be appointed at the Faculty of Theology. The agreement held out the prospect of a thorough update of the study program of the Faculty. The traditional curricula of Schola Minor and ScholaMaior were to be replaced by a program of first and second cycle, each of them containing a twofold direction of theological education. The first cycle consisted, on the one hand, of a three-year bachelor’s degree in Theology and, on the other hand, of a three-year candidature in Moral and Religious Sciences. The second cycle contained, as advanced level for the bachelor’s degree, a two-year licentiate degree in Theology and in addition, as advanced level for the candidate training, a choice between a licentiate in Catechetical, Mission or Moral and Religious Sciences. This arrangement was in line with the new Roman standards for ecclesiastical training programs, requiring now a basic schooling in theology of three instead of four years49. In the planned program of the Leuven Faculty of Theology was also included a ‘fourth year theological studies for priest students’: priest students not aiming for a licentiate degree could, after three years of basic theological schooling, follow a specific program that would largely coincide with the first exam of the licentiate degree in Moral and Religious Sciences. Further on, special arrangements were made to facilitate the reception of priest students. As a matter of fact, the agreement provided for the establishment in the first cycle of a Commission and an Advisory Council that would reflect on the problems of priestly formation. There was hope, indeed, that next to Mechelen other dioceses would also entrust the training of their student priests to the Faculty. Eventually though, only the Archdiocese of Mechelen was willing to fully cooperate. The other Flemish dioceses maintained their own theologicum for priestly training. Even so, also to those candidates, coming from diocesan seminaries, the newly designed Faculty offered smooth transitory channels for an advanced scientific or pastoral formation at the master’s and possibly at the doctoral level. Descamps, 156/2; Academic Council, 27 January 1969 and attachments, AKUL, Rectoral Archives; De Standaard, 12 March 1969; F. NEIRYNCK, De Nederlandstalige Faculteit derGodgeleerdheid, in OnzeAlmaMater 23/4 (1969) 226-229; see also GEVERS, Vijftig jaar (n. 3), pp. 35-36; EAD., Kerkindekering (n. 1), p. 157. The agreement with CKS and LIKS went into effect from 1 October 1969, that with the Seminary of Mechelen from 1 October 1970. 49. Normaequaedam (n. 10),pp. 27-28.

460

L. GEVERS

The concentration of the ecclesiastical studies in the Dutch-speaking Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University of Leuven also implied a reflection within the University itself of the relationship between the Faculty and the Higher Institute of Religious Sciences, the HIGW. Following the example of the Faculty of Theology, in October 1968, within the Institute a full split between two language sections had been carried through. However, the negotiations between the Faculty and CKS had been watched by the professors and students of the HIGW with a certain resentment and anxiety. They were, to their mind, not well taken notice of in the negotiations and they were worried about the future of their program50. As a matter of fact, the Institute was expected, according to the new plan, to agree to the transfer of the Center of Mission and Catechetical Sciences to the Faculty of Theology. At the same time though, the rest of the program and the staff of the Institute seemed to face a most insecure future, given the establishment within that same Faculty of a second, competitive study cycle of applied theology. The Institute claimed for itself a proper position as a training program for laypeople51. After the adoption of the agreement between the Faculty of Theology and the religious superiors on the Faculty Council of 8 January 1969, Victor Heylen, the President of the Higher Institute of Religious Sciences sent an alarming letter to rector Descamps in order to list the grievances one by one52. In the second half of January the problems were smoothed out. The Faculty of Theology was willing to meet a number of demands of the HIGW such as the preservation of some managerial functions for its own, participation in the appointment policy and the take-over of the administrative and academic staff. On those conditions, the Institute was willing to transfer the licentiate degree of Catechetical and Mission Sciences to the Faculty. For the integration of the other sections of the Institute, considered as one and indivisible with the just mentioned licentiate years, also an agreement was worked out. Only the four-year program of licentiate in Religious Sciences and the corresponding aggregation (teachers training program) were to be included directly in the Faculty. The two-year Graduate program of the Institute was classified in the list of ‘educational institutions attached to the University’ while the one-year Graduate program for religious instruction in primary education was abolished. Those decisions were unanimously approved on the meeting of the Council of 50. Council Higher Institute of Religious Sciences (HIGW), 14 November and 29 November 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 449; Faculty Council Theology, 8 January 1969, AFT. 51. Note of the HIGW to the Bishops, 25 November 1968, AKUL, Descamps, 432; V. Heylen to A. Descamps, 26 January 1969, AKUL, Descamps, 156/1. 52. V. Heylen to A. Descamps, 11 January 1969, AKUL, Descamps, 432.

A FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN UPHEAVAL

461

the Higher Institute of Religious Sciences of 24 January 196953. The integration of the Institute was thus, in addition to the partial merger with the theological training of religious and seminarians, a second major component in the reorganization plans of the Faculty. A third part consisted of the design of an English-speaking section with a bachelor’s, masters and doctoral degree. In this way the new Board wanted to consolidate the international influence of the Faculty. As such, it also responded to the unrest that had caused the split of the Faculty in the American College. The creation of an English-speaking section was hailed by Rector Paul Riedl as the ideal solution for the College to be able to stay in the age-old city of Leuven. “The tradition of the American students in Leuven and the new responsibility to the developing countries are in themselves sufficient reasons to take this decision to the founding of an English section: it will be the only English-speaking faculty on the continent”, argued Dean Neirynck in his note to the academic authorities. His project got the enthusiastic support of Pro-Rector De Somer as well as of Cardinal Suenens54. Finally, also provisions were made for a scientific and material infrastructure of the new Faculty. In the context of the negotiations with CKS the Jesuits fathers of Heverlee were found willing to put their theological book collection of approximately 200,000 volumes at the disposal of the Faculty in exchange for a suitable accommodation and an annual rent that had to be invested in the purchase of new books. With the Seminary of Mechelen, it was agreed that it would deposit its heritage collection in the Faculty library. From their side, the academic authorities were urged to provide the new Faculty with an appropriate building complex for auditoria, seminars, rooms for staff and administration as well as premises for a new library55. 53. Joint meeting of the bureaus of the Faculty of Theology and the HIGW, 17 January 1969; Relationship HIGW and Faculty of Theology, 20 January 1969; Council of HIGW, 24 January 1969; Council HIGW, 2 May 1969, in attachment Statute Proposal, AKUL, Descamps, 432; V. Heylen to A. Descamps, 26 January 1969, AKUL, Descamps, 156/1. also GEVERS, Vijftigjaar (n. 3), pp. 35-37; EAD., Kerkindekering (n. 1), pp. 157-158. 54. Note F. Neirynck, 22 January 1969 (note 6); De Standaard, 12 maart 1969; NEIRYNCK, DeNederlandstaligeFaculteit(n. 48), pp.229-231. 55. Note F. Neirynck, 22 January 1969 (note 6). The Faculty of Theology was housed in the heart of the city in the building complex between St Michael’s Street, the Pope’s College and the Deberiotstraat. The classrooms as well as the Dean’s Office and the administration were located in the Maria-Theresia College. The student circle Katechetika moved into the Collegium Veteranorum; L. GEVERS, Gebouwen,structurenenmensen, in EAD. – KENIS (eds.), De Faculteit Godgeleerdheid in de K.U. Leuven 1969-1995(n. 1), 31-35. On the Faculty library see M. SABBE (ed.), De bibliotheek van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid: Plechtige opening 16 oktober 1974 (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia, 19), Leuven, Universitaire Pers, 1975; M. LAMBERIGTS, De Faculteitsbibliotheek, in GEVERS – KENIS (eds.), DeFaculteitGodgeleerdheidindeK.U.Leuven1969-1995(n. 1), 267-288.

462

L. GEVERS

In November 1968, barely more than two months after its election, the new board of the Dutch-speaking Faculty of Theology could submit the detailed reorganization plans for approval to the academic authorities of the KU Leuven. Following the positive advice of the Bureau of the Academic Council on 14 January they were fully approved by the Academic Council on 27 January 1969. The new program was approved. This was also the case for the plans with regard to collaboration with other ecclesiastical training programs, the integration of the Higher Institute of Religious Sciences, the establishment of the English section, the agreements related to the library and to the supply in a building complex for the Faculty. The salary statute of the clergy belonging to the academic or scientific staff of the University would be increased from 1 January 1970 from 65% to 100%. According to the General Manager of the KU Leuven, Guido Declercq, the heavy financial burden of the reorganization would be partly compensated for by a higher revenue due to the expected larger number of students of the Faculty. On 5 February 1969 the project was then approved by the Belgian episcopate56. The reorganization was finally sealed in the new statutes of the Faculty which, in accordance with the recently revised ecclesiastical norms, were drawn up and approved at the Faculty Council of 9 May 196957. The reorganization was completed. The Faculty of Theology of the KU Leuven was ready for a new start. The newly built modernist Faculty library with view on the Leuven city park was inaugurated in 1974. It represented, as it were, the pinnacle and the symbol of the renovation process. Naamsevest 162 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Lieve GEVERS

56. Academic Council, 27 January 1969 with attachments, AKUL, Rectoral Archive; Faculty Council, 14 February 1969, AFT. 57. Statutes of the Faculty of Theology, 1969, AKUL, Descamps, 436. The Statutes were approved by the Academic Council of 12 June 1969 and by the Belgian episcopate on 17 July; Faculty Council Theology, 10 October 1969, with attachment, AFT.

SPARSA COLLECTA

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU (1731-1803) A JESUIT OF THE ERA OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS

It is often assumed that the Enlightenment – the eighteenth century and the eve of the nineteenth – is not a particularly interesting period for spiritual and mystical theology, especially with respect to Catholic authors. Indeed, following the earlier condemnation of the so-called “quietism” of Madame Guyon and Fénelon, at the end of the seventeenth century1, mystical theology attained a negative ring in Catholic circles. Nevertheless, there are cases that reveal a greater continuity with the old mystical tradition than is often assumed. The French author Jean-Nicolas Grou is an interesting example. In the standard reference work by Joseph de Guibert, LaspiritualitédelaCompagniedeJésus, Grou is situated in the tradition of the great Jesuit authors Louis Lallemant (1588-1635) and Jean-Joseph Surin (1600-1668)2. This is undoubtedly true. Indeed, Grou himself had copied a number of texts by Surin – an author whose works were not deemed suitable for publication in the Society of Jesus in that period. Many of the themes Grou developed are, however, rooted in a much older tradition. This contribution offers an exploration of these themes as he articulates them in his L’intérieurdeJésus etdeMarie. I. LIFE AND WORK Jean-Nicolas Grou led a surprisingly eventful life3. He was born in Calais on 23 November 1731. In 1746 – at only fifteen years old – he entered the Society of Jesus. Following his novitiate and training in philosophy, he taught at the colleges of La Flèche, Rennes, Arras and Paris. He then studied theology, and was ordained a priest on 26 March 1762.

1. Breve Cumaliasadapostolatus of pope Innocent XII (March 12, 1699). 2. J. DE GUIBERT, LaspiritualitédelaCompagniedeJésus:Esquissehistorique (Bibliotheca Instituti Historici Societatis Iesu, 4), Roma, IHSI, 1953, p. 454. 3. Extensive information on Grou’s life and work in A. RAYEZ, Grou(Jean-Nicolas), in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 6 (1965) 1059-1083; cf. also P. LÉCRIVAIN, Jean-Nicolas Grou, in Christus 169 (1996) 94-104.

466

R. FAESEN

In this period, he particularly devoted himself to the literature of Classical Antiquity, becoming a specialist in the field. For example, his excellent French translations of the works of Plato were praised by experts. In this same period, however, the Society of Jesus found itself under increasing pressure. In 1763, the parliament in Paris ordered the members of the Society to leave France. Jean-Nicolas Grou moved first to Metz, and later to Pont-à-Mousson (in Lorraine), where he was professed on 2 February 1765. He later moved to Avignon (in the Papal States), and in 1769 he returned to Paris under a pseudonym, Jean-Nicolas Le Clerc. Throughout these years, he actively defended the Jesuits in various polemic treatises. Encouraged by the archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont (1703-1781), Grou had initiated a major written defence of Catholicism and faith in general. Although he intended the book to be voluminous, and worked on it for fourteen years along with his confrere Robert Guérin de Rocher (1736-1792), none of it was ever published. The manuscript was probably definitively lost during the Revolution. In these troubled times for the Jesuits, and thus also for Jean-Nicolas Grou personally – the Order was banned in an increasing number of countries and was ultimately abolished by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 – something of great spiritual significance occurred to Jean-Nicolas Grou. Circa 1769, he became acquainted with a Visitandine from the community on Rue du Bac in Paris, Mother Françoise-Pélagie Lévêque, and this sister’s guidance transformed Grou’s religious and spiritual life. At a certain point, he made an act of total submission to God, and it was so radical and intense that he himself wrote that he thought “that his soul would leave his body” (quesonâmeallaitsortirdesoncorps). In one of his letters, he described it as follows: Since that change that God has wrought within me, my spirit has become child-like and simple, a spirit totally contrary to the one I had before, which kept me closed off to the things of God. The first grace that God granted me, when he made himself my master, was to place in my spirit and in my heart the disposition of a spiritual child4. I had no idea why God treated me this way, but I allowed him to do it, and delivered myself to the instinct of grace. I now see clearly to a certain degree and I realize that it would have been impossible for me to adopt the right attitude in the various trials to which Providence subjected me, if I had not first been reduced to this childlike state5. 4. Cf. Rom 8,15-16. This theme was developed extensively in the older tradition, i.a. by John of Ruusbroec, Sparkling Stone, ed. H. NOË (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 110), Turnhout, Brepols, 1991, pp. 100-108. 5. “Depuis le changement que Dieu a fait en moi, [mon esprit] est un esprit d’enfance et de simplicité, un esprit tout contraire à celui que j’avais auparavant et qui me fermait

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

467

This description intimates one of the major themes in Grou’s work, namely that of abandonment, as we shall discuss more extensively below. In addition to the trials he suffered as a result of the abolition of the Jesuit Order, he was soon confronted with the fact that he could no longer remain in France due to the revolutionary climate. In 1792, he left France and sought refuge in England, at Lulworth Castle (near Weymouth, Dorset), the home of Thomas Weld, father of the later Cardinal Thomas Weld, his eldest son. The Weld-Blundell family were members of the English Recusant Catholic gentry, and were great protectors of Catholics in England, and later also of refugees from revolutionary France. Jean-Nicolas Grou remained at Lulworth until his death on 13 December 1803. He became the spiritual director of the whole family, and wrote his most important spiritual works while under their protection. Throughout this period, he maintained his old Jesuit lifestyle to the greatest extent possible, rising early for his meditations and to say Mass, and living a severely ascetic life. The last months of his life were extremely painful due to a stroke that he suffered, and dropsy. He remained, however, an extremely caring and affable man, and lived long enough to see the de factorefoundation of the Jesuit Order in England, thanks to the establishment of a noviciate at Stonyhurst College in 1803. A few months before his death, he renewed his profession as a member of the Order. Jean-Nicolas Grou published various works. In addition to his works on classical culture and literature, and his apologetic works – for which he was best known among his contemporaries – he also wrote several spiritual treatises, including Caractèredelavraidévotion (1788), Maximesspirituelles (1789), and especially Manueldesâmesintérieures. The latter was originally a collection of loose pamphlets on spiritual subjects, on which he had lectured at various occasions before the Revolution. After his death, they were compiled into a book that was reprinted and translated numerous times (Dutch, German, Italian, English, etc.). He wrote his most important works in England, such as the Méditationsenformederetraitesurl’amour deDieu (1796) and Méditationssurlaconnaissancedel’amourdeJésusChrist (not published until 1920). L’intérieurdeMarie and L’intérieur de

l’entrée des choses de Dieu. La première grâce que Dieu m’a faite, quand il s’est rendu maître de moi, a été de mettre en mon esprit et dans mon cœur des dispositions tout à fait enfantines [de l’état d’enfance spirituelle]. Je n’eus pas connaissance pour lors des raisons de la conduite de Dieu sur moi, mais je laissai faire et je me livrai à l’instinct de la grâce. J’y vois clair à présent jusqu’à un certain point et je sais qu’il m’eût été impossible de tenir bon dans les diverses épreuves où la Providence m’a mis, si je n’avais d’abord été réduit à cet état d’enfant”; Lettre 3, à la Comtesse d’Adhémar, 1784. Quoted by RAYEZ, Grou(Jean-Nicolas) (n. 2), c. 1064.

468

R. FAESEN

Jésus, written in 1794, also date from this period. He also wrote several shorter spiritual works. Henri Bremond described Jean-Nicolas Grou as “the most remarkable contemplative of the French 18th century” (leplus insignecontemplatifdu18esièclefrançais)6. II. L’INTÉRIEUR DEJÉSUS ET DEMARIE: MAIN THEMES L’intérieurdeJésus etdeMarie is one of Jean-Nicolas Grou’s most important works. It not only contains all the central themes in his thought, but also treats many subjects from the Christian mystical tradition more generally. L’intérieurdeMarieand the subsequent L’intérieurdeJésus were both written for Thomas Weld’s daughter Mary Weld, who kept the autographs. These two autographs were afterwards published separately and translated several times. Jean-Nicolas Grou later edited the two texts as one single book, L’intérieurdeJésus etdeMarie, which was published by André Cadrès, S.J., in 1862. The critical edition was published by Auguste Hamon (1860-1935) in 19097. Grou’s reflections in this book are based on the foundational principles of Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises, though he never mentions them explicitly. After all, the Jesuit Order had been abolished and it was more prudent not to refer to it or its founder explicitly, but the influence is palpable. Just as Ignatius advises for the meditations during the Exercises, Grou discusses a series of Biblical passages, first concerning Jesus Christ, and subsequently concerning Mary. He provides detailed, refined and attentive reflections on the significance of each passage for Christian readers. In other words, this is not a distant or “objective” interpretation of the Bible, but a personal and intimate familiarity with Jesus Christ and Mary, a deeper sense that imbues the life of the reader with meaning and significance.

6. HistoirelittérairedusentimentreligieuxenFrance, t. 5, Paris, Bloud et Gay, 1920, p. 308. 7. J.-N. GROU, L’intérieurdeJésusetdeMarie, nouvelle édition conforme au manuscrit de l’auteur, avec des notes par A. HAMON, Paris, Haton, 1909. Unless otherwise stated, the quotations in this contribution are from the edition by Hamon, translated by John Arblaster. L’intérieurdeJésusetdeMarie was translated and published in various languages, e.g.: AnleitungzurchristlichenVollkommenheitnachdemheiligstenMustern JesusundMaria, Wien, Mechitaristischen Buchhandlung, 1851; TheInteriorofJesusand Mary, London, Burns & Oates, 1854; El interior de Jesus y de Maria, Barcelona, Pla, 1853; Spirito interiore di Gesù e di Maria, Napoli, Tizzano, 1857; Zycie wewnętrze JezusaiMaryi, Lwów, Łukaszewicz, 1887; cf. C. SOMMERVOGEL, BibliothèquedelaCompagniedeJésus, t. III, Bruxelles, Schepens; Paris, Picard, 1892, pp. 1877-1879.

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

469

2.1. It is notable that these reflections primarily concern “the interior” (l’intérieur). The subject of the interior life evidently has a long tradition, of which the Middle Dutch mystical author John of Ruusbroec (12931381) provided an influential account, which was later adopted by the Devotio Moderna, the spiritual movement in which Ignatius of Loyola was formed. Ignatius likewise writes about “inner knowledge” (n° 233) in his Spiritual Exercises8. We must distinguish here between the outward manifestations of the Christian faith and its interior dynamics. The former is evidently important – one thinks for example of the essential exterior aspects of the liturgy and the sacramental life and of the works of mercy, etc. – but without an interior dynamism these may descend into dogmatism or hollow ritualism. It is therefore important to conduct an attentive and thorough exploration of “the interior of Jesus” (l’intérieur deJésus). The outer aspects of Jesus’ life (what he did and said, where he lived, etc.) are evidently important starting points for the faithful reader, but as Grou states in his avant-propos: That which demands our attention most are his interior dispositions which were the soul of his actions. We shall never speak, act or suffer like him if we do not think like him or are affected like him. We must attempt to penetrate his spirit and his heart, and it is most important for us to be alike to him there9.

Lui ressembler – indeed, Jesus is the unique model, the image all people are called to resemble. This is one of the most important themes of Christian spiritual theology, which goes back to Irenaeus and Origen10. This “likeness” to Christ is never an identity. The human person does not become Jesus Christ, but can become likehim. The reason for this is that the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ is unique in human history. In the first chapter of his book, Jean-Nicolas Grou explains: In Jesus Christ, the divine nature and the human nature were united, in the person of the Word, through the union that began at the moment of his conception, a union common to his soul and his body, an indissoluble union

8. “Cognosciemiento interno”, ExercitiaSpiritualia–Autographum (Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu), Madrid, MHSI, 1919, p. 428. 9. “Ce qui demande le plus notre attention, ce sont ses dispositions intérieures, qui ont été l’âme de ses actions. Nous ne parlerons, nous n’agirons, nous ne souffrirons jamais comme lui si nous ne pensons, si nous ne sommes affectés comme lui. C’est dans son esprit, c’est dans son cœur que nous devons nous efforcer de pénétrer et c’est par là qu’il nous importe le plus de lui ressembler”, ed. HAMON, p. xxi. 10. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V, 16, 1-2, ed. L. DOUTRELEAU – C. MERCIER (Sources Chrétiennes, 153), Paris, Cerf, 1969, pp. 214-216; Origen, InGen. I, 13, ed. H. DE LUBAC – L. DOUTRELEAU (Sources Chrétiennes, 7bis), Paris, Cerf, 1976, pp. 56-64.

470

R. FAESEN

which even death could not break, a union through which Jesus Christ was but one I, namely the “I” of the Word (…)11.

This statement can only be made about Jesus Christ. The human person may become like Jesus, however, and this likeness evidently concerns not any exterior reality, but a likeness to Jesus Christ’s interior. Jean-Nicolas Grou defines the core of this interiority at the beginning of his text: The first deed that Jesus Christ did when he came into the world, that is at the moment of his conception in Mary’s womb, was to devote himself absolutely to the entire will of his Father12.

We must bear this point in mind because it is both the premise and leitmotif of Grou’s book. It is also important to emphasize that “interiority” in this context does not denote a kind of psychology, as it is often developed today in various ways – the many psychological states or dispositions of the “I” that must either be fostered or not. From Jean-Nicolas Grou’s perspective, interiority is to be conceived as a relationship, and especially as the most fundamental relationship, namely with the Father. The most profound and most fundamental reality of who Jesus Christ is consists in his relationship with his Father, and is characterized by the unconditional way in which he is devoted to his Father. In the deepest core of his being, he is the loving and devoted Son of the Father. Interiority in this sense has nothing to do with the “I” that is concerned primarily about its own emotional or psychological states, and which narcissistically develops these states. On the contrary, interiority concerns the core of the person as a relationship, and the radical experience of this relationship. This is the foundational principle on which Jean-Nicolas Grou bases everything that he will say about the interiority of Jesus Christ, and the deepest way in which human persons can become like Christ – and thus become “Christian” in the full sense of the word: Here the interior of Jesus becomes the model for the Christian, and I do not hesitate to say that herein lies the crucial point for the imitation of Christ, 11. “En Jésus-Christ, la nature divine et la nature humaine ont été unies, dans la personne du Verbe, d’une union qui a commencé dès le moment de sa conception, d’une union commune à son âme et son corps, d’une union indissoluble et que la mort même ne pouvait rompre, d’une union en vertu de laquelle il n’y avait en Jésus-Christ qu’un seul moi, le moi du Verbe (…)”, ch. 1, ed. HAMON, p. 3. 12. “Le premier acte que fit Jésus-Christ en entrant au monde, c’est-à-dire au moment de sa conception dans le sein de Marie, fut de se dévouer absolument à toutes les volontés de son Père”, ch. 2, ed. HAMON, p. 8.

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

471

and that all the rest depends on it. Devotion to God is the soul of piety, and it is impossible to conceive of true religion without it13.

Jean-Nicolas Grou refers here to a point which, as we described above, constituted the turning point of his own life. Indeed, this was a discovery of his own deepest relationship with God, and his loving abandonment to God. It is also important to reiterate that in this respect, Grou develops one of the central themes of the Christian mystical tradition. “Sonship” pervades Christian spiritual and mystical literature more than any other theme, and while for Jesus Christ this sonship is natural, for a Christian it is a gift. From a historical perspective, Grou develops a particularly interesting point here. As mentioned, he was a specialist of the literature and culture of Classical Antiquity, and he was very sensitive to the history of this period. According to Grou, interiority as the relation to the Father was a central tenet of early Christianity. And it thus need not surprise us that interiority – understood in the sense we have outlined – was a fundamental theme among the early Christians. One wonders why the early Christians were almost all interior people, to such an extent that they could not conceive of being Christian without having an inner life, and why it is, on the contrary, that the majority of Christians in our days have no idea what interiority is, do not consider it to be essential to Christianity, and that it is conceived by some as merely a beautiful chimera and by others as a dangerous kind of mysticism from which one should distance oneself with horror. The answer is not difficult to give. The first Christians, who were either Jews or converted pagans, were absolutely convinced that converting to the Christian religion was absolutely the same things as devoting themselves to God after the example of Jesus Christ14.

13. “Ici l’intérieur de Jésus commence d’être le modèle du chrétien, et je ne crains pas de dire que c’est là le point capital de son imitation et que de tout le reste en dépend. Le dévouement à Dieu est l’âme de la piété, et il n’est même pas possible de concevoir de véritable religion sans cela”, ch. 2, ed. HAMON, p. 10. 14. “On demande pourquoi les premiers chrétiens étaient presque tous des hommes intérieurs, au point qu’ils ne concevaient pas qu’on pût être chrétien sans être intérieur et pourquoi, au contraire, les chrétiens de nos jours n’ont pas même, la plupart, l’idée de la vie intérieure, ne la croient pas essentielle au christianisme et la regardent, les uns comme une belle chimère, les autres comme une mysticité dangereuse dont il faut s’éloigner avec horreur. La raison n’est pas difficile à rendre. Les premiers chrétiens, qui étaient ou des Juifs ou des païens convertis, étaient intimement persuadés qu’embrasser la religion chrétienne et se dévouer à Dieu, à l’exemple de Jésus-Christ, c’était absolument la même chose”, ch. 2, ed. HAMON, pp. 12-13. It is telling that Auguste Hamon thought it necessary to add in footnote that Grou was obviously exaggerating when he claimed that lespremiers chrétiensétaientpresque tousdeshommesintérieurs.

472

R. FAESEN

Based on this fundamental insight, all the other themes in Grou’s work become clear and coherent: This is the most important point of the spiritual life. Once one has devoted oneself to God, one no longer belongs to oneself15.

2.2. No longer belonging to oneself but belonging entirely to the Father is likewise the definition of the poverty of the new-born Jesus (“He was born poor, the poor were the first people to whom he revealed himself, his preference is for them”16). That is why the song that the angels sang at his birth is the same song that Jesus sang in his heart17. Jean-Nicolas Grou again picks up on a theme that we also find in earlier authors, such as John of Ruusbroec18. The obedience of the young Jesus to his parents19 is an obvious expression of his devotion to his Father and the fact that Jesus no longer belonged to himself. Jesus’ humility – such as when he allowed himself to be baptized by John the Baptist – is likewise an expression of his devotion: “Is it possible that we do not see that the entire Christian religion is founded on humility, that everything can be reduced to humility, and that it preaches nothing and inspires nothing but humility?”20. The humility to which Grou refers is thus by no means the same as the neutral virtue of modesty; it concerns the total abandonment to the Father that is the core of Jesus Christ’s existence as a person. This characterizes the way Jesus preached, which is very different from that of the prophets: The prophets seemed surprised and struck by the great truths that they proclaimed; we feel as though we are reading that a different spirit inspired them and that they were transported out of themselves. Jesus is selfpossessed when he speaks because he draws it all from his foundation and he is familiar with the most sublime truths21. 15. “Ce point est le plus important de la vie spirituelle. Dès qu’on s’est dévoué à Dieu, on n’est plus à soi”, ch. 6, ed. HAMON, p. 35. 16. “Il naît pauvre, les pauvres sont les premiers à qui il se fait connaître, sa prédilection est pour eux”, ch. 7, ed. HAMON, p. 38. 17. “Gloire à Dieu au plus haut des cieux. Ce cantique était celui que Jésus naissant proférait dans son cœur, et qu’il exprimait par son état”, ch. 8, ed. HAMON, p. 43. 18. TheSevenRungs, ed. R. FAESEN (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 109), Turnhout, Brepols, 2003, pp. 184-185. 19. Ch. 16, ed. HAMON, pp. 73-75. 20. “Est-il possible que nous ne voyons pas que toute la religion chrétienne porte sur l’humilité, ramène tout à l’humilité, ne prêche et n’inspire que l’humilité?”, ch. 18, ed. HAMON, p. 91. 21. “Les prophètes paraissent étonnés et frappés des grandes vérités qu’ils annoncent; on sent à lire qu’un esprit étranger les anime et qu’ils sont transportés hors d’eux-mêmes. Jésus se possède en parlant, parce qu’il tire tout de son fonds, et qu’il est familiarisé avec les plus sublimes vérités”, ch. 24, ed. HAMON, p. 119.

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

473

Indeed, both in his preaching and in his miracles, Jesus does nothing other than what the Father commands him, and this is the most profound nature of his being22. Nothing is a greater sorrow to him than that the Father is not known and loved23. A particularly interesting chapter in Grou’s book is devoted to the prayer of Jesus Christ24. Grou reflects on this prayer as follows, again referring to an important theme in the mystical tradition. These reflections are, furthermore, telling of the way in which Grou understood his responsibilities as a spiritual director: Did Jesus meditate when he prayed? Did he methodically focus the three powers of his soul [memory, intellect, will] on a specific object, divided into various points? No, these methods – which are a human invention and which the early Christians did not know at all – have their use. One may use them for a certain time, but to believe that they are necessary is to be mistaken. To cleave to them strictly is to hinder grace, which transcends all method. Vowing never to teach anything else and directing all the souls that one guides to them would be to subject the action of God to that of creatures, nourishing this action with one’s own spirit, stripping prayer of its highest effects, keeping souls in a degree very much inferior to that which God would elevate them if we let him work freely, and finally, to prevent them from praying in a way that approximates that of Jesus Christ25.

Of the highpoints in this text is undoubtedly the theme of Jesus’ love for the cross26 and his annihilation (anéantissement)27. Contemporary readers may misunderstand this theme if we fail to grasp that from Grou’s

22. Ch. 26, ed. HAMON, pp. 127-132. 23. Ch. 32, ed. HAMON, pp. 155-160. 24. Ch. 33, ed. HAMON, pp. 160-170. 25. “Et lorsque Jésus-Christ était en oraison, méditait-il? Exerçait-il méthodiquement les trois puissances de son âme sur un objet déterminé, divisés en plusieurs points? Non, ces méthodes, qui sont d’une invention humaine, et que les premiers chrétiens ne connaissaient point, ont leur utilité: on peut en faire usage pendant quelque temps; mais les croire nécessaires, ce serait se tromper; s’y astreindre, ce serait gêner la grâce, qui est au-dessus de toute méthode; faire profession de n’en point enseigner d’autres, et y ramener toutes les âmes que l’on conduit, ce serait soumettre l’action de Dieu à celle de la créature, nourrir l’activité du propre esprit, priver l’oraison de ses effets les plus excellents, tenir les âmes dans un degré très inférieur à celui où Dieu les élèverait, si on le laisserait agir librement; enfin, les empêcher de prier d’une manière approchante de celle de Jésus-Christ”, ed. HAMON, pp. 165-166. Grou clearly alludes to the methodical form of meditation in Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises, as Ignatius explains it e.g. in the first meditation (Sp.Ex. 45-54), ExercitiaSpiritualia– Autographum, pp. 274-282. 26. Ch. 34, ed. HAMON, pp. 170-176. 27. Ch. 43, ed. HAMON, pp. 236-241.

474

R. FAESEN

perspective, it is based entirely on the mutual relationship between Jesus and the Father, and the total abandonment in love: But what did he love in the cross? Was is the suffering and the humiliations as such? No, for there is nothing loveable or desirable in them when considered as such. Nobody, says Saint Paul, has ever hated his flesh (Eph 5,29), and Jesus Christ had less reason than any other human being to wish its destruction. (…) To understand wherein Jesus loved his cross, we must understand the excess of love that he had for his Father and for us. This love was so great, that I do not hesitate at all to say that it was the most violent of his torments. It transcended all the others, and he surrendered himself to it voluntarily, and with complete willingness and nothing but the force of his love, he gave his last breath28.

2.3. Grou develops this point further with the theme of annihilation – a term that has a long tradition in mystical literature. Indeed, the following passage contains, as it were, an echo of the famous Miroirdesâmessimplesetanéanties by the condemned fourteenth-century author Marguerite Porete29: I praise you my Father, Jesus once cried, that you have hidden these things from the wide and learned, but revealed them to children. (…) This mystery is a mystery of littleness, even of annihilation. Through his union with the person of the Word, the humanity of Jesus Christ humbled itself to such an extent that it became morally30 a veritable “nothing”. (…) Why was Jesus Christ the humblest of all people? Because he was the most enlightened about the greatness of God and the nothingness of creatures. And wherefore did he merit this plenitude of supernatural light? Because, as Saint Paul says, his first free act was to annihilate himself before his Father. The first light that we receive from heaven must produce humility in us, and it is through humility that we merit all the rest. They are two abysses that are attracted to one another. Our elevation in God makes us sink away in ourselves, and our sinking away in ourselves increases our elevation in God31. 28. “Mais qu’aimait-il dans sa croix? Étaient-ce les souffrances et les humiliations en elles-mêmes? Non, elles n’ont rien d’aimable ni de désirable, à les considérer en soi. Personne, dit saint Paul, n’a jamais haï sa chair, et Jésus-Christ avait moins de raison qu’aucun autre homme d’en vouloir la destruction. (…) Pour concevoir à quel point Jésus a aimé sa croix, il faudrait concevoir l’excès d’amour qu’il a eu pour son Père et pour nous. Cet amour était si grand, que je n’hésite point à dire qu’il a été le plus violent de ses tourments, puisqu’en surmontant tous les autres, il a volontairement succombé à celui-là, ayant rendu de son plein gré, et uniquement par la force de son amour, le dernier soupir”, ed. HAMON, p. 172. 29. E.g. in ch. 117 (fifth state), Lemirouerdessimplesamesanientiesetquiseulement demourentenvouloiretdesird’amour, ed. R. GUARNIERI – P. VERDEYEN (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 69), Turnhout, Brepols, 1986, pp. 324-331. 30. In French: moralement; we take this to mean: not ontologically. The humanity of Jesus Christ did not cease to exist as such, but was completely emptied. 31. “Je vous bénis mon Père, s’écria Jésus-Christ dans une occasion, de ce que vous avez caché ces choses aux sages et aux prudents, et les avez révélées aux petits. (…) Ce

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

475

According to Grou, this is the case because we are dealing here with an interior disposition that is fundamentally love, and love which presupposes freedom: “The essentialness would have been lacking from Jesus Christ’s sacrifice if it had not been completely free and voluntary”32. Grou repeatedly emphasizes that this interior disposition of total abandonment in love to God is the fundamental characteristic of Jesus Christ’s “interior”, and it is the vocation of all Christians: “Abandonment is the great pivot of the spiritual life”33. Grou concludes the first part of his book, L’intérieurdeJésus, with the following reflection: And thus, the light increases every day along with our progress, and our progress along with the light, our faithfulness, our courage, our generous selflessness will elevate us to the conformity that God desires that we should have with his only Son. May it be so34.

2.4. This is followed by the second book, L’intérieurdeMarie. As mentioned, this text was originally written first, before L’intérieurdeJésus. In his “avant-propos”, Grou explicitly says that he wrote the book for Mary Weld (mafille), who was his spiritual charge. Indeed: “I told you that when I first saw you, I was struck by the thought that you were specially called to imitate Mary in her interior dispositions”35. This book is structured according to the same spiritual-literary principle. Grou limits himself to the Biblical passages about Mary, and attempts to discern her interior attitude. In Grou’s later adaptations of the work, this book follows L’intérieurdeJésus, and this choice is understandable. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the figure of Mary without Jesus, and it is mystère est un mystère de petitesse, et même d’anéantissement. Par son union avec la personne de Verbe, l’humanité de Jésus-Christ est tellement abaissée, qu’elle devient moralement un véritable néant. (…) Pourquoi Jésus-Christ a été le plus humble des hommes? Parce qu’il a été le plus éclairé sur la grandeur de Dieu et le néant de la créature. Et par où a-t-il mérité cette plénitude de lumières surnaturelles? Parce que, comme dit saint Paul, le premier acte libre qu’il ait produit a été de s’anéantir devant son Père. La première lumière que nous recevons du ciel doit produire en nous l’humilité; et c’est l’humilité qui nous mérite ensuite toutes les autres. Ce sont deux abîmes dont l’un attire l’autre. Notre élévation en Dieu nous enfonce en nous-mêmes, et notre abaissement en nous-mêmes augmente notre élévation en Dieu”, ed. HAMON, pp. 236-237. 32. “L’essentiel eût manqué au sacrifice de Jésus-Christ, s’il n’eût pas été tout à fait libre et volontaire”, ch. 54, ed. HAMON, p. 311. 33. “L’abandon est le grand pivot de la vie spirituelle”, ch. 61, ed. HAMON, p. 351. 34. “Ainsi, les lumières croissant chaque jour avec notre progrès, et le progrès avec les lumières, notre fidélité, notre courage, notre généreux désintéressement nous élèveront à la conformité que Dieu veut que nous ayons avec son Fils unique. Ainsi soit-il”, ed. HAMON, p. 396. 35. “Je vous ai dit que la première fois que je vous vis, je fus frappé de la pensée que vous étiez spécialement appelée à imiter Marie dans ses dispositions intérieures”, ed. HAMON, p. 399.

476

R. FAESEN

therefore necessary to acquire a more personal, interior knowledge of Jesus before focusing on who his mother was. L’intérieurdeMarie is an easier, more accessible, and more readable text, written from the perspective that Mary is exemplar of the interior soul united with Jesus Christ. It is thus the natural progression from L’intérieurdeJésus. The concluding chapter (réflexionsgénérales) is a Mariological gem, in which Grou clearly summarizes the basic insights of Mary’s spiritual attitude. III. COMMON THEMES IN THE MIDDLE DUTCH MYSTICAL TRADITION We may also indicate a number of striking common themes in Grou’s work and the Middle Dutch mystical tradition. We by no means wish to imply that Grou had direct knowledge of this tradition or that he read any Middle Dutch authors first-hand. We seek only to highlight the striking continuity of these spiritual themes. 1. In chapter 57, Grou reflects on Peter’s denial of Jesus. It is notable that he specifically focuses on the account in Luke’s Gospel, because Luke is the only evangelist who situates the denial in the presence of Jesus himself, underscoring the drama in the interpersonal relationship between the accused man and his apostle. According to Luke’s account, it took place in the presence of Jesus Christ himself, who from where he was standing could see and hear the Apostle. After the third denial, he turned to Peter and cast his gaze at him (Lk 22,61). And what a gaze! And by what interior grace was it accompanied! It penetrated into the depths of Peter’s soul. Confused and touched, he immediately went outside freely to weep bitter tears for his fault. The Savior’s gaze that assured him of his forgiveness only made his repentance more lively and intimate. He wept his whole life for this sin and the pride that had been its cause. (…) But this sin required such a great remedy, and it produced a great good for him. His love became sincerer, more tender, more grateful, and at the same time more humble and more circumspect36.

36. “Il paraît, par le récit de saint Luc, que ce fut en présence de Jésus-Christ même qui, du lieu où il était, pouvait voir et entendre cet apôtre. Après le troisième renoncement, il se tourna du côté de Pierre, et jeta sur lui un regard. Quel regard! Et de quelle grâce intérieure ne fut-il pas accompagné! Pierre en fut pénétré jusqu’au fond de l’âme. Confus et attendri, il sortit au plus tôt pour verser librement sur sa faute des larmes amères. Ce regard du Sauveur qui l’assurait de son pardon, ne fit que rendre son repentir plus vif et plus intime. Il pleura toute sa vie son péché et la présomption qui en avait été la cause. (…) Mais son mal avait besoin d’un tel remède, et il en résulta un très grand bien pour lui. Son amour n’en fut que plus sincère, plus tendre, plus reconnaissant, et en même temps plus humble et plus circonspect”, ed. HAMON, p. 326.

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

477

This passage contains a striking echo of what Ruusbroec writes in one of his works: And hereby we can note: in that night when our Lord Jesus Christ was captured, they all fled from Him. And Peter, the bravest of all, who wanted to go to prison and to death with Him, was so greatly frightened by the voice of a woman that he denied Him and swore that he did not know Him. Even though his sin was great, it was forgivable; for he sinned by weakness, not by wickedness. And the other apostles did the same, for anxiety and fear of death chilled, filled and troubled their hearts so that they forgot the love that they had for Jesus. But Jesus did not forget them. In his miserable suffering, He turned and looked at Peter with great mercy; and Peter looked back at Him with great bitterness of heart. And in that mutual seeing the love between both of them was renewed more than it was before. For grace and love, inward sorrow, great confidence, disgrace and shame: these things filled his heart and all his innermost heart (allesinebinnenste). And his soul melted like snow before the sun, and like wax before a burning fire. From his soul there flowed tears, bitter and sweet: bitter, on account of his sins, sweet and full of bliss, on account of the fidelity that he saw and felt in Christ. Thus he was full of sadness and full of bliss; how that can be no one knows but one who has felt it37.

Both authors emphasize the immediate and personal character of the events surrounding Peter’s denial. And both authors likewise emphasize that the guilt and pain that characterized the moment was an intensification of mutual love. 2. In chapter 39, which is entitled L’amourafaitàlafoislebonheur etletourmentdeJésus-Christ, Grou offers the following reflection: Two things are incontestable in the foundations of our faith: the first is that Jesus Christ was the happiest of all people; the second is that he suffered more than any other. These two things are perfectly united in him: his happiness in no way diminished his suffering, and his suffering in no way weakened his happiness38.

Here Grou takes up a theme that occurs in many passages of the Middle Dutch mystical literature, e.g. in the EvangelicalPearl, such as in the following expression: … the merits of your [= Christ’s] happy human spirit and your holy, saddened soul and your holy, wounded, pure body39. 37. VandenXIIbeghinen, ed. M.M. KORS (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 107A), Turnhout, Brepols, 2000, pp. 312-314. 38. “Deux choses sont incontestables dans les principes de la foi: la première, que Jésus-Christ a été le plus heureux de tous les hommes; la seconde, qu’il a été le plus souffrant. Ces deux choses sont parfaitement conciliées en lui; le bonheur n’a point diminué la souffrance, et la souffrance n’a point affaibli le bonheur”, ed. HAMON, p. 208. 39. “Dye verdienste uws menschelijcken vrolijcken gheestes ende uwer heyliger bedroefder sielen ende uws heyligen gewonden reynen lichaems, De groote evangelische peerle” (Antwerpen, Cnobbaert, 1629, p. 259, and passim).

478

R. FAESEN

The Pearl repeatedly states that these three aspects are perfectly aligned and united precisely because the physical wounds, the anguish and the highest spiritual joy are all three aspects of the same fundamental love in Jesus Christ, as Jean-Nicolas Grou likewise develops in the relevant passage. 3. Chapter 37 is based on Grou’s assessment that Jesus Christ was the only person who completely fulfilled the greatest commandment of the Law: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your spirit, all your heart and all your strength” (Dt 6,5), and he extensively develops the idea that all other people fall short. We find here an echo of the theme of the defectusamoris, an important subject in the works of William of Saint-Thierry (1075-1148), which was later developed in the Middle Dutch tradition. The last paragraph of the chapter is particularly striking: This is, indisputably, what a Christian should be or at least that to which he should aspire with an indefatigable ardor if he wishes to love God with all his strength. That is impossible here below, you say? How do you know that? You speak thus only because you have not started loving. Love, and you will see how love, once it has mastered your heart, conquers all the rest, and appropriates the use and direction of your spiritual and corporal powers. You will learn how to dedicate to him all your works and your suffering, your pleasures and your pains, to render all to him, and to reduce to his unity everything that divides and dissipates you. Love begins by gathering and uniting everything within itself. And from within it emanates to the outside, and finally it comes to possess the whole person. It is a fire which, from the center, spreads in all directions, captures everything, and transforms into itself everything that it touches, after having consumed everything that is opposed to it40.

This is a beautiful summary of a prominent theme in the Middle Dutch mystical tradition, which was developed extensively, for example, in John of Ruusbroec’s Sparkling Stone. Love is conceived as a fire that penetrates every dimension of the human person, uniting all the disparate 40. “Voilà, sans contredit, ce que doit être un chrétien; voilà du moins où il doit tendre avec une ardeur infatigable, s’il veut aimer Dieu detoutesaforce. Cela est impossible ici-bas, direz-vous? D’où le savez-vous? Vous ne parlez ainsi que parce que vous n’avez pas encore commencé d’aimer. Aimez, et vous verrez comment l’amour, une fois maître de votre cœur, s’emparera de tout le reste, s’appropriera l’usage et la direction de vos facultés spirituelles et corporelles, vous apprendra à lui consacrer vos travaux et vos souffrances, vos plaisirs et vos peines, ramènera tout à lui, et réduira à son unité cette multiplicité qui vous partage et vous dissipe. L’amour commence par tout ramasser et rassembler au-dedans; de l’intérieur il se communique ensuite à l’extérieur, et il finit par posséder tout l’homme. C’est un feu qui, du centre, s’étend de tous côtés, gagne tout, et transforme en lui tout ce qu’il touche, après avoir consumé tout ce qui lui est contraire”, ed. HAMON, p. 199.

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

479

elements so that the person ultimately becomes love itself41. The earliest dateable Middle Dutch mystical treatise, TheSevenMannersofLove by Beatrice of Nazareth (1200-1268) develops both the theme of the defectusamoris and the transformation of love42. We find further references to the themes of transformation and deification in chapter 52, in a discussion of the Eucharist: This is a genuine extension of the Incarnation. It communicates to us its effects, and as in him human nature is divinized by the person of the Word, who appropriates it to himself, he divinizes us in a certain way by being incorporated in us. By receiving him, his flesh enters spiritually into our substance. He is not at all transformed into us, but he transforms us into him. By a natural miracle, the nourishment becomes part of our body and by a supernatural miracle, we became part of Jesus Christ by receiving him as nourishment43.

This conception of the Eucharist evidently finds its origins in Augustine44, but it was developed extensively by authors in the Middle Dutch tradition45. 4. The most remarkable theme in Grou’s work is, however, that of la viecommunedeJésus-Christ (ch. 29). Grou develops this throughout the chapter, beginning as follows: One of the most admirable things about Jesus Christ, and the most opposed to our ideas, is the ordinary [literally: common] life that he led, which by the fact that God chose it, is obviously the most perfect. We can only imagine its sanctity through its exterior, striking, and extraordinary manifestations. We find it difficult to believe that a person is saintly if he does not astonish our imagination by his solitary life, his fasting, his waking, his austerities. (…) That is why the Jews were mistaken about Jesus Christ; they found nothing in his life to distinguish him from common people, and 41. SparklingStone, pp. 111-112; also HUGH OF SAINT VICTOR, InSalomonisEcclesiastenHomiliaPrima, in PL175, cc. 116-118. 42. Beatrijs van Nazareth, Sevenmanierenvanminne, ed. L. REYPENS – J. VAN MIERLO (Leuvense studiën en tekstuitgaven, 11), Leuven, De Vlaamsche Boekenhalle, 1926, pp. 23-28. 43. “C’est une véritable extension de l’Incarnation. Il nous en communique les effets; et comme en lui la nature humaine est divinisée par la personne du Verbe, qui se l’est appropriée, de même il nous divinise en quelque sorte en s’incorporant à nous. Sa chair passe spirituellement en notre substance par la manducation; il ne se transforme point en nous, mais il nous transforme en lui. Par une merveille naturelle, les aliments deviennent partie de notre corps; par une merveille surnaturelle, c’est nous qui devenons une partie de Jésus-Christ, en le prenant comme aliment”, ed. HAMON, p. 298. 44. Cf. Confessiones VII, x, ed. M. SKUTELLA (Bibliothèque Augustinienne, 12), Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1962, pp. 616-617. 45. Cf. HADEWIJCH, Poem in Couplets 16, ed. J. VAN MIERLO, Mengeldichten (Leuvense studiën en tekstuitgaven, 15), Antwerpen, Standaard, 1952, p. 79; JAN VAN RUUSBROEC, AMirrorofEternalBlessedness, ed. G. DE BAERE (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 108), Turnhout, Brepols, 2001, pp. 325ff.

480

R. FAESEN

they could not bring themselves to believe that he was the Messiah, the Son of God46.

We find here an echo of the central theme in the work of John of Ruusbroec: the commonlife – the life that characterized not only the life of Jesus Christ, but also that of every mature spiritual Christian. Grou continues: Ordinary life is allied marvelously to a spirit of prayer, of habitual interiority, of detachment from created things, of union with God, and the love of neighbor, the most sublime virtues of Christianity47.

Ruusbroec conceives of the common life as life communion with Christ. The Middle Dutch word ghemeyn can mean “ordinary, normal, unremarkable”, but also “common/communal”, where it denotes the communion of the Trinity and of God and the human person in this life48. Grou does not develop these ideas explicitly, but they are certainly present in his reflections implicitly. IV. CONCLUSION This brief exploration is by no means exhaustive. There are certainly many other important spiritual themes in the works of Jean-Nicolas Grou, and especially since we have limited ourselves to only one work, albeit his most important. A similar survey of his Manueldesâmesintérieures, which was translated into Dutch, German, Italian and English, would most likely yield similar results. We cannot describe Jean-Nicolas Grou’s L’intérieur de Jésus et de Marie as a mystical treatise in the full sense of the word. It is, rather, a spiritual reflection that seeks to foster and encourage the inner life. It is 46. “Une des choses les plus admirables en Jésus-Christ, et les plus contraires à nos idées, c’est la vie commune qu’il a menée, et qui, étant du choix même d’un Dieu, est évidemment la plus parfaite. Nous ne considérons guère la sainteté que par ce qu’elle a d’extérieur, de frappant, d’extraordinaire. Nous avons peine à croire qu’un homme soit saint, à moins qu’il n’étonne notre imagination par sa vie solitaire, ses jeûnes, ses veilles, ses austérités. (…) C’est ainsi que les Juifs se méprirent au sujet de Jésus-Christ; et que ne voyant rien dans sa vie qui le distinguât du commun des hommes, ils ne purent se résoudre à croire qu’il fût le Messie, le Fils de Dieu”, ed. HAMON, pp. 141-142. 47. “La vie commune s’allie merveilleusement avec l’esprit d’oraison, le recueillement habituel, le détachement des choses créées, l’union avec Dieu, la charité envers le prochain, les plus sublimes vertus du christianisme”, ed. HAMON, p. 144. 48. Cf. J. BONNY, JanvanRuusbroec:CommonMan,CommonLove,CommonLife, in J. ARBLASTER – R. FAESEN (eds.), Theosis/Deification:ChristianDoctrinesofDivinizationEastandWest (BETL, 294), Leuven, Peeters, 2018, 161-170.

MYSTICAL THEMES IN THE WORK OF JEAN-NICOLAS GROU

481

remarkable, nevertheless, that in so doing he highlights several important themes from the Christian mystical tradition, and harmoniously integrated them in his book. It is thus presumably no coincidence that Baron Friedrich von Hügel (1852-1925), one of the pioneers of the modern interest in mysticism49, published translations of Grou’s work. In The Tablet of 21 December and 28 December 1889, he published extracts under the title “The Spiritual Writings of Père Grou”, which were later reprinted in the translation of Grou’s SpiritualMaxims50. The baron, who was generally considered to be one of the most erudite scholars of his age, clearly understood the importance of Jean-Nicolas Grou and his work. And thus, these spiritual themes survived despite the condemnation of quietism, despite the rationalism of the eighteenth century, and despite the rupture in European spiritual culture caused by the French Revolution, and were rediscovered amid the growing interest in mystical literature in the nineteenth century. In 1967, André Rayez remarked that no comprehensive research had been conducted on Jean-Nicolas Grou: “a considerable lacuna for the history of ideas, of doctrine and spiritual movements in the 18th and 19th centuries, and of the mystical experience”51. Fifty years later, our research can verify that this is still the case. Jezuïetenhuis “Lessius” Windmolenveldstraat 44 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Rob FAESEN translated by John Arblaster

49. Friedrich Freiherr von Hügel was for a period one of the leading figures in the Modernist movement, from which he later distanced himself. He enjoyed friendly relations with George Tyrell, Alfred Loisy and Henri Bremond, but also with John Henry Newman, Maurice Blondel, Ernst Troeltsch, Achille Ratti (later Pope Pius XI) and Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII). For many years, he received spiritual guidance from abbé Huvelin, who was also the spiritual director of Charles de Foucauld. Von Hügel was an important influence on Evelyn Underhill and corresponded with William James on the subject of mysticism. His book TheMysticalElementofReligionasStudiedinSaintCatherineof GenoaandherFriends (London, Dent, 1908) is considered a masterpiece in the modern study of mysticism. Cf. J.P. WHELAN, Huegel (Friedrich von), in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 7/1 (1968), c. 852-858. B. MCGINN, ThePresenceofGod. Vol. 1: Foundationsof Mysticism: OriginstotheFifthCentury, New York, Crossroad, 2002, pp. 293-296. 50. Spiritual Maxims by John Nicolas GROU, S.J., newly translated and edited by a Monk of Parkminster, London, Burns & Oates, 1961, see M. HANBURY, BaronvonHügel andPèreGrou, in Pax:TheReviewoftheBenedictinesofPrinknash 51 (1961) 116-119. 51. “Une lacune considérable pour l’histoire des idées, pour celle de la doctrine et des mouvements spirituels au 18e et 19e siècles, pour celle de l’expérience mystique”, RAYEZ, Grou(Jean-Nicolas) (n. 2), c. 1083.

CARDINAL DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY I. INTRODUCTION The liberal revolutions that swept across Western Europe in the nineteenth century, especially the Italian Risorgimento, dictated the marginalization of the Holy See in international politics. The Pope was stripped of his temporal powers and lost virtually all authority in international politics. Deprived of its long-standing power and influence as a supranational polity, the Holy See began to identify itself with spiritual and normative might. Liberalism and many other ideologies and doctrines were vehemently condemned by Pius IX in his encyclical QuantaCura (to which he attached the famous Syllabus, denouncing all the major “errors” of the time) issued on 8 December 1864. The publication of those documents was a crucial moment in the very tense dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Western European societies of the second half of the nineteenth century. For the ultramontanes, it was a major stimulus to close the ranks and promote papal authority to stanch the wave of secularization promoted by the enemies of the Church. It was against this backdrop of tension that some of the paladins of ultramontanism, first among them the Belgian Redemptorist and archbishop of Mechelen/Malines, Victor-August-Isidore Dechamps (18101883), proposed the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility. After years of controversy within the Catholic Church, debates in the press and some démarches of secular authorities to prevent the definition, the infallibilists imposed their agenda on the Catholic Church. On 18 July 1870, the First Vatican Council issued the dogmatic constitution PastorAeternus, which proclaimed papal infallibility as a dogma of the Catholic Church. What follows is a discussion of the theological foundations of Monseigneur Dechamps’ defense of Church and papal infallibility, with a special stress on the role of revelation and the Church magisterium in the formulation of his arguments. By the time of the opening of the First Vatican Council, Dechamps had a long career as a clergyman and had become an international icon of ultramontanism. Ordained a priest on 20 December 1834, he ascended to the episcopacy on 25 September 1865 by assuming the diocese of Namen/Namur. After two years, on 20 December 1867, he was promoted to the metropolitan See of Mechelen/Malines

484

J. LOPES PEREIRA

(the cardinalate came after the Council, in the consistory of 15 March 1875)1. Although as his pastoral incumbencies increased, his intellectual apostolate in the format of literary works tended to be less intense (all his major apologetic works were written before his episcopal appointment), this fact did not diminish his capacity to influence the approaching Council. As Richard Cronin aptly puts it, “if these appointments curtailed his writing, they made possible his prominent personal role in the First Vatican Council”2. Heir of a long ultramontane tradition in his native Belgium3, Dechamps became one of the leaders of the infallibilist movement in the run-up to the Vatican Council and vigorously propounded, promoted, and lobbied for the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility by that Assembly4. The main tenets of Dechamps’ views on infallibility are to be found in his L’infaillibilité et le concile général (referred to hereafter as L’infaillibilité), published in 18695, only months before the opening of the Council. Accordingly, this treatise is the focal point of the present study. It is relevant to clarify that Dechamps wrote on infallibility both before and after the appearance of L’infaillibilité. However, a search for novelties on infallibility-related matters outside this treatise would be in vain, as I discovered by going through the archival records of the prelate’s involvement in the First Vatican Council, available at the Archiepiscopal Archive of Mechelen and at Archivio Segreto Vaticano. In the infallibility-related correspondences (of which the most relevant were edited as an appendix of L’infaillibilité in the sixth volume of Dechamps’ opera 1. For a detailed study on Dechamps’ career as writer and pastor, see M. BECQUÉ, LeCardinalDechamps, 2 vols., Leuven, Bibliotheca Alphonsiana, 1956. 2. R. CRONIN, TheCatholicExperienceoftheChurch:AReexaminationoftheApologeticofCardinalDechamps, Manila, Loyola School of Theology, 1976, p. 119. 3. For readable discussions on the development of the political Catholicism within which different versions of ultramontanism took shape in Belgium, see V. VIAENE, Belgium and the Holy See from Gregory XVI to Pius IX (1831-1859): Catholic Revival, SocietyandPoliticsin19thCenturyEurope, Leuven, KADOC – Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 37-112 and J. DE MAEYER, LaBelgique:Unélèvemodèledel’écoleultramontaine, in E. LAMBERTS (ed.), The Black International (1870-1878): The Holy See and MilitantCatholicisminEurope,Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2002, 361-385. 4. See R. KREMER, L’apologétiqueduCardinalDechamps:SessourcesetsoninfluenceauConcileduVatican, in RSPT 19 (1930) 679-702; F. TATARELLI, Card.Dechamps ( 1883) al Concilio Vaticano I, in Pio IX 18 (1989) 172-176 and B. HIBDER, Victor‐ AugusteDechamps,C.SS.R.unddieDebattenumdieUnfehlbarkeitsfrageam1.Vatikanischen Konzil, in Spicilegium Historicum Congregationis SSmi Redemptoris 59 (2011) 347‐372. 5. V.-I. Cardinal DECHAMPS, L’infaillibilitéetleConcileGénéral (Œuvres complètes de S. E. le Cardinal Dechamps de la Congrégation du T.-S. Rédempteur, Archevêque de Malines, 6), douzième édition, revue par l’auteur, Malines, H. Dessain, 1869, pp. 11-168.

DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

485

omnia) that the Belgian prelate exchanged with his main interlocutors (chief among them his archnemeses, Felix Dupanloup, bishop of Orleans, and the French Oratorian Joseph Gratry) one finds nothing relevant that was not developed in L’infaillibilité. For practical purposes, further curtailment is necessary. Like most of Dechamps’ interventions in the infallibility debate, L’infaillibilité is tediously repetitive. It is particularly repetitious regarding the claims on the essential relationship between revelation, magisterium and Church/papal infallibility, which occurs almost like a refrain. The present study will focus on the chapters three, four and five, in which the prelate discusses that relationship in detail. The dogmatic definition of papal infallibility was, by far, the most controversial topic addressed by the conciliar fathers. Although only a minority of bishops worldwide expressed their opposition to the definition, the echoes of their resistance were heard loud and clear. Leading infallibilists such as the archbishop of Westminster Edward Henry Manning, in England, and Dechamps, in Belgium, worked indefatigably to reconcile or even neutralize those troublesome oppositions6. To impose their agenda, the infallibilists had to pave some tortuous paths on account of outspoken and substantiated oppositions of influential Catholic prelates. It is in this context of intense internal disputes that L’infaillibilité is to be read and understood. Accordingly, it is paramount to bear in mind that, despite some ripostes to the “théoriciens du positivisme et la foule des matérialistes pratiques” and the declared purpose of enlightening politicians and journalists in whom Cardinal Dechamps had noticed “une remarquable ignorance” regarding infallibility7, the intended audience of L’infaillibilité were Catholic Christians: “ce que je vais établir sur l’infaillibilité ne regarde qu’indirectement les incrédules. C’est aux chrétiens que je m’adresse” – the prelate clarified in the introduction8. For Dechamps, the Church/ papal infallibility, this “vérité qui dois nous être plus chère que la vie”9, was first and foremost a matter of faith. The main purpose of L’infaillibilité was to convince Catholic Christians that if the Vatican Council was about to define the infallibility of the Holy See in matters of faith, this 6. On Manning’s decisive contribution to the cause of the infallibilists, see D. SCHNEIMonsignorHenryE.ManningandtheFirstVaticanCouncil:TheRoleofCardinal Manning in Obtaining the Definition of Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, Strasbourg, Expéditions Pamphiliennes, 2008 and C. WASHBURN, TheFirstVaticanCouncil,ArchbishopHenryManning,andPapalInfallibility, in TheCatholicHistoricalReview 102 (2016) 712-745. 7. DECHAMPS, L’infaillibilité (n. 5), esp. pp. 11-12 and 78-82. 8. Cf. ibid., p. 12. See also chapter VIII. 9. Ibid., p. 221. DER,

486

J. LOPES PEREIRA

was not a revelation of a new truth or of a new dogma, but rather a dogmatic definition of a belief as old as the Church itself10. Revolving around the claim of Church/papal infallibility as a “révélation immutable”, L’infaillibilité was less about refuting the non-Christians and more about settling intestine disputes and persuading Christians of the divine nature of infallibility and of its unequivocal benefits for the Church and society. Dechamps had reasons to prioritize a Catholic audience. The infallibility and its dogmatic definition by the Vatican Council became a major source of contention within the Catholic Church11. Unlike the Belgian Cardinal, who regarded the definition as a sort of panacea that would simultaneously reinforce the authority of the Roman pontiff and foster the approximation of other Christian confessions12, many influential Roman Catholic theologians (especially in France, Germany and England) publicly denounced the definition as lacking theological substance and viewed the infallibilists’ initiative as an inopportune and imprudent move. The so-called inopportunists feared an infallibility separated from the college of bishops, a personal and absolute infallibility. Papal infallibility as proposed, they argued, was wrong and an offense to Christian doctrine. The definition, some of them claimed, was, in itself a misfortune. “When sorrows come, they come not single spies. But in battalions” (Hamlet, Act IV, scene 5). The inopportunists listed other misfortunes that the dogmatic definition could bring upon the Church. Among other troubles, it would trigger hostile reactions of secular authorities in Europe and constitute an unsurmountable behavioral barrier to any remaining hope of promoting the approximation of the Protestants and of the Eastern Churches13. 10. Ibid., p. 12. 11. See A. HASLER, PiusIX.(1846-1878):PäpstlicheUnfehlbarkeitund1.VatikanischesKonzil.DogmatisierungundDurchsetzungeinerIdeologie, 2 vols., Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1977. 12. Dechamps, “À un magistrat sur l’opportunité de la définition de l’infaillible magistère du souverain pontife en matière de foi”, 8 July 1869, in Œuvrescomplètes, 6, pp. 186-188. 13. A relevant contemporary document that eloquently echoed these concerns among the inopportunists, was Felix Dupanloup’s pastoral letter titled Lettre de Mgr l’évêque d’Orléansauclergédesondiocèse:Observationssurlacontroversesoulevéerelativement à la définition de l’infaillibilité au prochain concile, Paris, Charles Douniol, Librarie-éditeur, 1869. This letter was largely a response to Dechamps’ L’infaillibilité. Monseigneur Dupanloup was one of the leaders of the inopportunists. Without any surprise, the reaction of this faction was particularly strong in his native France, the birth country of Gallicanism. Among the detailed and conclusive studies on the reaction of the inopportunists in France, see Margaret O’GARA, Triumph in Defeat: Infallibility, Vatican I, and the French Minority Bishops, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 1988.

DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

487

II. DEPOSITUMCUSTODI: REVELATION, MAGISTERIUM AND DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF CHURCH INFALLIBILITY The Church’s guardianship of the Revelation (both in its scriptural and consuetudinary versions) lays at the core of Dechamps’ pro-infallibility elucubrations. For the Belgian prelate, the Catholic Church is infallible on account of the divine promise of fidelity to ensure a faithful preservation of the deposit of faith and to confer upon the institution an undisputable authority to teach the revealed Word to humanity. These were the sole purposes of the infallibility God promised/granted the Church. Dechamps’ fierce defense of infallibility of the Church and of its leader follows the prelate’s standard apologetic methods. The dialectics between the interior fact (reason/the natural or present condition of human nature) and exterior facts (revelation, the miracle that is the Church) played a pivotal role in the Cardinal’s reasoning14. For Dechamps, human reason clings to, acknowledges or even demands divine revelation15, and is of paramount importance to assess the veracity of Church/ papal infallibility, which is itself part of revelation. L’infaillibilité starts with an epistemological exercise through which the author endeavors to demonstrate that to grasp Church/papal infallibility, a supernatural infallibility, one must consider another sort of infallibility, the secular or natural infallibility, which emanates from the solid authority of reason within its field of competence16. For Dechamps, the lack of formal education might impair reason and keep it half-asleep and a misled education disturbs reason and conscience, but once awaken human reason infallibly clings to the basic principles (premiersprincipes) of reason itself. Dechamps sees reason as the foundation of the secular infallibility and contends that lacertitudeoul’infaillibiliténaturelledelaraison is not to be questioned. To do so is to endanger the “plain and triple justice”, which consists of the duties of human beings towards God, towards their neighbors and towards themselves. To deny this “social infallibility” is tantamount to the denial of the need for the “triple justice” and to the promotion of a purely circumstantial morality17. 14. On the role of the interior and exterior facts in Dechamps’ apologetic method, see A. DEBOUTTE, De apologetische methode van Kardinaal Dechamps: Studie over het inwendigfeit, Brugge – Brussel, De Kinkhoren, 1945 and B. HIBDER, Glaube–Natur– Übernatur: Studien zur “Methode der Vorsehung” von Kardinal Dechamps, Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang, 1978. 15. M. BECQUÉ,Lefaitintérieurdansl’ApologétiqueduCardinalDechamps,inETL 21 (1945) 97-166, pp. 119-125. 16. DECHAMPS, L’infaillibilité (n. 5), p. 15. 17. Ibid., pp. 17-23.

488

J. LOPES PEREIRA

In other words, Dechamps was convinced that without natural infallibility it was impossible to maintain the socio-political order. Dechamps’ emphasis on the natural/secular infallibility had a clear purpose: to convince his reader that any established supreme authority, somehow, must be infallible within its jurisdiction. For the sake of order, the directives and decisions of a supreme entity are not to be second-guessed. If that was so, if the firm establishment of the infallible authority of reason (which Dechamps did not regard as defacto infallibility, but still argued that it must be upheld) was a sinequanon condition for the maintenance of social order, an infallible authority in matters of faith is even more necessary. In a post-conciliar letter to Gratry, Dechamps stated that In human societies the judge of last resort, the supreme judge pronounces the definitive sentence, and this is obviously necessary to keep public order. If, on this earth, there is a divinely established society, based on faith and doctrinal authority, if there is a Church divinely anchored in this supreme authority in matters of faith, the definitive judgments of this supreme authority will not be only assumedly infallible but they will be necessarily infallible in these matters. And this is why the infallibility necessarily supposed in the human societies for the maintenance of order, must exist de facto in a divine society for the preservation of faith18.

In Dechamps’ eyes, the veracity of infallibility in matters of religion is assessable through the application of principles of logic that define the very essence of reason. Reason, Dechamps explains, is the superior faculty that provides humans with a raisond’être of their actions. Accordingly, this very same reason does not let humans lead their lives without providing them with a raison d’être of their own lives. Such a raison d’être can only be found in religion: “la religion n’est autre chose que la science de la fin dernière ou du pourquoi de la vie”19. Thus, infallibility in religious matters is necessary because in religion reason cannot admit doubts without a negation of itself. In matters of religion, uncertainties have no place whatsoever. An imperative question is: how does reason come to the knowledge of things beyond this “interior world that we carry in ourselves”, i.e. beyond reason itself? It is here that the exterior facts take the stage. Reason, which finds assurance of the realities of this world through temporal evidences, wants to be reassured of realities of the other world through the testimonies of eternity. The reassurance of eternal realities comes to reason through divine revelation. Dechamps was peremptory 18. Dechamps to Gratry, 2 April 1871, in Œuvrescomplètes, 6, p. 403. All translations are mine. 19. DECHAMPS, L’infaillibilité (n. 5), p. 20.

DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

489

in claiming that reason clings to the divine revelation and that the latter is addressed to the former: “c’est la raison qui appelle la révélation, et c’est à la raison que la révélation s’adresse. C’est à la raison que Dieu parle, c’est à la raison qu’il demande la foi, et il ne lui demande qu’après lui avoir fait voir que c’est bien lui qui lui parle”20. For Dechamps, the interior fact was just the beginning. The main work in the demonstration of faith was an incumbency of the Church. Thus, the dialectics between the interior and exterior facts gains an extraordinary relevance in Dechamps’ defense of infallibility of the Church when one considers his insights on the Church’s mediatory function in the divine plan of salvation for mankind. As in the natural order, God bestows his gifts upon humans through intermediaries (e.g. the gift of life is given through the progenitors), in the supernatural order, He bestows his gifts upon humankind through the mediation of the Mother Church. It is through the Church that humans ascend from the certainty of reason to the certainty of faith because the Church itself is God’s greatest miracle; it stands out in hoc saeculo as an irrefutable proof of Jesus’ divinity, being, thus, the “miracle subsistant qui prouve la vérité de tous les autres”21. The Catholic Church, Dechamps argued in Deladémonstration de la foi, comes from Christ and leads to Christ because Christ established His Church “comme son témoin principal et authentiquement autorisé, puisqu’elle porte ses lettres de créance, écrites de la main de Dieu vivant, dans les caractères mêmes dont il l’a revêtue”22. With this line of thought, Dechamps contended that there is no valid faith without Church authority. Church, he stated, claiming the concurrence of Saint Augustine, is the first proof of faith. One believes in God and in what He has revealed but it is the Church’s mission to make one see through irrefutable facts the divine origins of the revelation through the very authority conferred upon it by God to teach23. It is in these grave and divinely established mediatory responsibilities of the Church where Dechamps’ pro-infallibility arguments find anchorage. For the primate of Belgium, to accept the existence of a divinely established Church was to admit that it necessarily carried the power of God. This, he contended, was nothing more than a formal and necessary claim of infallibility24. The Catholic Church leads from reason to faith because it stands as 20. Ibid., p. 24. 21. Ibid., p. 32. 22. Cf. Deladémonstrationdelafoi:Ouentretienssurladémonstrationcatholique delarévélationchrétienne (Œuvres complètes, 1), Malines, H. Dessain, 1869, p. XIII. 23. DECHAMPS, L’infaillibilité (n. 5), pp. 33-34. 24. Ibid., p. 36.

490

J. LOPES PEREIRA

a motive of credibility; a fact that makes reason see the divine nature of revelation. From this emanates the teaching authority of the Church. Having such a teaching authority, it is, then, the Church’s duty and prerogative to guide humans to the revealed message and make them find in the divine Word the truth of which the very same Church was appointed the living guardian on Earth25. Thus, the portrayal of the Church as a motive of credibility and the institution’s indispensable magisterial mediation in the upward trajectory, from the certainty of reason to the certainty of faith, constitute the linchpins of Dechamps’ pro-infallibility arguments. To conceive of the Church as a motive of credibility implies also that infallibility must be among the features of the same Church. Moreover, taking the Church’s mission into account, infallibility emerges as a necessity. Only to an infallible Church would God entrust the custody of revelation; only an infallible Church God would furnish with power and supreme authority to teach the way to salvation to humankind. Dechamps regarded supreme teaching authority as synonymous with infallibility; especially in a divinely established institution, sovereign authority means infallible authority. As he wrote in reaction to Felix Dupanloup’s Obervations, “le pouvoir qui juge souverainement ou définitivement en matière doctrinale, ne pouvant manquer d’être infaillible dans une société divinement établie, là où est la souveraineté, là est l’infaillibilité”26. The last instance of appeal must be infallible if order and authority/ credibility are to be preserved. For Dechamps, there could be no true magisterium without infallibility; true teaching authority demanded infallibility. Revelation would be useless without the Church’s magisterium. Private exegesis of Scriptures did lead the individuals to the Church, but rather the Church made them know the Scriptures and unraveled for them the complex truths revealed in the Scriptures27. Only an infallible Church had the undisputable authority to undertake such a task. In fact, for Dechamps, the very notion of “true Church” without infallibility was inconceivable. A Church could only be a true one if it was infallible. Dechamps not only regarded infallibility as a necessity for the Church but also stated that it was inconceivable to accept the Church as a divinely established institution without accepting its infallibility. A Church that does not claim infallibility was, in Dechamps’ eyes, not in the position to claim the statute of the Church of God. God did not establish an 25. Ibid., pp. 30-31. 26. Dechamps to Dupanloup, 30 November 1869, Œuvrescomplètes, 6, p. 189. 27. DECHAMPS, L’infaillibilité (n. 5), pp. 31-32.

DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

491

institution to mislead humans or to let them remain in error. A divinely established Church necessarily presents itself as the power of God, which is nothing more than a claim of infallibility. “A divinely established doctrinal authority” – he argued – “is inconceivable without infallibility, and any religious and teaching authority [i.e. any Church] that does not address human beings with the divine claim of being infallible, is, on that account, convinced of not being a Church of God. For the same reason, it is also convinced of not providing answers to the need of souls”28. In order to understand Dechamps’ insistence on the essential relationship between the magisterial mission of the Church and its infallibility, it is paramount to bear in mind that the prelate rejected any definition of faith that tended to define it as a mere product of an intellectual exercise. As mentioned earlier, he regarded the interior fact just as the beginning. The reality of faith involves a search and that search requires guidance. It was Dechamps’ core belief that only an infallible Church is qualified to provide a reliable guidance in that search. There is, thus, an indissociable link between the supernatural infallibility of the Church and its magisterial and apostolic callings. It is through the Church, Dechamps contended, that God leads both the educated and the uneducated (les sagesetlessimples) from the natural certainty of reason to the supernatural certainty of faith, a mission that can be accomplished only if anchored on the firm authority of faith29. Leading humans to faith and faithfully preserving the deposit of revelation sum up the whole mission of the Church. Such an important mission, as Dechamps conceived it, requires a supreme doctrinal authority, which is necessary to solve all the possible points of contention on faith-related matters. It is important to stress that Dechamps’ accent on the need for a supreme authority to pronounce on matters of faith, intended to ensure the resolution of some of the Church magisteriumrelated problems, including (or above all) the perennial problem of a lack of doctrinal consensus within the Church. For Dechamps, infallibility was the Church’s warm appeal to humility to both the uneducated and the educated. For the uneducated, infallibility meant that they could be spared the engagement in theological reflections and still choose the true Church. Other Christian confessions tell these uneducated men and women that they need to read, think and decide. The Catholic Church, in its turn, appeals to their humility and docility so that they can embrace the true faith. So, while in the other confessions uneducated people are 28. Ibid., p. 38. 29. Ibid., pp. 29-31.

492

J. LOPES PEREIRA

incited to a scandalous presumption, in the Catholic Church their ignorance is transformed into an infallible science (scienceinfaillible)30. To the educated ones, the infallibility of the Church worked as the superior/ sovereign authority overriding all disputes (autorité supérieure à tout raisonnement), an element that solved their doubts, reduced their presumption and settled their endless disagreements31. Dechamps was convinced that without infallibility the Church would be ungovernable, for a fallible Church is, ultimately, unable to maintain orthodoxy. III. SCOPE AND LIMITS

OF

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY

In line with virtually all infallibilists, Dechamps argued that Church infallibility is confined to the matters of faith (“l’Église n’est pas infaillible qu’en matière de foi, c’est-à-dire dans l’enseignement de la vérité qu’il faut croire”)32. With regard to the pope, Dechamps quoted Alfonsus Liguori for support, to argue that the head of the Catholic Church was infallible not as a private person, but only as a public person i.e. as the head of the Church and doctor for all Christians. Infallibility had to do with the Church or the pope speaking excathedra, “c’est-à-dire comme suprême puissance enseignante”33. It is not about all the pope says or decides; the pope only enjoys infallibility when teaching matters of faith or doctrines. Does it mean the Church is infallible only when teaching the explicitly and formally revealed truths? According to Dechamps, to say that the Church is infallible on matters of faith also meant that the Church is infallible in matters of customs, the evangelical law or the truth belonging to revelation that one must put into practice, and, thus, of the truth itself that one ought to believe in. […]. The Church is infallible when teaching the truths clearly and certainly present in the revelation, or that implicitly belong to faith. The Church is also infallible when pronouncing on truths essentially and inseparably linked to the revelation, or related to it through a necessary connection34.

“Matters of faith” and “teachings of truth one ought to believe” are broad terms. Although the prelate stressed that the Church does not claim infallibility in matters “purement personnels ou historique, dont la connaissance depend principalement du témoignage des hommes” 35, 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Ibid., pp. 38-42. Ibid., pp. 41-42. Ibid., p. 44. Ibid., pp. 84-87. Ibid., p. 44. Ibid., p. 46.

DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

493

because such matters hardly have any essential relation to faith, the fact is that “matters of faith” and “teachings of truth one ought to believe” provided the Cardinal’s concept of infallibility with a great deal of elasticity. Under the cover of those concepts, he contended that the Church was infallible when pronouncing on any teaching that can, in different ways, endanger faith and customs36. Otherwise, the Church would hardly be fit to condemn errors and the divinely established pastors entrusted with the duty of nourishing the sheep with the sound doctrine lack authority in the discharge of their duties. For Dechamps, the Church was also infallible in matters of divine worship and on the general discipline because these are intimately connected to faith and customs. If the Church could approve in the matters of worship and customs things contrary to faith, that would mean that the Church runs the risk of promoting the loss of souls rather than rescuing them. This would be contrary to what Jesus promised to His Church: assistance throughout the centuries until the end of times. To put it plainly, the Church is infallible in the matters of worship and general discipline “en ce sens que ce qu’elle ordonne ou approuve généralement en cette matière, ne peut manquer d’être en harmonie avec la vérité et la morale révélées”37. From this, it is clear that, although Dechamps claimed that the Church is not infallible when teaching matters remotely related to the revealed truth because that would be tantamount to claiming an all-encompassing infallibility, his concept of Church infallibility was much broader than he cared to admit. For Dechamps, the Church was infallible when it decides which doctrines were to be accepted as being in harmony with faith and good customs and which ones were to be rejected as harmful to faith and morality38. Regardless of the doctrines were of a secular or religious nature, if it touches the interests of the Church, then the institution was infallible in its pronouncements. IV. “BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU, SIMON”: PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AS DIVINE ASSISTANCE A crucial element in Dechamps’ concept of infallibility is the divine assistance promised to the Church. To faithfully carry out its divine mission, Dechamps reminded his readers that God Himself promises to be 36. Ibid., pp. 45-46. 37. Ibid., p. 47. 38. Ibid., p. 85.

494

J. LOPES PEREIRA

with the Church and provide assistance. In fact, in Dechamps’ definition of Church infallibility, the concept of infallibility and the divinely promised/granted assistance to ensure a faithful transmission of revelation were often used interchangeably. Divine assistance was at the very core of Dechamps’ definition of Church infallibility, which, he explained, was not an infallibility that produces or that creates, as a crowd of witty people think, but an infallibility that preserves. It is simply the divinely promised faithfulness to the divinely established authority [i.e. the Church] so that it can preserve the deposit of revelation. It is the necessary grâced’état to the religious authority; the divinely granted assistance makes it a faithful or infallible guardian. […] [The infallibility of the Church] is the simple faithfulness that takes care of the preservation and defense of the deposit of the divine word written in the inspired books or living in the tradition39.

In his definition of Church infallibility as or emanating from divine assistance, Dechamps claimed the concurrence of both Church Fathers (especially Augustine of Hippo) and of renowned modern theologians, especially Melchior Cano, François Fénelon and Alphonsus Liguori, the founder of the Redemptorists. Dechamps saw in Matt 28,19-20 the ideal Scriptural passage to substantiate his arguments that infallibility was a divine gift to the Church in the discharge of its magisterial duties. For the primate of Belgium, those final lines of Matthew’s Gospel, stated not only the Church’s mission from which the gift of infallibility are unequivocally inferred, but also the divine assistance, i.e. infallibility was promised. In order to grasp the crucial role of divine assistance in Dechamps’ understanding of Church infallibility, it is critical to consider his insights on papal infallibility. In a nutshell, for Dechamps, the pope was infallible because in the divine assistance promised to the college of apostles, there was a special stress on the Apostle Peter, whom Dechamps saw as the first pope. For the Belgian prelate, to say that the pope is infallible was to say that the pope was a faithful custodian of faith and the judge of those who would attempt to distort it40. Like virtually all proponents of papal infallibility and of its dogmatic definition by the Vatican Council, Dechamps resorted to Gospel passages such as Matt 16,18-19 and Luke 22,31-32 to defend his claim that for such an important mission, divine assistance was promised/granted to Peter, as the head of the apostolic college, and to all his legitimate successors.

39. Ibid., pp. 37-38. 40. Ibid., p. 79.

DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

495

According to Dechamps, in these two Biblical accounts one finds unequivocal proofs not only of papal infallibility but also of the fact that only the bishops united to the pope share the promised/granted infallibility. It was Peter whom the Spirit assisted so that he confessed Jesus as the Son of God; it was for Peter that Jesus prayed so that he did not lose heart and strengthen his brothers in faith. Popes are infallible because they are in this unbreakable spiritual lineage inaugurated in the person of the Apostle Peter, the first “chef de la puissance enseignante [i.e. the Church]”, to whom God promised “d’une façon spéciale, l’infaillible fidélité: Ego autem oravi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua”. This divine intercession made of the head of the apostolic college (and of his successors) “la fermeté de la pierre angulaire qui affermira tout l’édifice: Et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos”41. With this divine prayer, God Himself established Peter not only as the shepherd of sheep, but of the shepherds themselves (“en lui constituant Pasteur non seulement des agneaux, mais de leurs mères; non seulement de ceux qui sont nourris, mais de ceux qui nourrissent, non seulement des fidèles, mais des pasteurs eux-mêmes: Pace agnos et oves”42). It was, thus, essentially with these intercessory words of Jesus in favor of Peter that Dechamps endeavored to convince his audience that infallibility was a papal prerogative. To the distracted reader, L’infaillibilité may seem like a treatise penned by a staunch supporter of Church infallibility. A careful analysis of the treatise reveals, however, that Dechamps’ method was to use Church infallibility to underline that the essence of infallibility rests with the pope alone. It is true that, in line with his claim that infallibility is confined to the matters of faith, Dechamps recurrently referred to infallibility as a prerogative of those upon whom authority has been conferred to teach matters of faith, i.e. the “first pastors” or the bishops. However, these statements are normally followed by the reminder that Church infallibility resided primarily with its head on earth, that is, the Pope and with the college of bishops united to him (“L’Église enseignante à laquelle l’infaillibilité fut divinement promise, c’est donc l’épiscopat catholique, ou dispersé, ou rassemblé dans un concile général, et toujours uni à son Chef”)43. It is an undisputable fact, Dechamps consented, that it was to the apostolic college, to the first pastors of his Church that Christ entrusted the mission of teaching and that it was to the same college He promised 41. Ibid., p. 58. 42. Ibid., p. 59. 43. Ibid., p. 62.

496

J. LOPES PEREIRA

assistance to the end of times (Matt 18,20). But it is important to bear in mind that he alerted his readers that the power of the Apostles was established in unity through the divine constitution of the center of this unity itself, i.e. the primacy of Peter. The power of the successors of the Apostles is kept through the communion with this very center of Catholic unity, namely the primacy of the successor of Peter. “Il n’y a pas de collège apostolique sans Pierre, et il n’y a pas de corps épiscopal ou d’Église enseignante sans Pape”44, Dechamps stated45. Separated from the pope, the bishops, individually or gathered in Council, do not partake of the promised/granted infallibility. To put it bluntly, for Dechamps, the pope was infallible only as the head of the Church, but he did not need the episcopal college to be infallible. The episcopal college shared the infallibility promised to the pope, not the other way around. It is relevant to stress that Dechamps gainsaid any claim pointing to the bishop of Rome’s lack of prominence during the first centuries of Christianity46. He also rejected the evidences of popes being condemned as heretics. In all those cases, he stated, it is easy to prove either that the teachings of the pontiffs involved were, in fact, orthodox, or that the condemnations were not related to any matter of faith47. V. CONCLUSIONS A pioneer of the infallibilist movement, Cardinal Dechamps engaged in heated controversies with the inopportunists years before the opening of the First Vatican Council and remained in the epicenter of the discussions long after the closing of that Assembly. It is in this context of internal disputes that Dechamps’ L’infaillibilité and infallibility-related correspondences are to be read and understood. To persuade his readers that the reality of infallibility was not as unconceivable as one might think, Dechamps strategically brought about secular or natural infallibility, an infallibility that one tacitly accepts for the sake of the social order. If it was important to accept supreme secular entities as infallible, Dechamps argued, it was even more important to accept Church/papal infallibility because the Church was entrusted with such a grave mission, which simply cannot be carried out without an 44. Ibid., p. 54. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid., p. 71. 47. Ibid., pp. 106-116. Cf. also Dechamps to Gratry, 25 January 1864 and 25 February 1870, in Œuvrescomplètes, 6, pp. 291-316 and 316-363, respectively.

DECHAMPS’ DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

497

undisputable authority. For Dechamps, Church infallibility was anchored in the institution’s guardianship of the revelation and its indispensable mediation between God and humankind. To undertake such an important task, God promised/granted assistance, which in the prelate’s apologetic discourse fuses with the very notion of infallibility. For Dechamps, revelation without an infallible teaching authority would be useless. No private exegesis led humans to faith. The path to faith demanded Church mediation. As the first proof of faith, it is the Church’s mission and prerogative to make individuals see through irrefutable facts the divine nature of the revelation through the very authority conferred upon the same Church by God to teach. Dechamps’ pro-infallibility arguments are essentially ornated with exigencies of the Church’s divinely established mediation and magisterial responsibilities. For the primate of Belgium, the very acceptance of a divinely established Church was to admit that that Church is infallible in matters of faith; in his reasoning, true teaching authority rhymed with infallibility; the Church magisterium demanded infallibility. There could be no true magisterium without infallibility. Dechamps was convinced that without infallibility the Church would be ungovernable because a fallible Church is unable to maintain orthodoxy. With regard to the scope of Church infallibility, Dechamps argued that the Church was only infallible in “matters of faith” and in “teachings of truth one ought to believe”. However, although he seems to have made such an assertion to claim that the Church only claimed infallibility within the strict fields of its competence, under the cover of “matters of faith” and “teachings of truth one ought to believe”, the Cardinal’s concept of infallibility gained a great deal of elasticity. From Dechamps’ discussion on infallibility, it is clear that he believed the Church to be infallible when pronouncing on any teaching that can, in different ways, endanger faith and customs. Otherwise, he argued, the institution would hardly be in the position to condemn errors. He also believed the Church infallible in worship-related directives and in matters of general discipline, domains he claimed to be intimately connected to faith and customs. A key-element of Dechamps’ discussions on infallibility was the focus on the Pope, a focus which he endeavored to justify with several Gospel passages, chief among them Matt 16,18-19 and Luke 22,31-32. In these passages, the primate of Belgium found substance to infer that divine assistance was promised/granted, in a special way, to Peter, as the head of the apostolic college, and to all his legitimate successors. These two Biblical excerpts provided unequivocal proofs not only of papal

498

J. LOPES PEREIRA

infallibility but also of the fact that only the bishops united to the pope share the promised/granted infallibility. Popes are infallible because they belong to the unbreakable spiritual ancestry that link them to the Apostle Peter. It was, thus, essentially with the Gospels’ accounts of the divine intercession for Peter that Dechamps endeavored to convince his audience that infallibility was a papal prerogative. Church infallibility resided primarily with the Pope and with the college of bishops united to him. Separated from Peter and his successors, bishops are no longer in that Church to which God promised/granted infallibility. To put it bluntly, for Dechamps, the pope was infallible only as the head of the Church, but he enjoyed an independent infallibility, which was not the case with other bishops. The infallibility of the individual bishops and of the episcopal college emanated from the infallibility of the pope, not the other way around. In practical terms, Dechamps claimed a separate and personal (perhaps even absolute) infallibility for the Roman pontiff. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies KU Leuven St.-Michielsstraat 6/3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Jairzinho LOPES PEREIRA

ABBREVIATIONS

AAS BETL BN DHGE DTC ETL HTR LTK LTP NRT PG PL RBén RHE RHLR RHPR RPL RSPT RTL ZAC ZKG

Acta Apostolicae Sedis Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biographie Nationale Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Harvard Theological Review Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche Laval Théologique et Philosophique Nouvelle Revue Théologique Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Revue Bénédictine Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Revue Philosophique de Louvain Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques Revue Théologique de Louvain Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. Journal of Ancient Christianity Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte

INDEX OF NAMES ACTON (LORD), J.E.E. 125, 132, 151 ADAM, E. 404 ADRIAN VI (POPE) 25, 370 AGIUS, A. 199-200, 202 AGLIPAY CRUZ Y LABAYAN, G. 203 AGTEN, E. 9, 11, 17, 55, 59 ALBERIGO, G. 309, 373 ALBERT I (KING OF BELGIUM) 158, 160-161, 163, 174 ALDENHUIJSEN, G. 203 ALEXANDER VII (POPE) 55, 57 ALFARIC, P. 84 ALLCHIN, A. 282 ÁLVAREZ DE TOLEDO, F. 37 AMAND, D. 113 AMARA, M. 170 AMIGO, P. 76, 80-81 AMMAN, É. 17 AMPE, J. 205 ANAS, A. 221 ANDAYA, P. 209 ANDERMATT, B. 237-238 ANDERSON, G.H. 192 ANDRADA DE PAYVA, D. 18 ANDRIANNE, R. 239-241, 243, 246, 248 ANGELINI, G. 298 ANGER, G. 77 ANSEEUW, J. 205 APELLES 92-93 ARBLASTER, J. 468, 480 ARDURA, B. 34 ARISTOTLE 350 ARNAULD, A. 56 ARNOLD, C. 73-74, 76-78 ARNOLD, M. 131 ARNOLD, T. 131, 137 ARNOLD, T. JR. 131 ARNOU, R. 348 ARQUILLIÈRE, H.-X. 352 ARTS, L. 375-376 ATHENAGORAS I (PATRIARCH) 387

AUBERT, R. 95, 103, 106, 110, 157, 162, 183, 292-293, 303-304, 325, 331, 335-336, 338, 388 AUBERT, X. 398, 400, 402-404, 407, 411, 419 AUGUSTIJN, C. 371 AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO 61, 63, 104, 141-142, 312, 314, 318-319, 360, 370-371, 479, 489, 494 AURIOL, V. 348 AVON, D. 314 BABYLON, M. 399 BACCHUS, F.J. 284 BAILLIEN, H. 186 BAIUS, M. 14, 41 BALCAEN, J. 326 BALMFORTH, R. 126 BALTHASAR, N. 326 BAMJI, A. 39 BAMPS, F. 202 BARBIER, V. 54, 56, 68 BARDY, G. 107 BARLAEUS, L. 48 BARMANN, L.F. 84, 132 BASTIEN, P. 102-103, 118 BATIFFOL, P. 107, 110-112 BAUDRILLART, A. 110 BAUER, C. 296, 304 BAUMGARTEN, O. 134 BAUTAIN, L. 256 BAUTZ, F.-W. 103, 116 BAYARD, L. 47 BEA, A. 101, 264, 279, 344, 378, 387-388 BEATRICE OF NAZARETH 479 BEAUFAYS, I. 186, 188 BECKER, A. 272 BECKER, C.L. 144-145 BECKING, B. 127, 315 BECQUÉ, M. 484, 487 BEDESCHI, L. 74-75

502

INDEX OF NAMES

BEDOUELLE, G. 34 BEGHEYN, P. 25 BEILLEVERT, P. 98 BEKAERT, G. 384, 386 BELANDRES, J. 223 BELLARMINUS, R. 42 BELLO, M. 202 BELPAIRE, M.-E. 136 BENEDICT XIV (POPE) 349 BENEDICT XV (POPE) 100, 102, 163, 185, 187 BENEDICT XVI (POPE) 357 BENELLI, G. 430 BENIGNI, U. 151-152 BENOIST, R. 13, 20 BENTLEY, J.H. 6 BERG, D. 236 BERGAIGNE, A.-M. 11, 21 BERGER, D. 77 BERGER, S. 54 BERGIN, J. 34-35 BERGSON, H. 132 BERKOUWER, G.C. 277 BERLIÈRE, A.-J. (DOM URSMER) 103, 115 BERNARD, M. 190 BERRAR, É. 352 BESONGNE, J.B. 68 BETHLÉEM, L. 123 BETS, P. 43 BEURMS, K. 205 BEVERNAGE, C. 404 BEYENS, E. 160-161, 166-169, 172175 BICHLMAIR, G. 258, 260, 262 BILLIAUW, J. 403 BILLIET, F. 203, 205, 209, 224 BILLIET, J. 205, 212, 224 BITTREMIEUX, J. 327, 339-340 BIZER, E. 369 BLANCHET, A. 103, 105 BLANCHET, É. 348, 352 BLOCKX, K. 369-371, 455-456, 458 BLOK, P. 40 BLONDEL, M. 145, 152, 299, 317, 343, 346, 350-351, 354, 481 BODENSTEIN, A. 366 BOERSMA, H. 300-302, 304, 308 BOEVE, F. 234, 250-251

BOEVE, L. 6, 315 BOGAERT, P.-M. 9-10, 95-96, 102, 104-106, 325 BOISSELOT, P. 351 BONAPARTE, N. 255 BONINO, S.-T. 316, 343 BONNEFOY, J.-F. 294, 351 BONNET, C. 84-85 BONNY, J. 480 BONONIA, G. 10-11, 21 BONSIRVEN, J. 264, 351 BOOTSMA, E. (THARCISIUS) 170 BORGONGINI-DUCA, F. 176 BORROMEO, A. 12 BOSSCHAERT, D. 312, 323, 326, 381 BOSSUET, J.-B. 145-148 BOTTI, A. 74 BOTTY, A. 200, 202 BOUDENS, R. 13, 77-80, 163-164, 177, 334 BOUILLARD, H. 152, 291-292, 305, 313-315, 343, 350-351, 354 BOURGEOIS 192 BOURGET, P. 127, 140 BOURNE, F. 75-76, 81 BOUTE, B. 41 BOUYER, L. 267, 276, 279-281, 283287 BOXHORNIUS, G. 46 BOXHORNIUS, H. 39-52 BOXHORNIUS, M. 41 BOYER, C. 277, 294 BOYS, M.C. 257 BRAMBILLA, F.G. 298 BRANS, P. 245 BRASSEUR, A. 214 BRASSEUR, C.B. 213 BRASSEUR, W. 208, 213-223, 226 BRAUN, F.-M. 351 BRÉMOND, H. 77, 81, 103, 148, 283284, 468, 481 BRENT, A. 93 BRIÇONNET, G. 34 BRITO, E. 327 BROEKX, P.-J. 336 BROEYER, F.G.M. 3 BROICHER, C. 135 BROK, C. 47 BROM, G. 36

INDEX OF NAMES

BROTHERTON, J.R. 289 BROUTIN, P. 34 BUCER, M. 369 BULCKE, J. 401, 404 BUONAIUTI, E. 153 BURGGRAEVE, R. 327 BURKE, R. 283 BURR, D. 235 BURVENICH, J. 375 CADEGAN, U.M. 123 CADRÈS, A. 468 CAESARIUS OF ARLES 104 CAJETAN, T. 142, 370-371 CALBRECHT, J. 188 CALICE, J. 83 CALLAEY, F. 241 CALLEWAERT, C. 340 CALLON, A. 352 CALVIN, J. 45, 361, 369 CAMASSEI, F. 259 CANALI, N. 77, 82 CANO, M. 494 CAPITO, W. 369 CARAUNA, G.J. 202 CARDIJN, J. 334, 442 CARDINALE, I. 442 CARLSON, M.R. 131 CARLU, F. 200-201, 204, 226-227 CAROSIO, M. 278 CARREYRE, J. 54 CARROL, J.J. 201-202 CARTON DE WIART, É. 352 CARUS, P. 124 CASIER, H. 102-103 CASTRO, M. 313 CATRICE, P. 255 CAUCHIE, A. 109-110 CAUDRON, M. 455 CAUWELIER, D. 375, 383 CAVAGNINI, G. 73 CAYRÉ, F.A.-M. 189 CAZELLES, H. 99 CERFAUX, L. 325, 330, 335, 338-339 CERRATO, R. 74 CESAREO, F. 34 CEUPPENS, R. 409 CEYSSENS, L. 53, 55-57, 60-62 CHADWICK, O. 283

503

CHAINE, J. 352 CHALINE, N.-J. 272 CHAPEAU, A. 98 CHAPMAN, H. (DOM JOHN) 107 CHARLES, P. 186, 192, 194-195 CHARLES V (EMPEROR) 7, 10, 12, 25, 34 CHARLIER, L. 294-297, 299, 301, 303-304, 310-312 CHARUE, A.-M. 268, 340, 398, 400, 416, 424-428, 435-438 CHEMNITZ, M. 17-21 CHENAUX, P. 272, 376, 378, 385, 387 CHENU, M.-D. 294-297, 301, 303305, 309-312, 319, 343, 345, 347, 350-351, 355 CHEZA, M. 194 CHIEREGATI, F. 370 CICOGNANI, A.G. 411 CIFRES, A. 78 CLAERHOUDT, A. 211 CLAES, V. 239-241, 244, 246, 249 CLAEYS BOUUAERT, F. 53-56 CLAVER, F. 206, 224 CLEMENT VII (POPE) 25 CLEMENT XIV (POPE) 466 CLOET, M. 13, 24, 393 CLOETING, J. 50 COECKX, S. 437 COLBERT, J.-N. 68 COLBY, V. 129 COLENSO, J. 134 COLIN, P. 83 COLLEYE, F. 407 COLLIN, F. 414, 424, 434 COLLIN, L. 13 COLLINS, J. 145 COLOMBO, C. 289-290, 297-299, 302, 304 COMBLIN, J. 299 COMERFORD, K. 34 COMTE, B. 314 COMTE, M. 257, 272 CONGAR, Y. 152, 276, 278-281, 284289, 301, 305, 308, 309, 319, 333, 345, 351, 357-364, 366-372, 388, 428 CONNOLY, J. 280 CONTARINI, G. 34-35

504

INDEX OF NAMES

COOL, A. 404, 414, 439 COOLS, A. 189 COOLS, E. 202, 207-208 COOLS, F. 205 COOLS, H. 24 COOMAN, G. 60, 338 COOTE, R.T. 192 COPPENS, J. 10, 325-327, 329-330, 332, 334, 337 COPPIN, N. 8 CORBELLINI, S. 10 CORDOVANI, M. 311 COSIJNS, H. 393 COSYN, O. 202-203 COTRET, M. 59 COUCHOUD, P.-L. 93 COULSON, J. 282 COUNET, J.-M. 326 COURBE, S. 347 COURTADE, G. 98, 100 COURTOIS, L. 95, 116, 157, 183, 192, 325 COUTANT, N. 386 COUTURIER, P. 388 CRAHAY, R. 10 CRAYE, L. 375-376 CREIGHTON, L. 133 CREUSEN, J. 354 CRISCUOLO, V. 237 CRONIN, R. 484 CUMONT, F. 84-86, 92 CUYCKIUS, H. 40, 42, 45-47, 49-50 CUYPER, I.D. 63 DAEM, J.V. 398, 400-401, 420-421, 423-424, 428-429, 432-434, 438, 440 DAENS, A. 410 DAGENS, J. 103 DAHMEN, P. 189, 192 DALIS, S. 224 DALY, G. 283 DANIEL, Y. 332 DANIÉLOU, J. 291-293, 305, 313, 315, 319, 343, 347, 350, 353 DANIËLS, H. 186, 194 DANNEELS, G. 157 DARBOY, G. 282 DAVIGNON, H. 159

DE DE DE DE DE DE

BAERE, G. BEAUMONT, C. 466 BERGHES, A. 54, 62 BIL 192 BLEEKER, A. 203, 210 BOCK, W. 419 DE BONALD, L. 148-151 DE BORCHGRAVE, C. 375 DEBOUTTE, A. 487 DE BRABANDERE, M. 205 DE BROUWER, C. 203 DE BRUIN, C.C. 3, 9 DE BRUYN, J. 384 DE BRUYNE, A. (DOM DONATIEN) 95, 104-106, 108-109, 112, 116-117 DE BUJANDA, J.M. 8, 12 DECAESTECKER, G. 227-228 DECAVELE, J. 375 DECHAMPS, V.-A.-I. 157, 483-498 DE CHANTAL, J.F. 103, 147 DE CHATEAUBRIAND, F.-R. 151 DECHIEVRE, M. (DAME MARIE DONATIANA) 223 DÉCISIER, A. 351 DE CLEENE, N. 194 DECLERCK, L. 277-278, 285, 337, 373, 376-378, 380-381, 385, 387, 421, 423, 426, 428, 434 DECLERCQ, G. (GASTON) 205, 228 DECLERCQ, G. (GUIDO) 439, 456, 462 DECLERCQ, H. 225 DE CLERCQ, L. 186, 189, 193-194 DECOCK, A. 200 DE CORTE (CURTIUS), P. 9 DE COURRÈGES, L. 345, 348, 355 DE FALLOUX, A. 283 DEFFAYET, L. 272 DE FOUCAULD, C. 481 DE GEEST, P. 205 DE GOROSTARZU, B. 348 DE GRANDMAISON, L. 110, 283, 320 DE GROOT, J.V. 284 DEGRYSE, A. 203 DE GUIBERT, J. 465 DE HALLEUX, A. 327 DE H EMPTINNE , F. ( DOM H ILDE BRAND) 104-105 DE JONG, J. 276-277 DE JONGHE, E. 401-402, 421

INDEX OF NAMES

DE KESEL, J. 157 DE KEYSER, P. 190 DEKKERS, J. (DOM ELIGIUS) 410 DE KLERCK, V. 205 DEKONICK, R. 60 DE KORT, J. 13 DELAERE, T. 245-246, 249 DE LAI, G. 82, 152 DE LAMENNAIS, F. 150 DE LAMORICIÈRE, C.L.L. 213 DE LANGE, C. 130 DE LANGHE, R. 325, 329, 334 DE LA RONCIÈRE, C.M. 236 DELATTRE, A. 116 DELBAERE, M. 375 DE LEUZE, N. 9 DELHAYE, P. 326, 456 DELL’ACQUA, A. 411 DELMAIRE, D. 272 DELOS, T. 347-348, 351, 355 DELPECH, F. 257 DELTOUR, O. 214 DE LUBAC, H. 152, 291-293, 305, 313-315, 319, 343, 345-352, 354355, 380, 469 DELVILLE, J.-P. 13, 325-326 DE MAEYER, J. 55, 375, 386, 484 DE MAISTRE, J.M. 148-151 DEMAN, T. 291-292, 294 DÉMANN, P. 266-271 DE MEY, P. 125, 276-277, 279, 281, 384 DE MEYER, A. 109, 325, 331, 336337 DE MONTALEMBERT, C.F.R. 151 DE MONTCHEUIL, Y. 343, 349 DE MOREAU, H. 104 DEMOUDT, H. 208 DENAUX, A. 276, 281, 370 DENEEF, A. 116 DEN HOLLANDER, A.A. 3-4, 7-8, 11-12 DENIQUE, A. 68 DE NOBILI, R. 189 DE PAUW, R. 202 DE PETTER, D. 311-312 DEPLOIGE, S. 158, 175, 329 DEPRÉ, A. 199-201, 212, 224-225 DE PRECIPIANO, H.G. 54, 62

505

DE PRIL, W. 104, 303, 312, 324, 327, 353 DEQUAE, A. 404, 414 DE RAEDT, J. 211 DE RAEYMAEKER, L. 326, 329, 411, 447 DEREUME, A. 200-201 DE RIDDER, C. 404, 406 DE RIDDER, F. 42, 45 DERINE, R. 403, 420 DE RYCKE, F. 364 DE SALES, F. 148 DE SAMBER, J. 203, 205-206, 225 DESCAMPS, A. 325, 327, 330, 336, 338, 340, 398-399, 401-404, 407408, 411-414, 416, 421, 424, 434435, 439, 447, 449, 453-456, 460 DE SCHRYVER, A. 404, 414, 424, 434-435, 439 DE SCHRYVER, R. 239 DÉSIRANT, B. 63 DE SMAELE, A. 399 DESMAZIÈRES, A. 290 DE SMEDT, C. 435 DE SMEDT, E.J. 393-443, 458 DE SMEDT, J. 437 DE SMEDT, L. 442 DESMEDT, R. 227 DESMET, C. 205 DE SMET, J.M. 455 DESMULLIEZ, J. 60 DESNICK, F. 205 DE SOLAGES, B. 344-350, 352-356 DE SOMER, P. 330, 412-414, 420, 428, 434, 439, 447, 456, 461 DESPLENTERE, A. 251 DESSAIN, C. 162 DESSAIN, F. 160, 162 DESSAUVAGE, M. 386-387 DE STEXHE, P. 427, 439 DE TAVERNIER, J. 327 DE TONQUÉDEC, J. 351 DEURINCK, G. 404 DE VALK, H. 190 DEVAUX, T. 264 DEVESSE, S. 200-201, 203, 226-228 DE VEYRA, J. 219 DE VOCHT, H. 13, 17 DE VOLDER, J. 162

506

INDEX OF NAMES

DE VOS, G. 227 DEVOS, R. 386 DEVRIENDT, K. 333 DE VRINDT, G. 46, 51 DEVROEDE, J. 400 DE VROEDE, G. 41-42 DE VUYST, A. 399, 403 DE WEVER, B. 239 DE WIT, E. 202 DE ZEINE, E. 434 DHANIS, É. 315 D’HAVE, W. 414, 434 D’HULST (LESAGE D’HAUTEROCHE), M. 99-100 DICK, J.A. 373, 377, 379, 381, 388 DIEGUEZ, A.M. 74, 81 DIERICKX, M. 23-27, 32 DIERICKX, P. 200-202 DILLEMANS, R. 330 DOBBELS, J. 223 DOMINGO, M. 228 DOMINIQUE (SISTER) 273 DONDEYNE, A. 323, 326, 329-330, 333-336, 338-340, 405, 453, 455 DONNEAUD, H. 301 DONNELLY, D. 337 DORPIUS, M. 5-6 DOUGHERTY, D.J. 201-202, 204, 212 D’OUINCE, R. 347, 351 D’OULTREMENT, H. 404 DOUTRELEAU, L. 469 DOWLING, M. 34 DRACH, D.-P. 255 DRAGUET, R. 294, 301, 303, 312, 327, 331, 336, 352-353 DRIEDO, J. 6-7, 367-368, 371 DRU, A. 151 DUCHESNE, L. 97, 103, 107-108, 132, 138 DUCLOS, W.E. 121 DUFFAU, M.-T. 346 DUFRICHE-DESGENETTES, C.E. 256 DU GARD, R.M. 127 DUGGOM, A. 223-224 DUJARDIN, C. 183 DU JARDIN, T. 68 DUMONT, C. 278 DU MONT, H. 63 DUPANLOUP, F. 485-486, 490

DUPIN DE SAINT-CYR, R. 353 DUPRIEZ, L.-H. 405, 413-414, 426 DUPUY, B. 282, 286 DURAND, J.-D. 272, 314 DU RIEU, W. 49 DURNEZ, G. 239 ECK, J. 370-371 ECKMAN, E.A. 204 EGGENSPERGER, T. 310 EICHER, P. 319 ELDAROV, G. 292-294 ELIOT, G. 125 ELIOT, S.A. 128 ÉLISABETH (QUEEN OF BELGIUM) 159 ELLIES DUPIN, L. 29 ELNO, K.N. 384 ELOY, A.-L.-J. 194 ENGEL, U. 310 ERASMUS, D. 3-4, 10, 43, 45, 364369, 371-372 ERENS, A. 24-25 ERNESTI, J. 326 ESNARD, A. 202 ESQUENET, R. 202 ÉTIENNE, J. 28 EUCKEN, R. 132 EYBEN, A. 63 EYSKENS, G. 407, 439 FABISCH, P. 28 FABRIS, R. 101 FACON, E. 240 FAESEN, R. 60, 472, 480 FAMERÉE, J. 357 FANIEL, V. 205 FARNESE, A. 22 FAWKES, A. 76, 126, 135 FEENEY, L. 277 FELDER, H. 237 FELICI, P. 338 FELTIN, M. 353 FÉNELON (DE SALIGNAC DE LA MOTHE), F. 145-148, 150, 465, 494 FÉRET, H.-M. 305, 309-310, 319, 351 FERRATA, D. 79-80 FESSARD, G. 291, 343, 346, 350-351, 354

INDEX OF NAMES

FILOG, P. 225 FILOGRASSI, G. 303 FISCHER, B.D. 3 FISHER, G. 280 FISHER, J. 34 FISICHELLA, R. 319 FLAMEYGH, H. 211 FLAMEYGH, N. 214 FLEMING, D. 78 FLICHE, P. 256 FLORES, A. 78, 81 FLORQUIN, J. 393, 438 FLYNN, G. 300-301, 308 FOCANT, C. 325, 327 FOCH, F. 162 FOGAZZARO, A. 75, 127, 136, 138 FONCK, L. 116-117 FONTAINE, J. 117-118 FOPPENS, J. 36-37 FORGET, J. 195 FORTE, B. 319 FOUILLOUX, É. 275, 289, 302, 304, 310-311, 314, 316-318, 343 FRAGNITO, G. 12 FRAJESE, V. 12 FRANCIS (POPE) 357 FRANCIS OF ASSISI 235-238, 243-244, 247 FRANÇOIS, J. 41 FRANCOIS, W. 3-13, 17, 22 FRANSEN, G. 328, 336, 339 FRANSEN, P. 373, 379, 458 FRIES, H. 319 FRINGS, J.R. 381 FROBEN, J. 369 FRY, H. 197 FURIÓ CERIOL (FURIUS CAERIOLANUS), F. 11 GADEYNE, H. 223 GAGNEBET, M.-R. 294, 301 GANGGANGAN, D. 206 GALILEI, G. 355 GALLAND, C. 236 GARCIA, J. 228 GARDEIL, A. 309, 320 GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, R. 284, 302, 311, 315-316, 343-346, 348-354, 356

507

GARRONE, G.-M. 411 GASPARRI, P. 166, 172, 174-177 GASQUET, F.N. (DOM AIDAN) 106 GEERLINGS, W. 314 GEEROMS, H. 211 GEISELMANN, J.R. 6 GELDHOF, J. 385 GEMELLI, A. 290-291 GEPTS, W. 206-207 GERARD, E. 239, 335 GERARD, H. 231, 233, 235, 237, 241, 248-251 GÉRARDIN, P. 453 GERLIER, P.-M. 347 GEVERS, L. 125, 157, 323-324, 341, 373, 375, 445-450, 456, 459, 461 GHOOS, J. 455 GHYSENS, G. 95, 102, 104 GIBELLINI, R. 297, 310-311 GIBERTI, G.M. 34 GIBLET, J. 325, 451, 456 GIEBENS, G. 203, 228 GIELIS, G. 17, 25, 28-29, 35, 38 GIELIS, M. 4, 31, 364, 367, 370 GILLAERTS, P. 3, 8 GILES OF VITERBO 361 GILLET, M.-S. 352 GILLON, L.-B. 344, 349 GILMONT, J.-F. 9-10 GITS, A. 405, 413, 435 GLEASON, E. 34 GLORIEUX, A. 333 GLORIEUX, P. 352 GODDING, P. 328 GODEAUX, J. 424, 427, 434, 439 GODIN, H. 332 GOICHOT, É. 127 GONDON, J. 283, 286 GOOSSENS, P.L. 157 GOOSSENS, T. 37 GOTTI, G.M. 80 GOUJET, C.-P. 53 GRATRY, J. 485, 488 GRAULS, J. 423, 427 GRAVIUS, H. 41, 45 GRÉGOIRE, F. 326, 332, 352 GREGORY THE GREAT 63 GROOTAERS, J. 326, 373, 383-384 GROS, M.-D. 257

508

INDEX OF NAMES

GROSSI, G. 73 GROU, J.-N. 465-481 GUANO, E. 333 GUARINO, T.G. 313 GUARNIERI, R. 474 GUASCO, M. 73 GUELLUY, R. 310, 325 GUELUY, A. 199 GUÉRIN DE ROCHER, R. 466 GUERRY, É.-M. 347-348, 353 GUGELOT, F. 272 GUILLOUX, F. 236 GUITTON, J. 286 GUNY, A. 110 GUYON (BOUVIER DE LA MOTTE), J.M. 147, 465 GWYNN, S. 135 HADEWIJCH 479 HAERING, S. 106 HÄUSSLING, A.A. 106 HALIFAX (WOOD), E.F.L. 159 HALLET, J. 414 HALLOWELL, J.H. 149 HAMELIUS, J. 61 HAMMAN, A. 291, 351 HAMON, A. 468-480 HANBURY, M. 481 HANCÉ, L. 440 HANECOP, C. 47 HANSELIN, S. (DAME MARIE CLEMENT) 223 HAQUIN, A. 325, 327, 428 HARDICK, L. 235 HARMIGNIES, P. 158 HARNEY, M. 55 HASLER, A. 486 HAVET, J. 451 HAYOIT DE TERMICOURT, R. 404 HECHANOVA, J. 227 HEFFERNAN, B. 232, 364 HEGEL, G.W.F. 285 HENDERICKX, A. 339 HENDRICKX, J.-P. 157 HENNEBEL, J.-L. 55, 57 HENSON, H. 134 HENTEN, J. 10 HERGESHEIMER, M. 228 HERMAN, H. 48

HERMANS, R. 386 HERMANT, J. 68 HESSELS, J. 14 HEUSCHEN, J.-M. 327, 428, 430, 432, 434, 438, 440 HEYLEN, T.-L. 158, 160-161, 164, 169-172, 175-176, 179, 340 HEYLEN, V. 455-456, 460 HEYNICK, R. 284 HIBDER, B. 484, 487 HIEBEL, J.-L. 256 HILAIRE, Y.-M. 256 HILL, H. 84 HILLENAAR, H. 56 HIMMER, C.-M. 340, 414, 426, 428430, 432, 438 HOFSTEE, W. 139 HOLBORN, H. 364 HOLLAND, B. 128 HOOGVLIET, M. 10 HORN, G.-R. 335, 373 HORNER, N.A. 192 HOUBEN, A. 205 HOUBEN, R. 423, 426-428, 430 HOUBERECHTS, A. 439 HOUGHTON, W.E. 128 HOUKES, A. 130 HOURS, B. 314 HOUSSIAU, A. 326-327, 329-330, 455 HOUTHAEVE, R. 393, 419, 431 HOUTIN, A. 83, 114-116, 119-120, 130 HOYOUX, H. 62-63 HUBAUX, P. 203 HUGH OF SAINT VICTOR 479 HULSBOSCH, C. 200-201, 204 HUMANN, L. 256 HUMANN DE CHAZELLE, É. 256 HURTER, H. 56 HURTH, J. 228 HUVELIN, H. 481 HUYGENS, G. 54 ICKX, J. 158 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH 87-90, 92 IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA 468-469, 473 IJSEWIJN, J. 6 INNOCENT XII (POPE) 148, 465 IRENAEUS OF LYON 469 ISERLOH, E. 28

INDEX OF NAMES

JACOBS, J. 232, 245, 276 JACOV, M. 326 JADOT, J. 437-438 JADOULLE, J.-L. 335 JAMES, W. 132, 481 JANKOWIAK, F. 75 JANS, J. 327 JANSENIUS, C. (THE ELDER) 3-4, 13-17, 20-21, 41 JANSENIUS, C. (THE YOUNGER) 13-14, 55, 59, 61, 146 JANSSEN, A. 327-331, 334-335 JANSSEN, G.H. 39 JANSSENS, A. 192 JANSSENS, G. 376 JANSSENS, H. (DOM LAURENT) 95-96, 104-105 JANSSENS, J.-B. 315 JANSSENS, L. 327, 336, 338, 455-456 JAQUIER, E. 115 JARDIN, C. 257 JATHO, C. 134 JEDIN, H. 34 JENKINS, A.H. 283 JEROME OF STRIDON 104, 117 JODOCK, D. 74, 76 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM 16, 63 JOHN III (DUKE OF BRABANT) 27 JOHN XXIII (POPE) 153, 272, 278, 338, 375, 377-378 JOHN PAUL II (POPE) 338, 357 JOHN OF RUUSBROEC, 466, 469, 472, 477-480 JONARD, G. 405 JONCKHEERE, W.R. 393-394, 397, 439, 448-449, 454 JONES, E.H. 129 JOSET, C.-J. 158, 170 JOSSUA, J.-P. 285 JOURNET, C. 347, 354 JUDGE, J. 39 JULLIEN, A. 354 JUNG, M.H. 367 JUNGMANN, J.A. 385 JURGENS, C. 200-202, 204-205, 218 JUSTIN MARTYR 91 KAARSGAREN, V. KANE, S. 204

245

509

KANT, I. 145 KASPER, W. 317, 365-368 KELLY, J.J. 79 KEMPENEERS, J. 157-158, 160 KENIS, L. 25, 40, 60, 73, 79, 125, 127, 284, 303, 305-306, 318, 321, 324, 337, 339-341, 375, 377, 382, 384-385, 445-446, 451, 461 KER, I. 275, 283 KERKHOFS, J. 377-378 KERN, W. 319 KERR, F. 314 KESTENS, A. 241 KINGSLEY, C. 125 KIRCHGÄSSNER, A. 385 KIRWAN, J. 300 KLEINENBROICH, C. 190 KNEVEL, P. 17, 25 KOMONCHAK, J.A. 314, 373 KORS, M.M. 477 KRAMER, F. 18 KRAUS, F.X. 152 KREMER, R. 484 KÜNG, H. 388 KURTZ, L.R. 132 LABERTHONNIÈRE, L. 75, 98, 152 LABOURDETTE, M.-M. 293, 344, 349, 354 LABUSE, G. 41 LACMAN, J. 63 LA COMBE, F. 147 LADEUZE, P. 95, 109-110, 118-120, 158, 161, 164-166, 168-169, 172175, 178 LADRIÈRE, J. 326, 439 LAENEN, J. 55 LAGA, C. 455 LAGAE, R.-M.C 194 LAGATZ, T. 74 LAGRANGE, M.-J. 96, 100-101, 109111, 115-117, 320 LALLEMAND, A. 186, 190, 192 LALLEMANT, L. 465 LAMBERIGTS, M. 4, 6, 28, 53, 56, 59, 315, 323, 337, 373, 376-378, 380382, 384-385, 387, 394, 447, 461 LAMBERTS, E. 448, 452, 484 LAMBOT, C. 102

510

INDEX OF NAMES

LAMBRECHT, F. 209, 218, 225 LAMBRECHT, G. 211 LANGENHUYSEN, C.H. 48 LANGOHR, H. 404 LANNOY, A. 84-85 LAPORTE, C. 394 LARA, C. 338 LASH, N. 275, 281, 283 LATOMUS, J. 4-5, 20, 27, 31-32, 34-35, 37, 368 LATRÉ, B. 334 LAUGRAND, F. 183 LAURENT, T. 377 LAVALLEYE, J. 109, 325-326 LAVEN, M. 39 LAYUGAN, M. 221 LEASE, G. 77-78, 80-81 LE BEAU, I. 63 LEBBE, B. 111-114 LEBBE, V. 189, 192, 194 LEBLON, J. 158 LEBON, J. 325, 331, 334, 340 LECLÈRE, H. 98 LECLERQ, J. 335 LÉCRIVAIN, P. 465 LEEMANS, E. 398, 400, 402-404, 407, 410-413, 416, 419-420, 426-428, 432, 434-435, 439, 448, 455 LEEMANS, J. 104 LEFEBVRE, M. (MARCEL) 339 LEFEBVRE, M. (MAURITS) 203 LEFÈVRE D’ÉTAPLES, J. 8-9 LÉGER, P.-É. 380 LEGRAIVE, L. J. 172 LEHNER, U.L. 63 LEJAY, P. 85 LÉMANN, A. 255 LÉMANN, J. 255 LEMONNYER, A. 100-101 LEMPEREUR, M. 8-9 LENAERS, R. 375 LE NORMAND, N. 86 LENORMANT, F. 99 LEO XIII (POPE) 78-79, 99-100, 283 LÉONARD, A.-J. 157 LEONARD, E.M. 76 LÉOPOLD (PRINCE OF BELGIUM) 159 LEPIDI, A. 109 LÉPIN, M. 113-114

LEROUX, M. 263, 266 LE ROY, É. 98, 138, 285 LESOING, B. 286 LESSIUS, L. 61 LÉVÊQUE, F.-P. 466 LIBERMANN, F. 255 LIDWINO, M. 224 LIÉNART, A. 268, 352 LIGHTFOOT, J.B. 87 LIGUORI, A. 492, 494 LILLEY, A.L. 128 LIMBROCK, E. 200 LINDANUS, W. 28, 30 LINDEMANS, I. 414 LINSSEN, G. 227 LISLE-EN-REGAULT, V. 242 LIVINGSTON, J.J. 73 LOCATELLI, A. 170 LOCKE, J. 143-144 LOCKEFEER, J. 13 LODRIOOR, J. 6 LOISY, A. 73, 78, 80-81, 83-87, 89, 92-93, 97-98, 105, 113-114, 116119, 131-132, 137-138, 283, 285, 481 LOSITO, G. 73, 77-78 LOUGHLIN, G. 301-302 LOUIS XIV (KING) 68, 147 LUCIAN OF PEREGRINUS 89 LUTHER, M. 3-4, 23, 45, 58, 142, 357, 361-362, 365-372 LYONNET, S. 318 MABALOT, S. 219, 224 MACCARRONE, M. 108-109 MACCHI, S. 298 MACINA, M.R. 272 MADANGENG, E. 224 MAERE, R. 326, 336-337, 339 MAES, K. 387 MAES, V. 203 MAHAU, P.G. 186 MAINGON, C. 386 MAISON, M.M. 125, 135 MALENGREAU, G. 442 MANGENOT, A. 101 MANIGLIER, A. J.-A. 189, 191 MANNING, E.H. 485 MANSI, G. D. 362

INDEX OF NAMES

MARA DESILVA, J. 24 MARANGON, P. 127 MARCION 88, 90-92 MARGUERITE PORETE 474 MARIA THERESA (EMPRESS) 68 MARIE-LAURICE (SISTER) 273 MARINUS, M.J. 60 MARITAIN, J. 344, 347, 353-354 MARITAIN, R. 353 MARMION, J. (DOM COLUMBA) 96, 105-107, 118-119 MARNEF, G. 24 MARTENS, G. 203-204 MARTENS, M. 386-387 MARTIN, L. 78 MARVIN, F.S. 135 MARY, G. 194 MARY, J. 260 MASIUS, J. 50 MASSAUX, É. 325, 330, 338, 396, 408, 411-413, 428, 434, 439-440, 442, 447 MASSON, J. 192 MAURRAS, C. 151, 345 MAXIMILIAN I (EMPEROR) 27 MAYEUR, J.-M. 256 MCGARRY, M.B. 121 MCGINN, B. 481 MCLEOD, H. 387 MÉCHOULAN, H. 11 MEIJERS, A.P.H. 370 MEINDERSMA, W. 42 MELLONI, A. 73 MERCATI, A. 109 MERCIER, C. 469 MERCIER, D.-J. 79, 157-162, 164172, 174-178, 185, 193, 329, 339340, 395 MERRIGAN, T. 6, 281-283, 285, 315 MERRY DEL VAL, R. 73, 76-82 MERSCH, É. 318 MESZAROS, A. 281-282, 285, 288 METSIUS, L. 44 METTEPENNINGEN, J. 289, 296-297, 300, 303, 306, 308, 310, 312, 315318, 320, 373, 377, 379, 381, 388 MEULENYZER, P. 184, 191, 193-195 MEYER, F. MEYNEN, D. 436

511

MICARA, C. 159-166, 169, 171, 173, 175, 179 MICHIELS, G. 248-250 MICHIELSEN, R. 205 MIGNE, J.-P., 16 MIGNOT, E.-I. 78 MIKKERS, T. 127 MILBANK, J. 314 MILH, A. 234, 241 MINVIELLE, B. 333 MIRAEUS, A. 36-37 MISONNE, D. 96, 102, 104-106 MOELLER, C. 324, 406-407 MOERMAN, J. 202, 204 MOLHUYSEN, P. 40 MOLINOS, M. 147 MONCHAMP, G. 54 MONDEN, L. 373, 375, 379, 388 MONDÉSERT, C. 256 MONIN, A. 328-329, 340 MONTAGNES, B. 96 MONTINI, G. B. 355 MORACCHINI, P. 236 MOREL, L. 203 MORERI, L. 47 MORIN, G. 104-106, 111-112 MOUNIER, E. 441 MÜLLER, W.W. 317 MÜNTZER, T. 366 MULDER, R. 130 MULLETT, M.A. 34 MUNIER, C. 93 MUNITZ, J.A. 455 MURPHY, J.L. 6 MURRAY, P.D. 300-301, 308 MURRI, R. 131 MUSTY, J.B. 398 NARBONNE, J.-B. 262 NÉDONCELLE, M. 103, 352 NEILL, C. 276 NEIRYNCK, F. 324, 330, 445, 448449, 451, 454-456, 458-459, 461 NELSON RACKMALES, C. 125-126, 136 NEUFELD, K.H. 313 NEUT, E. 194-195 NÈVE, T. 186 NEVEJANS, A. 387

512

INDEX OF NAMES

NEWMAN, J.-H. 99, 137, 275-276, 278-288, 481 NEWTON, I. 143 NICHOLS, A. 285, 316 NICOLAS, M.-J. 346, 354 NICOLETTI, M. 74 NIEUWDORP, R. 404 NIEUWSTRATEN, J. 48-49 NISSEN, P. 59 NOË, H. 466 NOËL, L. 326, 329, 336 O’CONNELL, G. 357 ODDI, S. 399-400, 402, 404, 411 O’DOHERTY, M. 218 O’DONOVAN, G. 127 OECOLAMPADIUS, J. 368-369 O’GARA, M. 486 OLEFFE, A. 424, 427, 434, 439-440 OLSON, R.E. 289 O’MALLEY, J. 57-58, 373, 376-378, 380-383, 385, 387-388 ONCLIN, W. 327-331, 338-339, 405, 423, 425, 453-454 O’NEILL, M. 63 OPSTRAET, J. 53-57, 62-69 ORIGEN 371, 469 OTTAVIANI, A. 277, 346-347 PABEL, H. 34 PAGANO, S. 74, 109 PAQUOT, J.-N. 40, 44-47, 49 PAREDES, J. 203 PARENTE, P. 295, 303, 311 PARISIS, A. 418 PARVUS, R. 93 PASCAL, B. 145 PASMANS, B. 63 PASSCHYN, D. 38 PASSELECQ, G. 272 PATTYN, B. 323, 447 PAUL IV (POPE) 11, 18, 23 PAUL VI (POPE) 357, 387, 389, 414415 PAULINE (SISTER) 192 PAUTONNIER, A. 85-86 PEDDICORD, R. 343 PEETERS, I. 233 PEETERS, J. 420-421

PELAGIUS 106 PELLISTRANDI, B. 289, 311 PEÑARANDA, P. 201, 207, 227 PEPPER, G.B. 277 PERÉZ DURÀ, J. 11 PERRIN, L. 256 PÉTAIN, P. 349 PETERSON, W.S. 129, 131-133, 135136 PETIT, C. 310 PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, P. 352 PETITJEAN, A. 325 PETRE, M.D. 76-77, 80-81, 124 PETTEGREE, A. 52 PEYREFITTE, R. 77 PHILIP II (KING) 12, 37, 42 PHILIP V (KING) 55 PHILIPPE, P. 344 PHILIPS, G. 279, 327, 329, 333, 335336, 338, 340, 406-407 PIANI, G. 212 PICARD, L. 333 PIETERS, K. 227 PIETERSOEN, D. 3 PIROTTE, J. 157, 183, 192, 325 PIUS IV (POPE) 12 PIUS IX (POPE) 150, 213, 257, 483 PIUS X (POPE) 73-77, 79, 81-82, 95, 98, 100-102, 150-152, 238, 244, 259, 283, 339, 343 PIUS XI (POPE) 158, 174-175, 177178, 185, 247, 276, 410, 481 PIUS XII (POPE) 102, 178, 272, 277, 287, 311, 316, 343, 481 PIZZARDO, G. 159-160 PLANTIN, C. 13 PLATO 466 POELS, H. 134 POELS, V. 190 POLLMANN, J. 14, 39 POLYANDER, J. 47 POLYCARP 88-90, 92 PONTHOT, J. 326-327 POOT, J. 209 PORTELANGE, J. 202 PORTIER, W.L. 121-124, 128, 130, 134, 136 POST, R.R. 31 POSTMA, F. 24-25, 37

INDEX OF NAMES

POTTIER, B. 364 POULAT, É. 73-74, 103, 111, 114, 117, 152 POULLET, P. 158, 176-177, 179 POUPARD, P. 256 POWELL, J. 213 PRAET, D. 84-85 PRIGNON, A. 430 PROSPERI, A. 34 PRUDHOMME, C. 183 PRZYWARA, E. 283 PSAUME, N. 34 PUT, E. 60 PUYAO, J. 223 PYCKE, N. 199 QUAGHEBEUR, P. 375 QUAGHEBEUR, T. 55, 60 QUINTELIER, L. 202, 204, 212 QUISINSKY, M. 310, 319 RAES, H. 232, 234 RAES, P. 431 RAFFERTY, O. 73, 76 RAHLENBEEK, C. 40 RAHNER, K. 317, 319 RAMAEKERS, H. 200, 202 RAMAKERS, B. 10 RAMBALDI, G. 78 RAMIREZ, P. 203 RAMPOLLA, M. 199 RAMSEY, M. 280, 387-388 RANCHETTI, M. 150 RASHDALL, H. 135 RASNEUR, G.-A. 169, 172-173 RATISBONNE, A. 256-257 RATISBONNE, T. 256-258, 274 RATTÉ, J. 121-122, 124-125, 129130, 132, 136-137 RATZINGER, J. 368 RAVESTEYN (TILETANUS), J. 3-4, 13, 17-21 RAYEZ, A. 465, 467, 481 RAYMAKERS, H. 203 RENAN, E. 131 RENARD, H. 255 REUSCH, F.H. 56 REUSENS, E.H.J. 54, 56, 68 REXROTH, K. 128

513

REYPENS, L. 479 RICCI, T. 250 RICHARD, F.-M.-B. 98 RIEDL, P. 461 RIGAUX, B. 332, 435 RIMANDO, P. 216, 218 RIVES, F. 129, 135 RIVIÈRE, J. 84-85, 107, 112 ROBERT, A. 101 ROCHE, F.T. 194 ROEFFAERS, H. 334 ROEGIERS, J. 13, 53, 55, 60, 62, 448, 452 ROERSCH, A. 17 ROLAND, H. 170 ROPPE, L. 406, 414 ROTA, O. 258-259, 261 ROUSE, R. 276 ROUSSEAU, J.-J. 145-146 ROUSSEAU, X. 116 ROUSSELOT, P. 320 ROUTHIER, G. 276, 377 ROY, P. 276, 377 ROYER, R. 403 RUBIN SULEIMAN, S. 126 RULLODA, P. 219, 224 RUMMEL, E. 4, 6 RUTTEN, G.A. 158, 164, 172, 174-175 RYCKMANS, G. 160, 325, 337, 339 SABATIER, P. 133 SABBE, M. 48, 451, 455-456, 458, 461 SADULO, J. 203 SAFFREY, H.D. 109 SAGOVSKY, N. 73, 132 SAINT-OGER (SISTER) 192 SALEMINK, T. 190, 272, 287 SALES, G. 227 SALIÈGES, J.-G. 345-346 SALTET, L. 85, 111-112 SANCHO, S. 218 SANDER, A. 106 SANDERS 192 SANT’ILARIO MILANESE, B. 247 SARTIAUX, F. 83 SCHAFF, P. 16 SCHELKENS, K. 276, 278-279, 284285, 315, 324, 326, 373, 377, 379, 381, 384, 388

514

INDEX OF NAMES

SCHELL, H. 132 SCHEPERS, J. 73-74, 78 SCHILLEBEECKX, E. 317, 319, 324 SCHIPMAN, A. 203 SCHIPMAN, J. 203 SCHMIDT, W. 210-211 SCHMITZ, P. 95 SCHNEIDER, D. 485 SCHNITZER, J. 131 SCHOEDEL, W. 90 SCHOKKAERT, L. 194, 373-374, 377 SCHOONENBERG, P. 303, 305-306, 317-318 SCHOORS, A. 455 SCHOOYANS, M. 325 SCHOT, M. 404, 414 SCHRAMA, M. 28 SCHRAMME, A. 334 SCHUCHART, A. 53-54, 56, 62, 64-68 SCHULTENOVER, D.G. 76-78, 81 SCHUTZ, R. 388 SCHWEDT, H.H. 74 SCHYRGENS, J. 165-166, 171, 173 SCOTT APPLEBY, R. 121, 138 SCULLY, E. 313 SEGALLA, G. 101 SEGGIANO, P. 237 SELLING, J.A. 327 ŞENOCAK, N. 236 SEPULCHRE, J. 200-203, 210, 225 SERVAIS, O. 183 SERVOTTE, H. 412-413 SESBOÜÉ, B. 317 SEVRIN, J.-M. 328 SEYS, A. 203 SHAW, H. 133-134 SHAW STEWART, C.R. 134 SHELLEY, T.J. 326 SIMON, A. 157, 159, 161 SIMON, R. 148 SIMPSON, C.B. 289 SIN, J. 223 SKUTELLA, M. 479 SLANGEN, P. 205 SLAWINSKI, H. 364 SLEEGERS, H. 208 SMIT, I. 125, 127 SNOY ET D’OPPUERS, J. C. 414 SOEN, V. 9, 17, 24-25, 39

SOETENS, C. 187, 189 SOMMERVOGEL, C. 468 SONNIUS, F. 17, 25-28, 32-33, 35-38 SPAAK, P.H. 440 STATE, P.F. 55 STEGMÜLLER, F. 309 STERCKX, E. 157 STERKENS, L. STEWART, H.L. 126, 135 STEYAERT, M. 55-56 STORME, H. 60 STORME, M. 194 STOUHLEN, S. 257 STREYTERS, A. 27 STRUYCKER-BOUDIER, C.E.M. 232 STYLS, S. 40, 43-44, 48-52 SUCHECKY, B. 272 SUENENS, K. 375 SUENENS, L.-J. 157, 370, 393-394, 399-402, 404-414, 416, 418, 423424, 430, 438-439, 442, 458, 461 SUHARD, E. 332, 346, 348 SULLIVAN, F.A. 278 SULLIVAN, W.L. 121-124, 127-132, 134-138 SURIN, J.-J. 465 SURMONT, A. 203 SUTHERLAND, J. 129, 133 SWARTELÉ, T. 401, 403 SYMONS, S. 284 TAFT, W.H. 198 TAHON, J. 202 TALAR, C.J.T. 83-84, 130 TAN, M.B. 203 TANNER, N. 32, 35 TAPPER, R. 4-5, 17, 25, 27-37 TARLIER, J. 43 TATARELLI, E. 484 TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, P. 291, 318, 343, 346-350, 355 TERTULLIAN 88 TESTORE, C. 102 TEUNS, S. 231, 233 THEOPHORUS 90, 92-93 THEUNISSEN, E.P. 173 THIBAUT, E. 165, 171 THIBAUT, H. (DOM RAYMOND) 96, 102-105, 107-110, 112-113, 119

INDEX OF NAMES

THIJSSEN, F. 278 THILS, G. 295-297, 302, 327, 329330, 335, 338, 449, 453, 455-456 THOMAS AQUINAS 141-142, 291, 297, 299, 301, 311-312, 349-350 THOMPSON, D.M. 387 THOMPSON, J.M. 134 THROCKMORTON, E. 122, 136, 138 THUREAU-DANGIN, P. 283 TIERNEY, M. 96, 105 TIHON, A. 326 TIMMERMANS, U. 205 TIRELIREN, G. 239-240, 249 TODTS, H. 394, 448-449, 454 TOLLEBEEK, J. 330 TRÉMOLIÈRES, F. 103 TRETHOWAN, I. 151 TREVELYAN, J.P. 129, 131-134 TRINQUET, J. 99, 113, 115 TRIO, P. 375 TRISTRAM, H. 284 TROELTSCH, E. 481 TROISFONTAINES, C. 326 TROMP, S. 333 TROXLER, W. 17 TSHIBANGU TSHISHIKU, T. 296-297, 299, 302, 310 TURMEL, J. 83-93, 111-112 TYRRELL, G. 73, 75-81, 114, 119, 124, 131-132, 137-138, 285, 302, 481 TYTGAT, J.-P. 231, 233 ULRICH, J. 99 ULRIX, O. 186, 194 UNDERHILL, E. 481 UNTERBURGER, K. 73 VACCARO, L. 24 VADAKKEKARA, V. 237-238 VALET, D.E. 115-117 VALSTAGNA, V. 245 VAN ACKER, A. 440 VAN ASPERT, C. 205 VAN BELLE, G. 327 VAN CAUWELAERT, E. 399 VAN CAUWELAERT, F. 239 VAN CAUWENBERGE, M.-T. 423 VAN CAUWENBERGH, J. 157-158, 172-173, 175, 179

VANCE, N. 134-136 VAN DE COUVERING, P. 203 VANDENBERGHE, A. 183, 186 VAN DEN BOEYNANTS, P. 419,

515

422423, 426-427, 432-433, 435, 439 VANDEN BOSCH, G. 393 VAN DEN BROECK, J. 375 VANDENBROUCKE, J. 406 VAN DEN BULCKE, P. 189 VANDENBUSSCHE, P. 414 VAN DEN DAELEN, J. 227 VAN DEN EYNDE, P. 190-192, 194 VAN DEN NIEUWENHUIZEN, J. 37 VAN DEN WEGHE, L. 215 VAN DE POL, W.-H. 279 VAN DER ESSEN, L. 325 VAN DER EYCKEN (HASSELIUS), J.L. 17 VANDER GUCHT, R. 293 VAN DER KOOIJ, A. 139 VAN DER LAAK, A. 202 VAN DER MEIJ, O. 47, 51 VANDERPELEN-DIAGRE, C. 123 VANDERVELDE, E. 162, 177 VANDERVORST, J. 325 VAN DER WALL, E. 73, 79, 125, 127131, 139, 284 VAN DER WAETER, M. 189 VAN DE STEEN, R. 171, 173 VANDEVOORDE, J. 458 VAN DE VOORDE, M. 393, 419 VANDEWALLE, O. 200-201, 204, 211212, 227-228 VAN DE WIEL, C. 338 VAN DORNICK, P. 40, 51 VAN DORPE, S. 213 VAN DRIEL, N. 130 VAN EIJL, E. 455 VAN ELSLANDE, R. 409 VAN ESPEN, Z.-B. 54 VAN GINDERACHTER, J. 435 VAN GOOL, C. 234, 238-239, 241, 243, 246, 249-250 VAN GOUDA, J. 40, 50-51 VAN GRAVE (GRAVIUS), B. 9 VANHAGENDOREN, E. 402 VAN HECKE, A. 199, 201, 203-205 VAN HEE, Z. 399, 401-402, 406 VAN HERREWEGHEN, P. 9 VAN HOORN, D. 351

516

INDEX OF NAMES

VAN HOVE, A. 328-329, 336-338 VAN ISACKER, P. 178 VANISTENDAEL, A. 381, 383 VAN KEULEN, D. 277 VAN LANGERAAD, L.A. 40, 46-47 VAN LIEBURG, F. 48 VAN LIESVELT, J. 8 VAN MIERLO, J. 479 VAN NASSAU, J. 47 VAN NEER, J. 364 VANNESTE 192 VAN OSSELAER, T. 374 VAN OUTRYVE, O.E. 458 VAN OVERBEKE, A. 227 VANOVERBERGH, M. 203, 210-211 VAN PARIJS, P. 227 VAN PETEGHEM, L.-A. 408, 416, 420-421, 428, 433, 440 VAN REETH, J. 364 VAN REGENMORTEL, E. 387 VAN RIET, G. 326 VAN RIJEN, A. 291 VAN ROEY, A. 208, 327, 451, 455 VAN ROEY, J.-E. 157-160, 162, 168, 172-173, 175-179, 332 VAN ROMPAY, L. 455 VAN ROSSUM, W.M. 190-191 VAN RUNCKELEN, J. 203 VAN STEENBERGHEN, F. 326, 334, 336 VAN STIPHOUT, M. 60 VAN SUERCK, H. 48 VAN ’T SPIJKER, G. 183 VAN VEEN, J. 131 VAN VIANEN, F. 54-55 VAN VLIET, C.T.M. 357 VAN WAEYENBERGH, H. 326, 352, 447 VAN WIJNGAARDEN, J. 312 VAN WINDEKENS, A.J. 423, 439 VAN WINGHE, N. 8-9 VAN WOUW, P. 47. VAN YPERSELE DE STRIHOU, M.-H. 176 VANYSACKER, D. 24, 199 VAN ZUYLEN, G. M. 416, 428 VAN ZUYT, A. 203-204, 207, 209 VAUGHN, H. 78, 81 VEISSIÈRE, M. 34 VELATI, M. 275, 278 VELGHE, J.-B. 189

VENARD, L. 101 VENARD, M. 60 VENDELMANS, L. 202 VERBEECK, H. 200-201, 227 VERBEKE, G. 400, 403, 412-414 VERBIST, T. 197 VERBRAKEN, P. 102, 104-106 VERDEYEN, P. 474 VERGOTE, A. 326 VERHELST, D. 186, 194, 199 VERHELST, R. 203 VERMANG, M. 249-250 VERONESE, V. 333 VERROKEN, J. 439 VERSTOCKT, P. 201 VERSTRAETEN, M. 375 VERUCCI, G. 74 VEUILLOT, L. 150-151 VIAENE, V. 484 VIALLET, L. 236 VIAN, G. 74-77, 81-82 VIDLER, A.R. 124-125, 127, 131132, 135 VIEUJEAN, J. 326, 333, 335-336 VIGOUROUX, F.-G. 96 VILANOVA, E. 297 VIOLLET, P. 75 VISSCHER, H. 40, 46-47 VISSERS, S. 245 VISSER ’T HOOFT, W.A. 276, 278 VODERHOLZER, R. 317 VOEGELIN, E. 148 VOGLER, B. 256 VON BALTHASAR, H.U. 317, 319 VON DER LANCKEN, O. 170 VON FIRMIAN, L.E. 68 VON HARNACK, A. 97, 107, 110, 122 VON HÜGEL, F. 76, 119, 128, 131132, 138, 302, 481 VON HUMMELAUER, F. 100-101, 115, 117 VON STOTZINGEN, F. 106 VORGRIMLER, H. 293 VORSTERMAN, W. 8 VOS, L. 422 VOYSEY, C. 134 VRANCKEN, P. 161-162 VROMAN, G. 203 VUYE, H. 326

INDEX OF NAMES

WACHÉ, B. 107-109 WAFFELAERT, G.J. 164, 172 WAFFELAERT, J. 205 WAGNON, H. 327-329, 331, 338 WALGRAVE, J.H. 142, 153, 279, 324 WALTER, P. 367 WARD, M.A. 121, 125-137, 140 WARD, W. 76, 136 WASHBURN, C. 485 WATTHEE-DELMOTTE, M. 60 WATTSON, P. 217 WAUTERS, A. 43 WAUTERS, B. 60 WEAVER, M.J. 283 WEISS, O. 74, 123 WEISS, W. 97 WELD, M. 468, 475 WELD, T. 467-468 WENDTE, C.W. 121-122, 125, 128, 130, 136, 138 WERBROUCK, H. 239 WESSELING, K.-G. 114 WESTERLINCK, A. 370 WEYWADA, L. 257 WHELAN, J.P. 481 WIEST, J.-P. 189 WILLEBRANDS, J. 276-281, 284-287, 387-388

517

WILLIAM V OF CLEVE (DUKE) 46 WILLIAM OF ORANGE 43 WILLIAM OF SAINT-THIERRY 478 WILS, L. 233 WILT, J. 129, 135 WINS, E. 205 WITTE, H. 279, 284 WITTERS, M. 45 WOITRIN, M. 401, 417, 439-440, 443 WOLF, H. 73-74, 78, 272 WOLFF, R.L. 125 WOLTJER, J. 39-40 WOORDRUFF, D. 125 WORCESTER, D.C. 199 WRIGHT, W. 224 WURST, G. 326 WUYTS, S. 192-193 WYLLEMAN, A. 326 WYNANT, D. 231, 240-250 ZAHN, T. 87 ZAMBARBIERI, A. 73 ZAPELENA, T. 303 ZILVERBERG, S. 47 ZUERIUS, J. 48 ZUERIUS-BOXHORNIUS, M. 49 ZWAENEPOEL, P. 227 ZWINGLI, H. 361, 366, 368-369

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

SERIES III 131. C.M. TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, 1997. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

XXIV-721

p. 60 € J. VAN RUITEN & M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. FestschriftWillemA.M.Beuken, 1997. XX-540 p. 75 € M. VERVENNE & J. LUST (eds.), DeuteronomyandDeuteronomicLiterature. FestschriftC.H.W.Brekelmans, 1997. XI-637 p. 75 € G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis ETL / BETL 1982-1997, 1999. IX337 p. 40 € G. DE SCHRIJVER, LiberationTheologiesonShiftingGrounds.AClashof Socio-EconomicandCulturalParadigms, 1998. XI-453 p. 53 € A. SCHOORS (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 1998. XI-528 p. 60 € W.A. BIENERT & U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in denAuseinandersetzungendes4.Jahrhunderts, 1999. XXV-848 p. 95 € É. GAZIAUX, L’autonomie en morale: au croisement de la philosophie et delathéologie, 1998. XVI-760 p. 75 € J. GROOTAERS, ActesetacteursàVaticanII, 1998. XXIV-602 p. 75 € F. NEIRYNCK, J. VERHEYDEN & R. CORSTJENS, TheGospelofMatthewand the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995, 1998. 2 vols., VII-1000-420* p. 95 € E. BRITO, Heideggeretl’hymnedusacré, 1999. XV-800 p. 90 € J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), TheUnityofLuke-Acts, 1999. XXV-828 p. 60 € N. CALDUCH-BENAGES & J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. StudiesinBenSiraandtheBookofWisdom. FestschriftM.Gilbert, 1999. XXVII-463 p. 75 € J.-M. AUWERS & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. FestschriftP.-M.Bogaert, 1999. XLII-482 p. 75 € C. BEGG, Josephus’StoryoftheLaterMonarchy(AJ9,1–10,185), 2000. X-650 p. 75 € J.M. ASGEIRSSON, K. DE TROYER & M.W. MEYER (eds.), From Quest to Q. FestschriftJamesM.Robinson, 2000. XLIV-346 p. 60 € T. ROMER (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 2000. XII265 p. 75 € F.D. VANSINA, PaulRicœur:Bibliographieprimaireetsecondaire-Primary andSecondaryBibliography1935-2000, 2000. XXVI-544 p. 75 € G.J. BROOKE & J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts, 2000. XXI-307 p. 75 € F. NEIRYNCK, Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays, 2001. XVII666 p. 60 €

[2]

BETL

151. B. DOYLE, TheApocalypseofIsaiahMetaphoricallySpeaking.AStudyof the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27, 2000. XII-453 p. 75 € 152. T. MERRIGAN & J. HAERS (eds.), TheMyriadChrist.PluralityandtheQuest 75 € forUnityinContemporaryChristology, 2000. XIV-593 p. 153. M. SIMON, Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Genèse et évaluation de son 75 € commentaireduSymboledesapôtres, 2000. XVI-688 p. 154. J. VERMEYLEN, La loi du plus fort. Histoire de la rédaction des récits 80 € davidiquesde1Samuel8à1Rois2, 2000. XIII-746 p. 155. A. WÉNIN (ed.), StudiesintheBookofGenesis.Literature,Redactionand 60 € History, 2001. XXX-643 p. 156. F. LEDEGANG, MysteriumEcclesiae.ImagesoftheChurchanditsMembers 84 € inOrigen, 2001. XVII-848 p. 157. J.S. BOSWELL, F.P. MCHUGH & J. VERSTRAETEN (eds.), Catholic Social 60 € Thought: TwilightofRenaissance, 2000. XXII-307 p. 158. A. LINDEMANN (ed.),TheSayingsSourceQandtheHistoricalJesus, 2001. XXII-776 p. 60 € 159. C. HEMPEL, A. LANGE & H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), The Wisdom Texts fromQumranandtheDevelopmentofSapientialThought, 2002. XII-502 p. 80 € 160. L. BOEVE & L. LEIJSSEN (eds.), Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern 60 € Context, 2001. XVI-382 p. 161. A. DENAUX (ed.), NewTestamentTextualCriticismandExegesis. Festschrift J.Delobel, 2002. XVIII-391 p. 60 € 162. U. BUSSE, DasJohannesevangelium.Bildlichkeit,DiskursundRitual.Mit einerBibliographieüberdenZeitraum1986-1998, 2002. XIII-572 p. 70 € 163. J.-M. AUWERS & H.J. DE JONGE (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 2003. LXXXVIII-718 p. 60 € 164. L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian 180 € Tradition, 2003. XXV-X-1406 p. 165. R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE (eds.), ResurrectionintheNew 70 € Testament.FestschriftJ.Lambrecht, 2002. XXXI-551 p. 166. M.LAMBERIGTS & L. KENIS (eds.), VaticanIIandItsLegacy, 2002. XII-512 p. 65 € 167. P.DIEUDONNÉ, LaPaixclémentine.Défaiteetvictoiredupremierjansénisme français sous le pontificat de Clément IX (1667-1669), 2003. XXXIX302 p. 70 € 168. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, WisdomandApocalypticismintheDeadSeaScrolls 60 € andintheBiblicalTradition, 2003. XXXIV-491 p. 169. D. OGLIARI, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and FreeWillintheDiscussionofAugustinewiththeSo-CalledSemipelagians, 2003. LVII-468 p. 75 € 170. G. COOMAN, M. VAN STIPHOUT & B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-BernardVan Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church80 € StateRelations, 2003. XX-530 p. 171. B. BOURGINE, L’herméneutique théologique de Karl Barth. Exégèse et dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, 2003. XXII-548 p. 75 € 172. J. HAERS & P. DE MEY (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a 90 € RelationalTheology, 2003. XIII-923 p.

BETL

[3]

173. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew’sBible:TheOldTestamentTextoftheEvangelist, 2004. XII-336 p. 60 € 174. J.-P. DELVILLE, L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interprétations de laparaboledesouvriersàlavigne(Matthieu20,1-16), 2004. XLII-775 p. 70 € 175. E. BRITO, J.G. Fichte et la transformation du christianisme, 2004. XVI808 p. 90 € 176. J. SCHLOSSER (ed.), TheCatholicEpistlesandtheTradition, 2004. XXIV569 p. 60 € 177. R. FAESEN (ed.), Albert Deblaere, S.J. (1916-1994): Essays on Mystical Literature – Essais sur la littérature mystique – Saggi sulla letteratura 70 € mistica, 2004. XX-473 p. 178. J. LUST, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays. Edited by K. HAUSPIE, 2004. XIV-247 p. 60 € 179. H. GIESEN, JesuHeilsbotschaftunddieKirche.StudienzurEschatologie undEkklesiologiebeidenSynoptikernundimerstenPetrusbrief, 2004. XX578 p. 70 € 180. H. LOMBAERTS & D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Hermeneutics and Religious 70 € Education, 2004. XIII-427 p. 181. D. DONNELLY, A. DENAUX & J. FAMERÉE (eds.), The Holy Spirit, the Church,andChristianUnity.ProceedingsoftheConsultationHeldatthe MonasteryofBose,Italy(14-20October2002), 2005. XII-417 p. 70 € 182. R. BIERINGER, G. VAN BELLE & J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), LukeandHisReaders. 65 € FestschriftA.Denaux, 2005. XXVIII-470 p. 183. D.F. PILARIO, BacktotheRoughGroundsofPraxis:ExploringTheological 80 € MethodwithPierreBourdieu, 2005. XXXII-584 p. 184. G. VAN BELLE, J.G. VAN DER WATT & P. MARITZ (eds.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS JohannineWritingsSeminar, 2005. XII-561 p. 70 € 185. D. LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique. 120 € Vol. 2: Guidetechnique, 2005. XIV-VII-656 p. 186. R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR., Ancient Compositional Practices and the 80 € SynopticProblem, 2005. XXVIII-290 p. 187. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), MetaphorintheHebrewBible, 2005. X-308 p. 65 € 188. L. BOEVE, Y. DEMAESENEER & S. VAN DEN BOSSCHE (eds.), Religious ExperienceandContemporaryTheologicalEpistemology, 2005. X-335 p. 50 € 189. J.M. ROBINSON, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, 2005. XVIII888 p. 90 € 190. C.W. STRUDER, PaulusunddieGesinnungChristi.IdentitätundEntschei80 € dungsfindungausderMittevon1Kor1-4, 2005. LII-522 p. 191. C. FOCANT & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, 2005. XVI-593 p. 75 € 192. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ & M. VERVENNE (eds.), in collaboration with B. DOYLE, Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in 70 € HonourofJohanLust, 2005. XVI-464 p. 87 € 193. F. MIES, L’espérancedeJob, 2006. XXIV-653 p. 60 € 194. C. FOCANT, Marc,unévangileétonnant, 2006. XV-402 p. 195. M.A. KNIBB (ed.), TheSeptuagintandMessianism, 2006. XXXI-560 p. 60 €

[4]

BETL

196. M. SIMON, LacélébrationdumystèrechrétiendanslecatéchismedeJean85 € PaulII, 2006. XIV-638 p. 197. A.Y. THOMASSET, L’ecclésiologie de J.H. Newman Anglican, 2006. XXX748 p. 80 € 198. M. LAMBERIGTS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), LayBiblesinEurope145079 € 1800, 2006. XI-360 p. 199. J.Z. SKIRA – M.S. ATTRIDGE, InGod’sHands.EssaysontheChurchand 90 € EcumenisminHonourofMichaelA.FaheyS.J., 2006. XXX-314 p. 200. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), TheDeathofJesusintheFourthGospel, 2007.XXXI1003 p. 70 € 80 € 201. D. POLLEFEYT (ed.), InterreligiousLearning, 2007. XXV-340 p. 202. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with D. CLAES (eds.), Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and SystematicTheologicalStudies, 2007. X-305 p. 55 € 203. T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, 65 € del’Hexateuqueetdel’Ennéateuque, 2007. X-276 p. 204. J.-M. VAN CANGH, LessourcesjudaïquesduNouveauTestament, 2008. XIV718 p. 84 € 205. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Polycarpiana:StudiesonMartyrdomandPersecution inEarlyChristianity.CollectedEssays. Edited by J. LEEMANS, 2007. XVI74 € 286 p. 206. É. GAZIAUX, Philosophie et Théologie. Festschrift Emilio Brito, 2007. LVIII-588 p. 84 € 207. G.J. BROOKE – T. RÖMER (eds.), Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography.L’historiographiebiblique,ancienneetmoderne, 2007. XXXVIII75 € 372p. 208. J. VERSTRAETEN, Scrutinizing the Signs of the Times in the Light of the 74 € Gospel, 2007.X-334 p. 209. H. GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei experimentalis. A Theological Genealogy of 80 € ChristianReligiousExperience, 2007. LII-457 p. 210. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Virtuelle Vergangenheit: Die Textrekonstruktion einer verlorenen mittelniederländischen Evangelienharmonie. Die Hand58 € schriftUtrechtUniversitätsbibliothek1009, 2007. XII-168 p. 211. R. GRYSON, Scientiam Salutis: Quarante années de recherches sur 88 € l’AntiquitéChrétienne.Recueild’essais, 2008. XLVI-879 p. 212. T. VAN DEN DRIESSCHE, L’altérité,fondementdelapersonnehumainedans 85 € l’œuvred’EdithStein, 2008. XXII-626 p. 213. H. AUSLOOS – J. COOK – F. GARCIA MARTINEZ – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), TranslatingaTranslation:TheLXXanditsModernTranslationsin 80 € theContextofEarlyJudaism, 2008.X-317 p. 214. A.C. OSUJI, WhereistheTruth?NarrativeExegesisandtheQuestionof 76 € TrueandFalseProphecyinJer26–29(MT), 2010. XX-465 p. 215. T. RÖMER, TheBooksofLeviticusandNumbers,2008.XXVII-742 p. 85 € 216. D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council: International Research Conference at Mechelen, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve 85 € (September12-16,2005),2008.XII-716 p. 217. J. DE TAVERNIER – J.A. SELLING – J. VERSTRAETEN – P. SCHOTSMANS (eds.), Responsibility, God and Society. Theological Ethics in Dialogue. FestschriftRogerBurggraeve,2008. XLVI-413 p. 75 €

BETL

[5]

218. G. VAN BELLE – J.G. VAN DER WATT – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Miraclesand ImageryinLukeandJohn.FestschriftUlrichBusse,2008. XVIII-287 p.  78 € 219. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – M. WISSE (eds.), AugustineandPostmodern 80 € Thought:ANewAllianceagainstModernity?, 2009. XVIII-277 p. 220. T. VICTORIA, Un livre de feu dans un siècle de fer: Les lectures de l’Apocalypse dans la littérature française de la Renaissance, 2009. XXX609 p. 85 € 221. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early 80 € ModernPeriod, 2009. XVIII-488 p. 222. F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur. Bibliographie primaire et secondaire. PrimaryandSecundaryBibliography1935-2008, Compiled and updated in collaboration with P. VANDECASTEELE, 2008. XXX-621 p. 80 € 223. G. VAN BELLE – M. LABAHN – P. MARITZ (eds.), RepetitionsandVariations 85 € intheFourthGospel:Style,Text,Interpretation, 2009. XII-712 p. 224. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), FlorilegiumLovaniense: StudiesinSeptuagintandTextualCriticisminHonourofFlorentinoGarcía 80 € Martínez, 2008. XVI-564 p. 225. E. BRITO, Philosophiemoderneetchristianisme, 2010. 2 vol., VIII-1514 p.  130 € 85 € 226. U. SCHNELLE (ed.), TheLettertotheRomans, 2009. XVIII-894 p. 227. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN in collaboration with D. CLAES – 74 € M. WISSE (eds.), Orthodoxy,ProcessandProduct, 2009. X-416 p. 228. G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), OrigenianaNona:OrigenandtheReligious 95 € PracticeofHisTime, 2009. XIV-752 p. 229. D. MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts – Réception du 74 € paulinismedanslesActesdesApôtres, 2009. VIII-340 p. 230. A. DILLEN – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Children’sVoices:Children’sPerspectivesinEthics,TheologyandReligiousEducation, 2010. x-450 p. 72 € 231. P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), MetaphorsinthePsalms, 2010. XXXIV363 p. 76 € 232. G. AULD – E. EYNIKEL (eds.), ForandAgainstDavid:StoryandHistoryin theBooksofSamuel, 2010. x-397 p. 76 € 233. C. VIALLE, Uneanalysecomparéed’EstherTMetLXX:Regardsurdeux 76 € récitsd’unemêmehistoire, 2010. LVIII-406 p. 234. T. MERRIGAN – F. GLORIEUX (eds.), “GodheadHereinHiding”:IncarnationandtheHistoryofHumanSuffering, 2012. x-327 p. 76 € 235. M. SIMON, LaviedansleChristdanslecatéchismedeJean-PaulII, 2010. xx-651 p. 84 € 236. G. DE SCHRIJVER, The Political Ethics of Jean-François Lyotard and JacquesDerrida, 2010. xxx-422 p. 80 € 237. A. PASQUIER – D. MARGUERAT – A. WÉNIN (eds.), L’intriguedanslerécit biblique.QuatrièmecolloqueinternationalduRRENAB,UniversitéLaval, Québec,29mai–1erjuin2008, 2010. xxx-479 p. 68 € 238. E. ZENGER (ed.), TheCompositionoftheBookofPsalms, 2010. XII-826 p. 90 € 239. P. FOSTER – A. GREGORY – J.S. KLOPPENBORG – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, 2011. XXIV-828 p. 85 €

[6]

BETL

240. J. VERHEYDEN – T.L. HETTEMA – P. VANDECASTEELE (eds.), PaulRicœur: 79 € PoeticsandReligion, 2011. XX-534 p. 241. J. LEEMANS (ed.), MartyrdomandPersecutioninLateAncientChristianity. 78 € FestschriftBoudewijnDehandschutter, 2010. XXXIV-430 p. 242. C. CLIVAZ – J. ZUMSTEIN (eds.), Reading New Testament Papyri in Con- text – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, 2011. XIV-446 p. 80 € 243. D. SENIOR (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early 88 € Christianity, 2011. XXVIII-781 p. 244. H. PIETRAS – S. KACZMAREK (eds.), OrigenianaDecima:OrigenasWriter, 105 € 2011. XVIII-1039 p. 245. M. SIMON, LaprièrechrétiennedanslecatéchismedeJean-PaulII, 2012. XVI-290 p. 70 € 246. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – J. TREBOLLE-BARRERA (eds.), AfterQumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts – The Historical Books, 84 € 2012. XIV-319 p. 247. G. VAN OYEN – A. WÉNIN (eds.), La surprise dans la Bible. Festschrift 80 € CamilleFocant, 2012. XLII-474 p. 248. C. CLIVAZ – C. COMBET-GALLAND – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Écrituresetréécritures:larepriseinterprétativedestraditionsfondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième colloque internationalduRRENAB,UniversitésdeGenèveetLausanne,10-12juin2010, 90 € 2012. XXIV-648 p. 249. G. VAN OYEN – T. SHEPHERD (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical 85 € TraditionsinDialogue, 2012. XVI-632 p. 90 € 250. E. NOORT (ed.), TheBookofJoshua, 2012. XIV-698 p. 251. R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity andImpact(1540-1773).ProceedingsoftheInternationalCongressatthe FacultyofTheologyandReligiousStudies,KULeuven(3-5December2009), 65 € 2012. X-295 p. 252. A. DAMM, AncientRhetoricandtheSynopticProblem:ClarifyingMarkan 85 € Priority, 2013. XXXVIII-396 p. 253. A. DENAUX – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Ecumenical Legacy of Johannes 79 € CardinalWillebrands(1909-2006), 2012. XIV-376 p. 254. T. KNIEPS-PORT LE ROI – G. MANNION – P. DE MEY (eds.), The HouseholdofGodandLocalHouseholds:RevisitingtheDomesticChurch, 2013. XI-407 p. 82 € 255. L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernismoftheLowCoun75 € tries, 2013. X-271 p. 256. P. IDE, UneThéo-logiqueduDon:LeDondanslaTrilogiedeHansUrsvon 98 € Balthasar, 2013. XXX-759 p. 257. W. FRANÇOIS – A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), “WadingLambsandSwimming Elephants”:TheBiblefortheLaityandTheologiansintheLateMedieval 84 € andEarlyModernEra, 2012. XVI-406 p. 258. A. LIÉGOIS – R. BURGGRAEVE – M. RIEMSLAGH – J. CORVELEYN (eds.), “After You!”: Dialogical Ethics and the Pastoral Counselling Process, 79 € 2013. XXII-279 p. 259. C. KALONJI NKOKESHA, PenserlatraditionavecWalterKasper:Pertinence d’une catholicité historiquement et culturellement ouverte, 2013. XXIV320 p. 79 €

BETL

[7]

260. J. SCHRÖTER (ed.), The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early 90 € ChristianTheology, 2013. XII-804 p. 261. P. DE MEY – P. DE WITTE – G. MANNION (eds.), BelievinginCommunity: 90 € EcumenicalReflectionsontheChurch, 2013. XIV-608 p. 262. F. DEPOORTERE – J. HAERS (eds.), To Discern Creation in a Scattering 90 € World, 2013. XII-597 p. 263. L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with C. DICKINSON (eds.), Tradi55 € tionandtheNormativityofHistory, 2013. X-215 p. 264. M. GILBERT, BenSira.Recueild’études–CollectedEssays, 2014. XIV-402 p. 87 € 265. J. VERHEYDEN – G. VAN OYEN – M. LABAHN – R. BIERINGER (eds.), Studies intheGospelofJohnandItsChristology.FestschriftGilbertVanBelle, 94 € 2014. XXXVI-656 p. 266. W. DE PRIL, TheologicalRenewalandtheResurgenceofIntegrism:The 85 € RenéDraguetCase(1942)inItsContext, 2016. XLIV-333 p. 267. L.O. JIMÉNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, TheArticulationbetweenNaturalSciencesand SystematicTheology:APhilosophicalMediationBasedonContributions 94 € ofJeanLadrièreandXavierZubiri, 2015. XXIV-541 p. 268. E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar 80 € desHieronymus, 2014. XVIII-333 p. 269. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN (eds.), APillarofCloudtoGuide:Text-critical, Redactional,andLinguisticPerspectivesontheOldTestamentinHonour 90 € ofMarcVervenne, 2014. XXVIII-636 p. 270. E. TIGCHELAAR (ed.), OldTestamentPseudepigraphaandtheScriptures, 95 € 2014. XXVI-526 p. 271. E. BRITO, Sur l’homme: Une traversée de la question anthropologique, 215 € 2015. XVI-2045 p. (2 vol.) 272. P. WATINE CHRISTORY, DialogueetCommunion:L’itinéraireœcuménique 98 € deJean-MarieR.Tillard, 2015. XXIV-773 p. 273. R. BURNET – D. LUCIANI – G. VAN OYEN (eds.), Le lecteur: Sixième ColloqueInternationalduRRENAB,UniversitéCatholiquedeLouvain, 85 € 24-26mai2012, 2015. XIV-530 p. 274. G.B. BAZZANA, KingdomofBureaucracy:ThePoliticalTheologyofVillage 85 € ScribesintheSayingsGospelQ, 2015. XII-383 p. 275. J.-P. GALLEZ, Lathéologiecommescienceherméneutiquedelatraditionde foi:Unelecturede«Dieuquivientàl’homme» deJosephMoingt, 2015. XIX-476 p. 94 € 276. J. VERMEYLEN, Métamorphoses:LesrédactionssuccessivesdulivredeJob, 84 € 2015. XVI-410 p. 277. C. BREYTENBACH (ed.), Paul’sGraeco-RomanContext, 2015. XXII-751 p. 94 € 278. J. GELDHOF (ed.), MediatingMysteries,UnderstandingLiturgies: OnBridging 78 € theGapbetweenLiturgyandSystematicTheology, 2015. X-256 p. 279. A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), OrigenianaUndecima:OrigenandOrigenisminthe 125 € HistoryofWesternThought, 2016. XVI-978 p. 280. F. WILK – P. GEMEINHARDT (eds.), TransmissionandInterpretationofthe BookofIsaiahintheContextofIntra-andInterreligiousDebates, 2016. XII-490 p. 95 € 281. J.-M. SEVRIN, Lequatrièmeévangile. Recueild’études. Édité par G. VAN 86 € BELLE, 2016. XIV-281 p.

[8]

BETL

282. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), The Normativity of History:TheologicalTruthandTraditionintheTensionbetweenChurch HistoryandSystematicTheology, 2016. XII-273 p. 78 € 283. R. BIERINGER – B. BAERT – K. DEMASURE (eds.), Noli me tangere inInterdisciplinaryPerspective:Textual,IconographicandContemporaryInterpretations, 2016. XXII-508 p. 89 € 284. W. DIETRICH (ed.), The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception History, 2016. XXIV-650 p. 96 € 285. W.E. ARNAL – R.S. ASCOUGH – R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR. – P.A. HARLAND (eds.), Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus Adherents: EssaysinHonourofJohnS.Kloppenborg, 2016. XXIV-630 p. 115 € 286. C.E. WOLFTEICH – A. DILLEN (eds.), Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology:InternationalandInterdisciplinaryPerspectives, 2016. X-290 p. 85 € 287. W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), VernacularBibleandReligious ReformintheMiddleAgesandEarlyModernEra, 2017. VIII-305 p. 94 € 288. P. RODRIGUES, C’esttafacequejecherche…Larationalitédelathéologie selonJeanLadrière, 2017. XIV-453 p. 92 € 289. J. FAMERÉE, Ecclésiologie et œcuménisme. Recueil d’études, 2017. XVIII668 p. 94 € 290. P. COOPER – S. KIKUCHI (eds.), CommitmentstoMedievalMysticismwithin 79 € ContemporaryContexts, 2017. XVI-382 p. 291. A. YARBRO COLLINS (ed.), New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, 2017. X-644 p. 98 € 292. J. FAMERÉE – P. RODRIGUES (eds.), The Genesis of Concepts and the 78 € ConfrontationofRationalities, 2018. XIV-245 p. 293. E. DI PEDE – O. FLICHY – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Lerécit:Thèmesbibliqueset 95 € variations, 2018. XIV-412 p. 294. J. ARBLASTER – R. FAESEN (eds.), Theosis/Deification:ChristianDoctrines 84 € ofDivinizationEastandWest, 2018. VII-262 p. 295. H.-J. FABRY (ed.), TheBooksoftheTwelveProphets:MinorProphets– 105 € MajorTheologies, 2018. XXIV-557 p. 296. H. AUSLOOS – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Temporalité et intrigue. Hommage à AndréWénin Forthcoming 297. A.C. MAYER (ed.), TheLetterandtheSpirit:OntheForgottenDocuments 85 € ofVaticanII, 2018. X-296 p. 298. A. BEGASSE DE DHAEM – E. GALLI – M. MALAGUTI – C. SALTO SOLÁ (eds.), Deus summe cognoscibilis: The Current Theological Relevance of Saint Bonaventure Forthcoming

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706