We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
‘The members of the Holy Office use methods which, if they were in Great Britain, would soon land them in court. The Holy Office ruins reputations and destroys people’s careers.’ The English Jesuit, Archbishop Tommy Roberts, formerly Archbishop of Bombay, made these grave allegations in a full session of the Second Vatican Council. They are well illustrated by the way the French worker-priest crisis was dealt with between the sumrtier of 1953 and the spring of 1954. Obviously I can only record such a richly complex period in summary form—almost telegraphically. But even such a résumé gives an eloquent demonstration of the way the hierarchical authority of that time functioned, particularly in regard to the human rights of the baptised.
The loss of the working classes to the Catholic Church in France in the nineteenth century had for a long while made social issues prominent in French ecclesiastical thinking. The spiritual humanism with socialist leanings to be found, for example, in the influential periodical Esprit (founded by Emmanuel Mounier in 1932) was gradually accepted even by some members of the hierarchy. The publication in 1943 of the book by A. Godin and Y. Daniel La France, pays de mission?—the question mark was included at the request of the ecclesiastical authorities— helped to spur concrete attempts to bridge the gap between the Church and the working class. By far the most outstanding among these was the decision by the bishops to permit some of the clergy to combine their priestly ministry with day-to-day sharing in the lives of manual labourers, in other words working beside them, joining their trade unions and living among them in working-class fiats.
1 For the historical context of the crisis see Quand Rome Condamne, Terre humaine, Plon, Paris, 1989, 766Google Scholarp.
2 This was a theme which the cardinals spoke of at great length during this period; cf Quand Rome Condamne (Q.R.C.) pp.343–347, for example.
3 The expression is Cardinal Feltin's.
4 Y.M. Congar, ‘Chronique čune petite purge’, Quand Rome Condamne p.433. Throughout the crisis Congar kept a kind of journal.
5 You will find an account of this interview in Q.R.C. pp.410–412.
6 Q.R.C.p.413.
7 ibid.
8 On those last two points Feret simply promised to be discreet.
9 Q.R.C. p.427. Féret came back to this subject in a letter to Bishop Guerry, at whose request he wrote a long clarification in response to statements made by the Secretary of the Episcopate. The latter had just published in La Documentation Catholique of 12 June 1955 a ‘letter on the Episcopate of France and certain current problems: a reply to various articles in the Press.’ The writer made reference to ‘measures taken against certain Dominican Fathers’ when Le Quinzaine was condemned. Féret considered that the juxtaposition of the two events was shameful. See letter to Mgr. Guerry, June 1955, Archives de la Province de France.
10 Q.R.C. pp.414f.
11 Canon Hollande's audience with Cardinal Feltin, 8 Novembre 1953. Cardinal Feltin referred to that meeting in January, when he addressed a group of worker priests.
12 See Henri Barreau, ‘Prȩtres‐ouvriers, prȩtres oubliés?’, Golias n.26, p.72; Desailly, Jean, Prȩtre‐Ouvrier, Mission de Paris 1946–1954 ĽHarmattan, Paris 1997, p.459Google Scholar.
13 ‘The worker priests have done good work, but they had to be removed in order to protect them from the great dangers to which they were exposed.’ Cardinal Feltin, Pastoral Letter on a current problem in our missionary apostolate, 27.2.1954. Documentation Catholique n. 1168, col.263–270.
14 Lettre du Cardinal Liénart to Mgr. Guerry, 15 July 1953, Archives du diocèse de Lille, dossier P.O. 1953.
15 Statement by Mgr. Richaud, 15.1.1954. Documentation Catholique n. 1166, col. 144–145.
16 Allocution of Mgr. Chapoulie, 7.2.1954. Documentation Catholique n. 1166, col. 144.
17 See ch.6 of Q.R.C, entitled ‘Soumission ou obéssance’.
18 Letter to Worker Priests, remarks of His Excellency Mgr. Ancel, 19 July 1953, Archives du diocése de Lille, dossier Prȩtres‐Ouvriers, 1953. Letter to Cardinal Gerlier, 20 february 1954, archives du diocése de Lyon, dossier Ancel. On the serious disagreement between the majority of the French bishops and the Dominican theologians, see Q.R.C. pp. 212–230.
19 Allocation of Cardinal Saliège to his clergy, 30.12.1953. Documentation Catholique n.l 166, col. 144.
20 Letter of Cardinal Lienart to Chenu, 4 February 1954. Chenu had addressed this article in good faith to the cardinals who were directly involved in the crisis. Lienart wrote to him: ‘Allow me to use this as an opportunity to tell you frankly what I think. I willingly acknowledge the freedom of a theologian to go deeply into a doctrine or to have a personal opinion on this or that matter. But he must not teach his followers a personal opinion as though it were a teaching of the Church when the Church has not yet pronounced on the question. And he is even less qualified to say how the Church should conduct its apostolate. The Pope and the Bishops are supposed to have become mere administrators; the higher authorities in the Church are deemed to be inadequately sensitive to certain delicate issues of the day. There is no lack of unauthorised experts who presume to take their place and direct the apostolate of clerics and laity. They do this through articles–often unsigned–in reviews, by circulating notes, through study groups and conferences. The result is a real confusion in people's minds, and, I would say, in the Church at large.’
21 ‘Don't you sense a breath of free enquiry in the air, a whiff of protestantism, and, here and there, a loss of genuine Catholicism?’ Mgr. Th6as, ‘La soumission au pape’, Bulletin religieux de Tarbes et Lourdes, 14.1.1954, Documentation Catholique, n. 1168, col.288. ‘Let us not listen to those who shout or complain without thinking, “Rome doesn't understand; Rome doesn't know; the Pope is badly informed”; maybe what they really mean is: “Come on, let's just do what our conscience tells us and not burden ourselves with instructions from Rome.” On this subject I will not hesitate to call what's happening a resurgence of a Gallican mentality which would quickly undo the links which unite French Catholics with the Supreme Head of Christianity.’ Mgr Chapoulie, homily of 25.12.1953, Documentation Catholique, n. 1166, col. 143.
22 Letter of Cardinal Linart to M. and Mde. Benoit. Universitaires grenoblois, 4.3.1954.
23 Q.R.C., ‘Haro sur la Quinzaine’, pp.152–155. The Assembly of Cardinals and Archbishops responded to the repeated lay initiatives to appeal to the Hierarchy by issuing a very violent communique in which each paragraph began: ‘It is not true to say.’ Foreclosing any further discussion, they warned: ‘No doubt some lay journalists are finding it difficult to understand the profound doctrinal, spiritual or religious reasons which lie behind these measures. Let them learn the true facts, or keep silent on this matter. The Hierarchy is speaking here of what is its own field: the priesthood. It is they, and not the journalists, who have the competence to define the conditions in which a priestly life is possible.’ Congar commented at the time: ‘These days I am painfully, agonisingly, aware of the great gulf existing between the Christian people and the processes of the hierarchy–especially Rome.’
24 Q.R.C. pp.438–452.
25 J.M. Domenach, ‘D'autant s'obscurcit la lumière’, Journal à plusieurs voix, Esprit, mars 1954, p.406.
26 Cf Congar's ‘La chronique de la petite purge’, or the correspondence of Féret; e.g. Q.R.C, ‘Centralisme et insensibility apostolique’, pp 419–427.
27 Y.M. Congar, ‘Chronique de la petite purge’, Q.R.C. pp.432f. ‘Here we see the general ecclesiological basis of the Dominican episode. We are almost the only organised body of free thought in the Church. We remain the only body which can, canonically, organise and act on its own accord: when a superior is elected and confirmed he is in charge ipso facto; our Chapter ordinations have force without the permission of the Holy See; we still have independent legislative power.’ He deplores yet again the extent to which ‘freedom of research and thought’ is currently shackled, circumscribed by the Pope and the congregations 'sibi subjectae', which identify themselves with the Church. He goes on to note the correlation between the Order's juridical status, its independence in Church law and its independence of thought.
28 Letter from Chenu to one of his fellow‐Dominicans: Pourquoi et comment j'ai obéi', in ll est une Foi, n.22–23, oct‐nov 1989, pp.22–23.
29 This report was published in ll est une Foi, nn.22–23, oct‐nov 1989, pp.13–20. B. Quelquejeu evaluated this reform of the Holy Office twenty years after its inception: cf ‘Ralliement aux droits de ľhomme, méconnaissance des “droits des Chrétiens’”, Concilium 221, 1989, pp. 129–143.
