The Founder's discernment in the affairs of his time

Jesus was approached on the question as to whether one should take sides with the occupying Roman power or the national independent army of his time. The first Christians showed themselves to be compliant citizens [67], but they also considered themselves as foreigners and sojourners among the nations [68]. Society is a reality and each one must take his own stance. A theoretical neutrality is possible, but in practice we are always categorized. This is where discernment comes into play to run this course of hurdles made up of ideologies, compromises, partisan loyalties, resistance, party politics or personal choices.

The Founder lived in an age of radical upheaval. Consequently, one cannot avoid considering his discernment even in the social realm. I will, therefore, say a few words about the Lammenais affair, a suitable example for our purposes.

Jean Leflon treats the Lammenais affair at length [69]. We will limit ourselves to examining two letters to Father Tempier on this question.

Dated May 30, 1826, the first letter gives the reasons for which Father de Mazenod is not in favor of signing a petition bearing the signatures of 68 bishops condemning Lammenais' ultramontanism. That is not surprising since he was in basic agreement with Lammenais [70]. What is interesting, however, is the line of argument he followed. He judged such a show of force to be uncalled for on the part of the bishops. Such a noisy maneuver could lead people to believe that "they were justified in being suspicious of their [the bishops'] intentions".

More subtle still, he felt that "this declaration is a concession made to the liberal party that they fear and which will not cease to plot our downfall in spite of all such declarations which it mocks" [71]. He foresaw the opportunism of the liberal spirit and its profound antagonism for the Church. Today, we understand that the correct attitude to have in a liberal society is not the spirit of compromise, but of authentic identity: to be what one really is in a society which legitimately permits it and this is to its credit. Now, the Church was being tempted to make such a compromise. A letter of September 13, 1830 made reference to the mission crosses that were removed - probably to less visible locations - with the consent of the ecclesiastical authorities. Writing to Father Tempier, he said: "In my opinion, there is a greater scandal in the benevolent compromise [...] than in the profanation perpetrated by a horde of illdoers [...]" The conclusion showed an astuteness worthy of a second look. For the Founder, "it is possible that by dint of such illogic they may succeed in changing the accepted meaning of words [...] in that eventuality, I would wish that they leave God aside and not implicate him disrespectfully in all these human vagaries and vicissitudes" [72]. To refashion "God" according to the current fad is indeed one of the criticisms leveled against liberal theologians; had he seen this already in his time?

The October 26, 1830 letter indicated a break with the "school of M. de Lammenais". Monsignor Leflon summarized Lammenais' teachings in this way: "In a world where liberalism was triumphing, Catholics had to speak out in favor of freedom [...] instead of demanding privileges [...] they would now have to stand on freedom alone if they were to regenerate the world and religion while bringing the work of Christ to fulfillment" [73]. Such theses seem rather appealing to us today. The Founder's criticism does not go to the essentials, but stopped at accidentals. Lammenais' thesis assumed that "Catholics are a power in France while not even having a party". Was, then, the power of the Church really on the agenda? And if it was the independence of the clergy that one was out to protect, was the best way of doing this to give up state support? Would they really be independent when they have no bread and no one would give them any? What especially distressed the Founder was "to see a man of his genius waste time writing newspaper articles" when he should have been completing "the works which Europe awaits with rightful impatience" [74]. We rediscover here the Founder's realism in top form, even if he had not grasped all the ramifications of the questions. That is what Leflon seems to say in the end: "It must be recognized in all justice that during the whole crisis, this man who was so opposed to liberalism, so touchy where doctrine was concerned [...] stayed clear of all party spirit and proved to be understanding, fraternal and conciliatory. [..] [He] so beautifully safeguarded charity as well as truth in difficult conditions [...]" [75]

[67] See Romans 13:1.
[68] See 1 Peter 2:11; also Hebrews 13:14.
[69] LEFLON, II, chapter 10, p. 397-428.
[70] Ibidem, p. 399.
[71] Letter to Father Tempier, in Oblate Writings I, vol. 7, no. 246, p. 108.
[72] In Oblate Writings I, vol. 7, no. 363, p. 215.
[73] LEFLON, II, P. 403.
[74] In Oblate Writings I, vol. 7, no. 368, p. 219.
[75] LEFLON, II, p. 427-428.