Main Feature
The Abjection of Jean Vanier – Investigative Reflection (Continued)
Walter Hughes, Ottawa
Volume 34 Issue 7, 8 & 9 | Posted: October 11, 2020
On 22 February 2020, L’Arche International reported sexual abuse allegations against Jean Vanier. Vanier was the founder of the L’Arche network of homes in which the intellectually handicapped live together with other people. The Report was widely picked up by the press. The general position of the media was to pass the judgement onto their readers, sometimes as straight news and sometimes with a comment of shock and sadness. There was no assessment of the Report. The news cycle returned to COVID-19, the closing of the economy, and race relations.
On 22 February 2020, L’Arche International reported sexual abuse allegations against Jean Vanier. Vanier was the founder of the L’Arche network of homes in which the intellectually handicapped live together with other people. The Report was widely picked up by the press. The general position of the media was to pass the judgement onto their readers, sometimes as straight news and sometimes with a comment of shock and sadness. There was no assessment of the Report. The news cycle returned to COVID-19, the closing of the economy, and race relations.
Your correspondent has struggled with the Report for several months. It was easy to accept that Jean had failings; we all do. I was not surprised that Jean had sexual relations, as Jean was a single male, not promised to any woman and not subject to a vow of celibacy. That Jean’s failings included abuse of women, particularly of vulnerable women, was a major surprise and disappointment. There were allegations against Jean, but it was not exactly clear what these were. The more I dug into the Report, the less clear these ‘allegations’ became.
WHAT IS THE REPORT?
The Report is the summary of an inquiry by L’Arche into Jean Vanier. During a 2014-2015 inquiry into Vanier’s mentor, Father Thomas Philippe, suspicions arose that Jean Vanier knew that ‘Père Thomas’ was a sexual predator who had abused women at L’Arche. Might Vanier have been in league with the priest?
Then a woman came forward to question Vanier's sexual behaviour with her. A second woman came forward three years later. As L’Arche International leader, Stephan Posner, said in an interview on KTO-TV, “You cannot keep that stuff locked in the bottom drawer.” Having an MBA, Posner would understand that rumours could hurt the trust that benefactors held in L’Arche. Donations, particularly in France, could dry up; France is the largest source. L’Arche would have to report sexual allegations against Vanier and not be seen to defend him.
The Report comes from L’Arche International, which is the leadership body of the federation of L’Arche communities around the world. At last count, there were 154 communities in 38 countries. The leadership body consists of two International Leaders – one male and one female – and an International Stewardship Board, current members being from Western Europe and the USA.
L’Arche International hired GCPS Consultants of the UK to receive statements from women about their relations with Vanier. They interviewed five of the women, who were identified as victims. GCPS also interviewed more than 30 other people. In addition, L’Arche International contracted an historian, Antoine Mourges, to prepare a history of the relationship between Vanier and Père Thomas prior to the founding of L’Arche, i.e. during the period 1950-1964. The purpose was to determine how well Vanier knew Père Thomas.
Balance
The inquiry team made a special point of using trial-related terms to demonstrate the fairness of the inquiry procedure. They say that ‘Any conclusions of an administrative review of this kind are based on a “balance of probabilities” and not “beyond any doubt” standard of proof.’ Both earmarked terms arise out of common law, where two advocates represent their position before an impartial judge or jury, who attempts to determine the truth and passes judgment accordingly.
“Balance of probabilities” refers to a civil suit, where the judge must consider the evidence and decide between contesting parties. A civil suit is a personal matter, like a divorce. “Beyond any doubt” refers to a criminal trial in which a defendant's liberty is at stake, so the evidence must prove guilt with certainty. Criminal matters of course deal with issues of broad concern to society, such as violence and harassment. By choosing ‘balance of probabilities’ as their standard of proof, the authors are implying that the issues here are merely between Vanier and the women involved and of no concern to society. On the other hand, L’Arche is telling the whole world about this, so they are implying that what they reveal is a crime. So, which is it? The Report is slippery in its language and its judgements.
The Report only provides one side. Jean had recently died, so could not defend himself. While the authors say that Vanier had a right to respond to any allegations, only two were raised with him in his life-time. To balance the Report, L’Arche could have appointed an advocate to act in Jean's defense. This person would have had the responsibility to hear all witness statements and challenge any misinterpretation by the inquiry team. This was not done. The Report is not balanced.
Impartiality and Objectivity
The Report vouches for the impartiality and objectivity of the inquiry team. Let's look at that. GCPS Consulting were not just a dropbox to receive dispositions from women who came forward. Both the consultant firm and the historian were rigorous in ‘beating the bushes’ to flush out complaints of sexual abuse.
The consultant firm was proactive in interviewing numerous other women who had known Jean. A few women did approach GCPS Consulting during this phase. After Jean's death, the historian Mourges, went through Vanier’s love letters from a few women, but noted that ‘none of them seem to have declared themselves as victims.’ Both the consultants and the historian were looking for evidence in support of Jean’s guilt.
Unless there is some offsetting process built into the inquiry process, such as an advocate on Vanier’s side, there is a risk of confirmation bias, i.e. the tendency to search for and interpret information in a way that confirms one’s prior beliefs. The risk of this was perhaps stronger for the historian. According to a L’Arche International circular letter of 2015, Mourges had been studying Père Thomas for over a decade and had been one of the first to identify his sexual proclivity, mentioned in his 2009 doctoral thesis, the same year that Mourges interviewed Vanier.
Predisposition
Let’s consider another potential source of bias – that of predisposition. The inquiry into Jean Vanier followed two earlier inquiries – one into Father Thomas and other into his brother, Marie-Dominique Philippe (see ICN June 2020).
From what your correspondent could tell, all three inquiries came to the same conclusion – sexual abuse of women based upon abuse of position and ‘psychological hold.’ All three appear to have involved the historian, the local archbishop, and L’Arche. The three inquiries were rolled out in succession.
It would be natural if someone involved in the first two inquiries would jump to a conclusion about the third one. Should the inquiry into Vanier have been handled by a different team? While the experienced team had learned from earlier inquiries, they may have predisposed to condemn Vanier. There is evidence of that.
The Report does not provide the full statements of the women, even scrubbed of identifying details. French journalist Philippine de Saint-Pierre, who interviewed Stephan Posner, leader of L’Arche International on French TV, said ‘There is no justice without the facts and without acknowledging these personal accounts.’ However, we readers have neither the facts nor the personal accounts. What we have instead are short sound-bites – scraps tossed into a hash and spiced up with the sentiments of the mostly male authors.
The reader is unable put the words into a proper context. Instead, we read five pages of reporting on Père Thomas, who was found guilty of the sexual abuse of nuns and other women. Without any sense of how the women related to Jean, we will likely attribute Père Thomas’ abusive behaviour to Jean, although there is little evidence of that.
Who got to see the evidence?
Supposedly, there is a ‘full report’ that may have more evidence. However, not even this was shared with the eminent Commission looking into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in France; the CIASE only received a briefing at a meeting. Nor was the full report shared with the two retired senior public servants on the Oversight Committee who vouched for the report. Neither the CIASE nor the anonymous retirees were judge or jury with responsibility to seek the truth and find justice for Jean Vanier.
Nor did either party perform the function of an auditor. By that, I mean that there is no statement from either group that they tested the evidence and the procedure used, as would be expected of an audit function. The mentions of these groups are merely window dressing to add a gloss of authority to the Report.
THE ALLEGATIONS
None of the ‘victims’ is ever quoted making a real allegation, that is a claim that Jean has done something illegal or wrong. A question is not an allegation. The Report says: ‘L’Arche leaders received an allegation from a woman who questioned Jean Vanier’s behaviour towards her in the 1970s.’ Which is it – an allegation or a question?
The Report says that it takes no position on whether any alleged incident or event was a crime, but then uses criminal terminology, by saying: ‘The inquiry team investigated a number of allegations of sexual assault all from women who were adult and not people with disabilities.’
In France, sexual assault is a crime. It ‘consists of any sexual offense involving violence, constraint, threat or surprise.’ Using this definition of sexual assault, the Report would have no such allegations. However, using slippery language, the Report leaves the impression that some terrible act has been committed. The allegations in the Report are not tied to any particular act. They are not accusations made by the women.
Seemingly, these vague charges are suggested by the Report's authors. There is so little substance to the Report that it is necessary to look at the Report in depth to realize how unsubstantiated the allegations are.
The allegations are not always clearly stated in the Report. Your correspondent identified the following allegations against Jean Vanier:
1. The Report claimed that Vanier knew that his mentor, Père Thomas, had sexually abused women in the 1950s, but failed to denounce him publicly. This made it possible for Père Thomas to continue to sexually abuse women in L’Arche.
2. Jean Vanier was aware of other situations of psychological or sexual abuse of L’Arche assistants by another person and did nothing.
3. Père Thomas had conceived a ‘theory’ – a false mysticism – which he used to seduce women. Jean had a ‘similar’ mysticism which he used to seduce women.
4. Jean sexually touched some women whom he accompanied spiritually.
5. Jean imposed himself upon vulnerable women on whom he had a ‘psychological hold’ which deprived them of their free will to consent to sex.
1. FAILURE TO DENOUNCE PÈRE THOMAS
IN THE 1950s & 1960s
IN THE 1950s & 1960s
Père Thomas is key to understanding the Report. The Report is more about him and his relationship with Jean Vanier than about any sexual abuse by Vanier. The Report names the priest almost as often as Jean Vanier – 56 times versus 73 times. Père Thomas is discussed on more than five pages of the 9 ½ page report. The alleged sexual abuse is discussed in less than 2 pages. Despite this, the newspaper coverage is mostly about the alleged sexual abuse.
Any failure by Vanier to denounce Thomas depends upon his awareness of how his mentor treated women in private. What did Vanier know? In historian Mourges’ report, we learned that Père Thomas had an early and profound impact on Jean, just as Jean would have on others in later years.
Jean met Thomas in September 1950 at L’Eau Vive, a school founded by Père Thomas. Vanier had gone there on his mother’s suggestion to determine if he had a calling to the priesthood. Jean was in his mid-twenties and still earnest and wholesome, character traits he never completely lost.
When allegations were first made against Père Thomas in March 1951, Jean had known the priest for only half a year. He would not hear about these allegations until a year later. In May 1952, after Thomas was recalled to Rome to face an inquiry for the first time, Jean was advised of Thomas’ ‘morality’ by the Dominicans, Thomas’ religious order.
Those allegations may have referred to events prior to Jean’s arrival on campus. It would be four years before the inquiry came to its conclusion. In 1956, the Dominicans sent Thomas to the Netherlands for rehabilitation and closed the school at L’Eau Vive.
They talked to Jean about his future and what he needed to do to become a priest. Buried in that conversation, something was said about the inquiry into Thomas. The record does not say what, only disclosing that Jean was advised verbally of charges against the priest who had been convicted under Church law.
The record does not show that Jean was aware of the details nor the seriousness of the charges. In fact, the very opposite is shown. One priest reported that “I was very awed by the reaction of those involved, by Jean Vanier, the people from l’Eau Vive and the nuns …. They wanted … ‘not to judge.’”
In 2015, L’Arche International admitted that they do not know why Père Thomas was condemned in the 1950s, saying: “We do not know the cause for his condemnation because the archives from the trial have not yet been made accessible.” Historian Mourges was not able to prove that Jean had personal knowledge of Père Thomas’ misdeeds in the 1950s. The historian found no ‘smoking gun,’ no ménage à trois, and no tutorship on the art of seduction. The Report’s lengthy linking of the two men is little more than innuendo, seeking to tarnish Jean's name – guilt by association.
Jean’s own defence is not part of the Report. It was set out in a letter dated May 2015, more than twenty years after the priest’s death:
“A few weeks ago I became aware of the accusations concerning Père Thomas. I was overwhelmed and shocked, absolutely unable to understand how this could have happened. I was even more shocked that such revelations have come now, so many years after his death, with some acts going back to the 1970s.” (May 2015)
As there is evidence that Jean Vanier had heard something negative about Père Thomas, let us consider when Jean failed to denounce Thomas publicly. Let’s look at the time of the creation of the first L’Arche community in 1964. The story is well-known.
In 1963, Jean travelled from Canada to Trosly-Breuil, France to meet Père Thomas again. The priest was working in an institution with intellectually handicapped men. Jean was moved by the sad situation of the men’s lives and their desire for loving human contact. After a term teaching ethics in Toronto, he returned to Trosly and invited a few of the men to come live with him. With his parents’ help, he bought a cottage in Trosly, less than a two-minute walk away from where Père Thomas lived in a low brownstone. The cottage had no toilet and no electricity. That’s how simply L’Arche began. Very quickly, neighbours met the men in the house and helped out, while Père Thomas added the newborn community to his pastoral rounds.
At this moment, what was Vanier’s responsibility with regard to informing on Père Thomas? Supposedly, the priest had been rehabilitated as he had already been returned to priestly duties with a mandate from the local bishop and an ‘obedience’ from the head of the Dominican order. The government had not yet mandated the reporting of sexual abuse. The police were not yet performing checks on case-histories of sexual abuse. The Roman Catholic Church was not yet seized with the issue of clerical abuse. Jean had no personal knowledge of any sexual predatory behaviour on the priest’s part, only hearsay from eight years prior, which he may have forgotten in any event. Presumably, this is when Jean failed to denounce the priest. Was such an expectation realistic in 1964? Going forward would be a different story.
PART THREE IN DECEMBER ICN
Walter Hughes, Ottawa