Main Feature
Closer Analysis of Jean Vanier Report
Paul LeMay, Vancouver
Volume 34 Issue 1, 2 & 3 | Posted: March 27, 2020
Consent appears to have been given by the women who became involved with Jean Vanier, albeit likely manipulated into consent which was onto itself certainly an unethical standard of moral conduct on Jean Vanier’s part.
Consent appears to have been given by the women who became involved with Jean Vanier, albeit likely manipulated into consent which was onto itself certainly an unethical standard of moral conduct on Jean Vanier’s part.
We have large contextual factors that are not addressed in this report, namely that the Catholic Church frowned on and continues to frown on sexual intimacy outside of the sacrament of marriage, and it does not condone priests having sexual relationships of any kind. This unto itself creates an environment where what might otherwise be considered normally expressed sexual behaviour in a caring relationship (whether involving marriage or not), is driven underground. By being driven ‘underground’, this creates the ideal breeding environment for less than normal sexual relationships. In other words, this context provides the motivation for these figures to become secretive.
Because secrecy becomes the ‘norm’ of interaction, certain psychological pressures to maintain that secrecy, and justify that secrecy become justified. Yet nowhere is that issue addressed in any way in the report.
Women who participated in these secret arrangements for some reason, are not held to any standard of self-responsibility in any of this. I am not saying that the men were in any way justified in behaving the way they did, but some modicum of personal discernment was in order here. But when it comes to human beings, things get both complicated and confusing, especially when all manner of psychological needs are involved.
Some women became vulnerable because they were psychologically trained by their cultures to look to men for the answers in their lives, while some men were psychologically trained to assume (particularly in that era) that they were to be the ‘husbanding guides’. So each were already victims of their respective conditioning histories to begin with. This sets the stage for later more aberrant behaviours.
Fr. Thomas Phillippe’s variant on sexual mystical rites seem to be the perfect rationalization for justifying the breech of celibacy vows. Jean Vanier by contrast, had not sworn any such vows, so in this regard, his conduct might be considered less grievous. As to the matter of being emotionally abusive toward some of his victims, that’s where things get tricky. What are we really talking about here? Angry outbursts and harsh language? Or verbal threats. There’s quite a spectrum of possibilities here, with the first being less grievous than the latter. The report does not shed light on this distinction in terms of the allegations.
So what I would say finally is that the allegations certainly cast a huge dark shadow over the underground side of Jean Vanier’s life. But what person is without a shadow? Because Jean Vanier was regarded by many to be an example of a lay saint, the disclosure that he appears to have had a more flawed human dimension to his character could be what bothers people more. We all wanted to think that he had his inner spiritual life together, and because we thought as much, we were willing to give him our admiration. And now we feel betrayed by him for having concealed this side of his nature. But he was a man who sought to do good, but who was apparently also broken in places, and he could not afford to reveal that brokenness to others.
Paul LeMay, Vancouver