Main Feature
Jean Vanier, Investigative Reflection
Walter Hughes, Ottawa
Volume 34 Issue 4, 5 & 6 | Posted: July 4, 2020
PART ONE
PART ONE
In the Spring issue of Island Catholic News, both the editor, Patrick Jamieson, and a board member, Paul Lemay, reflected on the revelations in a report about Jean Vanier’s sexual activity. I did some research to better understand that report, and maybe this will help ICN readers .
Jean Vanier was of course the founder of L’Arche, an international movement with a very noble purpose. Newspapers across the world have reported that, according to a report by L’Arche International, Jean Vanier had sexually abused six women over a period of several decades. The L’Arche report is more nuanced than that. Based upon the evidence provided within the public report, I believe that the report suggests more than it actually proves. There are some clear assertions, but other statements are more innuendo.
Amid allegations against two priest brothers accused of long-term sexual abuse of women, six women accused Jean Vanier of sexual abuse. No one has ever come forward to publicly accuse Vanier of abusing them, as far as I have been able to determine. Vanier was never charged nor found guilty of sexually abusing anyone.
Jean Vanier admits to having had sex with some women. They were not married to him. Jean never married, so was a single man all his adult life and had never taken a vow of permanent chastity. Jean saved letters from women who wrote to him about love and sex. None of the women who wrote these letters accused him of sexual abuse.
One of the women who accused him thought that she had consented to their sexual activity. Jean Vanier also thought that she had consented. How she came to change her mind is unclear.
The claims against Jean Vanier came subsequent to investigations against the two priests. Women came forward to accuse the priests. One of the two priests had lived with Jean in 1950-1952 and in 1963-1970. The claims of abuse against that priest are for the period 1970-1991.
The claims against Vanier arose out of investigations into French priests generally, that resulted out of a major scandal in the Catholic Church in France. This report begins with Father Thomas Philippe, friend of Jean Vanier, but much more than that.
Father Thomas Philippe
Philippe is the family name. He was born Jean Marie Joseph and was given the name Thomas when he entered the novitiate. Some reports call him Father Thomas, others Father Philippe. I will call him Father Thomas, because he has a brother who is also a priest. Father Thomas (b. 1905) was a colleague and friend of Jean Vanier from the early Fifties. Jean had first met him in 1947 through his own father, a Canadian diplomat. In 1950, Jean Vanier went to study with Father Thomas. They lived together in a community, called ‘L’Eau Vive,’ with two developmentally challenged other men and some 'women staff'. This was the fore-runner of L’Arche.
Father Thomas was a priest of the Dominican order. The Dominicans are strongly associated with mysticism, while other orders may be uncomfortable with this form of knowledge of G-d. Some famous Dominican mystics include Saint Albertus Magnus, Meister Eckhart, and Catherine of Sienna. The mystic has an enhanced sense of Divine Presence and of the unity of all being.
Throughout Christian history, mystics have used terms drawn from human love, including sexual love, to express union with G-d. Given the history of attitudes towards sex in Christianity, such images do not come so easily to many of us. Such language can easily be misunderstood and found threatening. Both Father Thomas and Jean Vanier were philosophers and theologians. Mystical language came to them as natural as their mother tongue.
The Holy Office in Rome, now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, raised questions about Father Thomas. He was called to Rome in the period 1952-1956 to defend himself. During this period, Jean Vanier was appointed interim temporary director of L’Eau Vive.
We know next to nothing about this earlier investigation by the Holy Office in the Vatican. We know nothing of the charges, nothing of the evidence and nothing of the justification of the judgment. All the documentation is still locked up in the archives. We know only that Father Thomas was ‘deposed’ for life, i.e. deprived ‘of his capacity to carry out any public or private ministry: celebration of the sacraments, spiritual direction, preaching, etc.’
Father Thomas was then sent to the Netherlands where he received psychiatric treatment, an unusual punishment if his errors were strictly theological. L’Eau Vive was shut down. Jean Vanier was spoken to and sent away. Little of this came out in public.
This investigation by the Congregation responsible for guarding true doctrine might be given a political interpretation in the absence of any public information. Perhaps Father Thomas was the victim of a struggle between traditionalists and reformers in Catholic theology. The Fifties was a dark time for the Church’s treatment of its younger theologians.
The Dominican, Father Chenu, was a major 20th Century Catholic theologian. He taught fellow Dominicans Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx and Thomas Philippe.
However, the Vatican reprimanded him for his book Une école de théologie and placed it on the “Index of Forbidden Books” for its ideas about the role of historical studies in theology. He was later exonerated, and his book taken off the Index. The ideas in the book heavily influenced the Second Vatican Council.
Father Chenu went from Zero to Hero in a few short years. Similarly, Yves Congar was seen as controversial and his books, forbidden. He too became a major influence on the Council; some suggest the strongest influence. I do not know whether it was necessary to have your work challenged by the Office to be taken seriously, but it was certainly not the death knell for your career.
This punishment meted on Father Thomas was supposed to be for life, but his priestly powers were re-instated over time either beginning in or fully by 1963. (My source was unclear.) That year, he returned to France and reconnected with Jean Vanier. In 1964 the two men founded L’Arche.
Reporting of Sexual Abuse in France
There is not enough space to report the history of the sexual abuse by priests in the past few decades, or to report the response of the Catholic Church, often accused of cover-up. Let me note a few instances in a chain of events which lead to a second investigation of Father Thomas Philippe.
It has been the law in France since 1994 that certain professions must report instances of sexual abuse of minors of which they are aware. Since the turn of the millennium, many informers have stepped forward to report sexual indiscretions of French Catholic leaders.
The Bishop of Bayeux in Normandy was given a three-month suspended sentence in 2001 for failing to report a parish pastor in his diocese to authorities. This was the first criminal conviction of a French bishop since 1841.
In 2017, the Archbishop of Lyon was similarly charged with failure to report sex abuse, in this case, allegedly committed by a priest in the 1990s against boy scouts. In 2018, the French bishops established an Independent Commission of Inquiry into Sexual Abuse within the Church. French religious organizations are now reviewing past allegations and establishing inquiries.
In 2019, the Archbishop was convicted, although his conviction was overturned on appeal in January 2020. The Independent Commission of Inquiry into Sexual Abuse within the Church has a mandate to look at clerical sexual abuse dating back as far as 1950, which permitted it to investigate Father Thomas Philippe.
The Second Inquiry
A second inquiry into Father Thomas arose in 2014, twenty-one years after his death. This inquiry was different from the one by the Holy Office in 1956, as it was held in France, clearly dealt with sexual abuse, was publicly reported, and the victim was a mature adult woman.
Father Thomas left L’Arche in 1971 and moved nearby to what was called The Farm. Two women came forward to allege sexual abuse from the early Seventies, including abuse of a nun over a period of twenty years. The alleged crimes were not simply misunderstood physical signs of affection. Allegations described fellatio, although not penetration.
The Dominicans found the sexual allegations appalling, perhaps as much for his breaking his priestly vows as for any abuse of women. An investigation was instigated by Monsignor d’Ornellas, Archbishop of Rennes, and conducted by a Dominican priest, Father Marcovitz. Father Marcovitz pieced together documents hidden in archives in Rome, at the provincial house of the Dominicans, and in the diocese.
The goal of the investigation into Father Thomas was to measure the extent of the Province's responsibility in the affair and to learn lessons so that this would never happen again.
The investigators realized that there had been a failure in proper oversight of Father Thomas, but they also thought that there was an error in the theology of Father Thomas. They dug into what files they could of the earlier investigation, these being files kept in France by the Dominican Order itself.
In the allegations against Father Thomas, as summarized in the Vanier report, it was said that he used mystical images to seduce his female victims. In these ‘mystical’ images, Jesus and Mary are understood as having been sexually active with each other.
By having sex with Thomas, his female victims would be re-enacting the sexual relationship between Jesus and ‘Mary’. One observer has interpreted this image as carnal knowledge between Jesus and his mother. However, the name 'Mary' may refer not to his mother but to another Mary; there are many women called ‘Mary’ in the gospels. On the other hand, the Report does quote a Fifties victim as saying that the priest said that the ‘Lord and … the Blessed Virgin’ would approve of sex between Father and his victim. While this quote does not itself imply a conjugal relationship between mother and son, it gives that impression when laid beside other quoted witness remarks.
Set aside the incestuous image for a moment as it is not at all clear in the Report that this is how the investigators have interpreted the ‘Mary’ in the allegations against Father Thomas. Another possible ‘Mary’ is Mary Magdalene, who some recent films and books have portrayed as both an important disciple and a potential romantic partner. Pope Gregory the Great may have been the first to link Mary Magdalene with sex when he identified her as a penitent prostitute in a homily on Sept. 14, 1591. Modern biblical scholars consider identification as that an error due to the conflation of several women in the New Testament.
The linkage of Mary Magdalene to prostitution is interpreted by some to belittle the key importance of this woman to Christianity and to undercut the role of all women in the Roman Catholic Church. Modern biblical analysis now considers Mary Magdalene as the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’ for her role in all four gospels as the first disciple to see the Lord after his resurrection and to bring the gospel news to the others. This is certainly an upgraded position and demonstrates how the Church can revisit its understandings.
Reinterpreting Bible stories is not only in the purview of Popes, priests and dry academics. There is a story of Jesus settling down with Mary, which may be pertinent to the inquiry into Father Thomas. In a historical novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ, Satan tempted Jesus on the cross with an image of his marrying Mary Magdalene and raising a family, rather than dying on the cross to save humanity from sin.
The writing of this book and its publication in the early 1950s is contemporaneous with the first inquiry into Father Thomas, that by the Holy Office in Rome. This demonstrates that at the time others were rethinking Jesus’ sexuality and the meaning of sex. The storyline of ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ was considered blasphemous by the Greek Orthodox Church in Athens which tried to have the book banned in Greece, stating:
This novel, which is derived from the inspiration of the theories of Freud and historical materialism, perverts and hurts the Gospel discernment and the God-man figure of our Lord Jesus Christ in a way coarse, vulgar, and blasphemous.
Kazantzakis’ book was likely no more popular at the Holy Office than it was in the Orthodox Church. It may well be that the inquiry into Father Thomas was tainted by the public controversy when this book was published. We cannot know. The records of inquiry are locked in Rome. The general public has no access to any of the documents by which Father Thomas was censured. We do not know how Father Thomas understood Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene, or whether he thought that sexual relations between them would have been immoral or a gift from God.
Perhaps Father Thomas was seeking to create a more positive understanding of Mary Magdalene and/or of sexuality, and his private writings were misinterpreted, either accidentally or willfully. It can be difficult to argue Biblical interpretation in public and much easier to argue ad hominem. Fortunately, there was a second investigation into Father Thomas. Being public, we know much more about Father Thomas and of what he was accused.
Conclusion of the Investigation into Father Thomas Philippe
Monsignor d’Ornellas, the Archbishop of Rennes, summed up the finding of the enquiry, emphasizing that the priest had a psychological and spiritual hold over the women, a theme picked up in the L’Arche report on Jean Vanier:
This is what emerges from these consistent and frank testimonies: Père Thomas Philippe was the perpetrator of abusive sexual behaviour towards adult women, he explained that through these means he sought to uncover and communicate a mystical experience; there is however a serious contradiction between these acts and the religious vows which he had taken and the discipline and morals taught by the Church; these acts attest to the fact that through sexual relations with adult women, Father Philippe … had a psychological and spiritual hold over these women who he asked to remain silent as, according to him, these acts corresponded to “special graces” that nobody could understand. No matter how much good Père Thomas has done, for which many are grateful, these acts and their justification are proof of a distorted conscience that claimed many known, and no doubt unknown, victims for whom justice must be done.
Father Marie-Dominique Philippe
Marie-Dominique Philippe was brother to Father Thomas and also a Dominican priest, philosopher and theologian. During the investigation of Father Thomas, similar allegations to his were made against this brother. Father Marie-Dominique had established a fraternal religious order, called the Community of St. John. Two branches of nuns were also established. In 1989, a sixteen-year-old female, Sophie Ducrey, joined one of the female orders. She was appointed one of the brothers of St. John as a ‘spiritual father’ to guide her in her journey. Nothing untoward happened until she turned eighteen. Then he masturbated and relieved himself on her. This practice continued for a decade.
He justified the practice on the basis of a text from Father Marie-Dominique Philippe, the founder of the Community of St. John. In 2019, Ducrey’s story was published in a book entitled “Stifled: A Story of Spiritual and Sexual Abuse.” She added that she was saved by another brother in the Order, who turned her thinking around so that she understood how this was wrong.
Another ex-nun, Michèle-France Pesneau, gave witness to similar abuse from Father Marie-Dominique Philippe himself. Not only that, she described how he passed her on to his brother to provide him with similar sexual service. She was under the influence of either brother over several years, until his death in 1993 for Father Thomas Philippe, and until 1998 for Father Marie-Dominique Philippe. The latter died in 2006.
Michèle-France participated in a 2019 TV documentary called “Abused nuns, the other scandal of the Church.” Until this time, she did not believe that she had been raped. She did realize, however, that she had been abused and deceived. But only in her collaboration on the film did she realize that she had been raped psychologically, spiritually and physically. She believes that she was not an isolated victim, that Father Marie-Dominique had many victims, and that the abuse was systematic.
The Source of the Problem
The Report says that Father Thomas had a twisted, unorthodox theology, and that this was the source of the problem. In an interview on 25 Feb 2020 with KTOTV, Brother Michel Malèvre, assistant to the Provincial Prior of the Dominican Order in France, said that there still was much to be done to understand Father Thomas. What was his vision? What was the source of his ideas? Was it something passed down in the family from his uncle (also a priest); was it a personal revelation: or was it a perversion of some teaching of Thomas Aquinas, a 13th C. Dominican friar and immensely influential philosopher?
The Dominicans needed to unravel the source of the image so that they could prevent this error from being passed on. A second explanation given was that raised above by Msgr. d’Ornellas, that these women were under the psychological and spiritual hold of Father Thomas and Father Marie-Dominique. Both explanations find that the fault lies within the individuals involved. However, the problem may not have been their confused theology. It may not have been the assertiveness of the priests and the meekness of the women.
The source of the problem may have been the social deference shown to priests and the organizational structure of their religious communities. Father Marie-Dominique Philippe was the founder of the religious Community of St. John. At the time of his death, that community was composed of an order of brothers and two orders of nuns – a contemplative order and an ‘Apostolic’ order, i.e. an order of nuns working outside the convent, for example in hospitals and schools.
The contemplative order remains in the cloister, following a life of prayer, study, and physical labour. Both the brothers and the sisters take vows of poverty and obedience to the Order and are dependent on the order for their livelihood.
At the top of the pyramid, to whom obedience was owed, was Father Marie-Dominique Philippe. According to the witness of Ms Pesneau, the head of the religious community was able to call upon a steady stream of religious sisters for his sexual gratification. He did not need an overbearing personality to bend his weak victims to his will; he had a structure which he himself had built. This structure did not have easy safe exits for his victims.
This all came out in the open in 2013 when the prior of the Community of Saint John, Father Joachim, revealed that he was aware of several credible testimonies by witnesses who had been sexually abused by Father Marie-Dominique, by a few brothers of the Order, and/or by Father Thomas.
Since then, the Order has been torn down and rebuilt under the oversight of emeritus bishop of Viviers, Mgr Blondel. Outside lay and religious counselors have been brought in to support personal reflection of the men and women in the community. Complaint procedures may have been established. The novitiate has been extended in length so that those entering the community are both more mature and better advised before undertaking their lifelong commitment.
The changes led to a schism within the community. The splinter group, which wanted to continue as things were, was criticized by Pope Francis. In February 2019, a monthly supplement to the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, wrote about the abuse of women religious in the Church. The editor, Lucetta Scaraffia, cited the Pope’s personal analysis that the sexual abuse arose out of unchecked clerical power in the Church. In an interview at the time, Pope Francis praised his predecessor, Pope Benedict, for having dissolved the order of nuns attached to the Community of St. John as one of his early acts upon becoming Pontiff.
Summary
Little of this story on the two brothers, Fathers Thomas and Marie-Dominique Philippe, shows up in the L’Arche Report on Jean Vanier. This background which has been reported in the media, in bits and drabs over the years, is here collected to provide a more fulsome context of the report on Vanier. The brothers died years before they could be criminally charged. There was no trial, so no cross-examination and no public access to documentation, beyond what the Dominicans chose to release.
In 1994, the state had recognized that it had a role in ensuring the safety of its vulnerable citizens, even those who had taken religious vows.
The change in French law had stirred the French religious orders and the diocesan leadership to dig into allegations of sexual abuse, both recent and dating back seventy years.
Church leaders such Monsignor d’Ornellas and Father Joachim had brought these allegations into the open and set up investigative units to improve safety protocols and to allow women who saw themselves as victims to give voice to their complaint. The Dominican order and the Catholic Church in France are seized with the question 'What must we do to protect women?’
End of Part One
Walter Hughes, Maritimer, married, father, retired public servant, worked in Canada, Europe, Asia, United States and Africa. He is a member of St. Joseph’s Parish, Ottawa, and one-time parish council member. Formal Studies: Economics, philosophy, theology & community development.
Part Two, September ICN
Walter Hughes, Ottawa