Walter Hughes, Ottawa

INTRODUCTION

This is the second part of Island Catholic New’s review of the two-year Study, commissioned by L’Arche International, into the founding of L’Arche at Trosly, France. The purpose of that Study was to determine the dynamics within L’Arche that may have facilitated cases of abuse centered there. Our review is different. My aim is to understand Jean Vanier as pictured in the Study, our main source for this review. Last issue, we looked at the findings of the Study. Here we go deeper by digging into the Study’s analysis. The Study Commission released two reports. This review is based on the full report which is 855 pages long. It is a collection of independent informational and analytical studies. The Study went into personal histories, psychoanalysis, and philosophical and theological analyses to understand Vanier, his mentor, his group of friends, and the history of L’Arche.

A difficulty with any attempt to understand another person, a sinner with grievous sins, is the danger that, by understanding, one may become sympathetic. Let us not do that. Let us walk with the Study as it unveils Vanier. I would not say that it is sympathetic to Vanier, but it is more balanced than perhaps perceived.

VANIER’S PARENTS

The Study’s psychoanalyst concluded that as an adult, Vanier had commitment issues due to his parents’ parenting. Both his father, Georges, and his mother, Pauline, are seen as saintly people. Both were proposed for beatification by the Church. Still, both had their personal issues. The father was a war hero, a high-ranking Canadian diplomat, and a perfectionist. He was all ‘law, duty and the fear of hell’. The mother was a housewife, helpless and distant as a mother. While she paraded her religious ideals and concern for the poor, she could be impulsive and unempathetic. The two related to abstract codes, not to people. Neither was able to express emotion. They were not fixtures in Vanier’s life but dropped-in between engagements. They did not hug their children. Jean Vanier never learned to trust and could not develop deep ties with another person. In his most autobiographical book, Vanier hardly mentions his mother, only in her old age. In a talk he gave on his 90th birthday, he moaned that he did not have a family life as a child; his mother was ill; and they moved a lot because of their important roles in society. He broke down crying mid-speech, ‘like a vulnerable little boy!’

When he arrived at L’Eau vive, it was with limited emotional experience in life. He had joined a naval school at the age of thirteen and was trained to be a naval officer, but without any broader education. He sailed the seas and led men, but had never fallen in love, nor had he encountered ‘great temptations.’ He was spiritual, liturgical, and pious. He had decided that he wanted to be a priest. His father was Canada’s Ambassador in Paris at the time. His mother suggested that he attend l’Eau vive.

The Director at L’Eau vive was Pere Thomas Philippe, a Dominican priest who would play a dominating and dark role in Jean Vanier’s spiritual life. The Study’s psychiatric approach emphasizes that, for T. Philippe, J. Vanier ‘represented an ideal prey because of his unstructured personality, his immaturity, his difficulty in knowing how to direct his life, the extreme religiosity in which he had constantly lived, of the excellent reputation which the Dominican enjoyed with Pauline and Georges Vanier’, and finally underlines that the intellectual and sexual formation of J. Vanier rests almost exclusively on T. Philippe. In November 1950, only two months after his arrival at the school, T. Philippe invited Vanier to travel with him to Rome to witness the proclamation of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. They also visited the painting of Mater Admirabilis, mentioned in Part 1. Vanier was in awe of his spiritual director and adulated the man, seeing him as a replacement for his often-absent father. In later years, Vanier located the birthing of his spirituality to that trip to Rome.

SPIRITUALITY

Raised in the very Roman Catholic home of Georges and Pauline Vanier, Jean already had a highly developed sense of spirituality. Vanier’s mother was under spiritual guidance by a priest who followed Carmelite spirituality, first in Canada, but later in France, when her husband was ambassador. In the 19th C., J. Vanier’s grandmother was introduced to Carmelite spirituality by no less than a one-time spiritual director of the Carmelite nun, Thérèse of Lisieux, sometimes called the Little Flower, whom Pope Francis lauded earlier this year. The Little Flower wrote mystically about God and love; as did Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, two other celebrated Carmelite mystics. The Carmelite orders of monks and nuns spend their day in contemplation and prayer, and model themselves on Mary “who pondered in her heart” the word of God. Carmelite spirituality imagines a mystical union with the Devine.

Some Carmelite poetry can be highly charged with longing to know Jesus. My father had some writings of these authors on his bookshelf. He advised me not to read these books until I was an adult as parts of it may be ‘misunderstood’ by a teenage boy. More bluntly, some mystical writing may be taken as erotic. Teresa of Avila had to caution her nuns not to think of spiritual marriage with God as being the same as the sacrament of marriage. “In the covenant which I am talking about, everything is spiritual and that which is corporeal is far removed from it.”

Let us look at a couple of poetic writings of love. This stanza comes from the poem To Live of Love by the 19th C. Carmelite nun, St. Therese of Liseaux, praised by Pope Francis earlier this year. The stanza refers to Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. Each of the gospels has this story but John 12:1-8 is the fullest expression. Therese imagined herself in Mary’s place.

To live of love, ‘tis Mary’s part to share,
To bathe with tears and odorous perfume
Thy holy feet, to wipe them with my hair,
To kiss them; then still loftier lot assume,
To rise, and by Thy side to take my place,
And pour my ointments on Thy holy head.
But with no balsams I embalm Thy Face!
‘Tis love, instead!

That’s steamy and clearly speaking of intense physical love. However, we generally understand the love expressed, both in the biblical pericope and in the poem, as a chaste love. What causes the difficulty in understanding is that mysticism tends to apply an enhanced spiritual sense to ordinary objects, practices and persons. It is not always clear at what level of language a statement should be understood. Should it be taken literally or only as a pointer to something beyond the grasp of speech? While it allows the speaker to suggest possibilities, it also grants him a power to dissemble without accountability. In the following pericope, Jean Vanier is writing to a married woman who lives near L’Arche.

‘O “Brigitte”, it is this prayer that often spurts out, I love you O beloved, I love you, O “Brigitte”, I am handing myself over to you, I am giving myself to you. O come, come beloved bride, come with your tenderness, your hands so soft, your lips. O come beloved, come, give me your breasts that I may drink.’

The text burns as if ‘an exchange between delicate young lovers.’ A reader raised on Carmelite spirituality might interpreted this as chaste love. The Study Commission knew, however, the context for the letter. Brigitte shared eleven dozen letters that she received from Jean Vanier during their 32-year relationship (1987-2019). The Study group interviewed her on several occasions, confirming the sexual nature of the relationship and her appreciation of it. She had thought Vanier sincere for much of their relationship, but with the findings of the initial L’Arche study, she came to realize that Vanier had sexually abused her. And yet, she found that the relationship with Vanier had helped her at a difficult time. ‘Brigitte was grateful to J. Vanier for the alliance she experienced with him and his trust in her.’

Still, the example of hundreds of letters provides us with a window into how Vanier may have spoken to these women. His words blur distinctions between relationships. What is the meaning behind these overheated words?

JESUS AND MARY

Pere T. Philippe had created L’Eau vive as a college and student’s residence, but also as a cover for a group of mostly female Religious who was gathering around him and with whom he was having intimate relations. Pere Thomas Philippe would soon be under investigation by the Vatican for inappropriate behaviour with women that he counselled and for unorthodox doctrine. Such teaching could confuse some people who trusted him as a holy man with a special devotion to Our Lady. Pere T. Philippe was deep into Mariology, the theological study of the mother of Jesus and how she relates to Church dogma. Pere Philippe expressed strange ideas about Mary. He seemed to commune with her regularly. He would tell Vanier what Mary had plans for him specially. She shared a secret that allowed her to provide a foretaste of the hereafter. As the Study put it: ‘The key theme, to put it bluntly, is that T. Philippe asserted that Jesus and Mary had intimate sexual relations during their life on earth while waiting to do the same in their celestial life.’ To the followers of Pere Philippe, she allowed a special dispensation from the normal rules and ethics of sexual morality. They could enjoy sexual love with one another but were not to be possessive of each other; they were not to pair off permanently.

Incest is a universal taboo. I find it offensive that he should claim a vision of Mary revealing incest with her son. I expect that many do. I ask myself how did this idea come to be accepted by Philippe’s followers? First, we must recognize that the Fifties may have been the peak decade in the Twentieth Century for respecting priests and religion. It was also a time when education levels were low. Less than 60 per cent of students in America completed Grade 8. Critical thinking was not yet taught in schools. Pere Philippe’s followers saw him as gentle, and even, as a Marianist, a holy man and a conservative. His followers were older than Jean Vanier, but many were still immature in their understanding of love and sexuality, and so appreciated this ‘grace,’ as it was regularly labelled among them. As one member of the mystical sect explained,

‘We thought we were confirmed in grace. We could no longer sin in the domain of purity thanks to a special choice of the Most Holy Virgin, who had revealed the secret of her own life and of her intimacy with Our Lord to us. With the Pere and among us we were already living what we shall live in the heavenly city: carnal union will be central in the heavenly city, in place of the Cross.’

Pere Philippe was called to the Vatican in 1952 to answer some questions. This was no surprise as the rumour was that he was proselytizing ‘free sex’ instead of the crucifixion. Pere Philippe suspected that he would be away for a while and that he needed to appoint someone to take his place. Even though Vanier was only twenty-four years old, he saw him as malleable and devoted, a stooge whom he could direct to keep his group whole. This mystical sect that engaged in sexual activities among themselves was created before Vanier arrived at L’Eau vive in autumn 1950. The Vatican investigation had already begun before Vanier had been initiated into the sect. This was a ‘canonical investigation’ as the crimes were sins against Church law, including doctrine and the priest’s oaths of ordination. A member of the Study Commission and historian at the Sorbonne, Florian Michel, wrote the chapter on the private correspondence of Vanier to several women. He got at the heart of the issue with the conclusion:

‘…what we have here are relationships between adults, admittedly more or less enlightened, but consenting, which consequently does not raise any problem from a judicial point of view. … It is naturally quite a different sort of things if we consider common morality, so to speak, or theology.’

ORDINATION FOR VANIER?

Between 1950 and 1956, Jean Vanier had pieced together four years of studies from a patchwork of institutions that would credit him with sufficient clerical studies to enter studies towards a doctorate. His philosophical and theological studies would be on his mind for fifteen years, until 1965 when his doctoral thesis was published. As the Study points out, such a lengthy intellectual project shapes a person. ‘His thesis is a touchstone in his personal construction.’

In 1955, Vanier applied to be ordained as a priest in the diocese in Quebec Canada and was approved by the bishop there as a foreign candidate for the priesthood. Canon Daniel-Joseph Lallement at the Institut catholique de Paris would be his sponsor and would supervise his doctorate thesis. Canon Lallement had been ordained a priest and had devoted his life to studying, meditating upon and transmitting the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. He gave Vanier plenty of advice but was unaware that an éminence grise stood in the curtains offstage. Pere Philippe was directing Vanier on his thesis. He pulled Vanier’s project away from Lallement’s academic strengths and away from philosophy itself towards a mystical assessment of Aristotle’s ethics of happiness. Philippe did not want to lose his prize follower to traditional Catholicism and Thomism.

Vanier spent that summer of 1956 in Paris dealing with the shutdown of L’Eau vive demanded by the Dominican order after the Vatican had condemned Pere Philippe. In the autumn, he put off indefinitely any studies for ordination into the priesthood. Over the next few years, Vanier worked on his thesis, tussling with his adviser, who sought a paper based more on reason than on will. Because of his association with the now-notorious Pere Philippe and with the school at L’Eau vive, Vanier’s application for ordination was postponed in July 1958. Pope John XXIII spoke to Jean personally, telling him that he would first need to spend a few years at a classical seminary to ensure that he adhered to orthodox doctrine and practices. However, Jean refused to spend even a year at seminary. Disappointed, Jean focused on his thesis. He defended it in 1962. Surprisingly, he squeaked by, a ‘strange conclusion’ judged the Study, ‘in that it totally strays from the object itself (Aristotle’s ethics) and from the philosophical method itself.’ The Study provided some evidence that political considerations may have been at play. Vanier’s father was now the Governor-General of Canada. Vanier returned to Toronto in 1963 to teach for a semester in the first quarter of 1964. Pere. Philippe soon invited him back to France for a new project, that would evolve into L’Arche.

WHO WERE THE MYSTICAL SECT?

The Study references the mystical sect, also called the initiates, or ‘les touts-petits’ (‘the toddlers’). They were the women with whom Pere Philippe had mystical-sexual relationships and who remained faithful even after the Vatican began its investigation into the priest. The Study call this the ‘sectarian group’ as they were all members of a sect within the Catholic church who followed that set of beliefs for which the Vatican had condemned Pere Philippe. When L’Eau vive was closed in 1956, this group was scattered. Four people remained in contact in the interim over the next few years: T. Philippe, Jean Vanier, and two women: Jacqueline d’Halluin and Anne de Rosanbo. In 1964, when L’Arche was beginning, this core group reached out to their former colleagues at L’Eau vive, and several of these rejoined them to get the project going. We know the two men; it is worth knowing Jacqueline and Anne.

Anne de Rosanbo was seven years older than J. Vanier. She came from a monied, industrial family descendent from gentry. She entered a convent at the age of 22 and took the name, Anne of the Virgin. Pere T. Philippe was the confessor and spiritual director at her convent. Anne left the religious life at the end of her temporary vows and moved next door to l’Eau vive. One source said that Anne was having relations with Pere Philippe before July 1947. Soon, Anne had an abortion, with the Dominican priest admitting his paternity. When the abortion of her baby became known at the Vatican, Anne was pushed out of L’Eau vive. Her family took her in, and she moved between various family homes. Having funds of her own, she bought a house about a ten-minute walk from L’Arche in Trosly and spent the summers there. She was able to join Vanier for lengthy holidays when he was travelling. The Study says that she contributed financially to the establishment of L’Arche and was a major benefactor at her death. She used affectionate terms for Vanier in her letters.

Jacqueline d’Halluin was two years older than Jean Vanier. Born in 1926, Jacqueline was a descendant of a rich industrialist family of an aristocratic line with large estates. Her parents were mostly absent during her early childhood. She was schooled at home. In her own words, she did not grow in “a state of confidence.” Religion filled her with fear. She retreated into nature and to poetry. When older, she studied nursing and then fine arts. At 18, she wrote poetry, with great sensitivity and skill, and a deep concern for the poor and misshapen. Around the age of twenty, she had a religious experience, sensing the presence of Jesus. She came to L’Eau vive in 1949, a year before Vanier. She became Pere Philippe’s secretary and lover. She said that Pere Philippe made her “feel good.” She loved to hear him talk. Although she did not understand his manner of speaking, she thought that she understood him in her own terms.

In June 1952, a few weeks after the forced departure of Pere Philippe to the Vatican, Jacqueline seduced Vanier during a prayer session. This event initiated him into the mystical-sexual sect. The Study wonders whether Jacqueline acted on spiritual impulse, on sexual impulse, or on instructions of Pere Philippe. The Study had no evidence to assess this apart from the fact that, only the month before, the priest had designated Vanier to act as his lieutenant at L’Eau vive, including to act as ‘protector’ of the sect. In that context, Philippe may have asked Jacqueline’s help in fully educating Vanier about the sect. Jacqueline was at Vanier’s side at the founding of L’Arche, and even suggested the name. Many would say that she loved him deeply, with heart, mind and body. The tenderness between them was obvious. He sent her flowers. She sent him a lock of her hair. She might advise him congenially from time to time.

These two women appeared to many as pious and devout Catholics. They attended many Catholic services over and above mass. They confessed themselves regularly and participated in religious retreats. With Vanier, they made pilgrimages to places where Mary is said to have appeared, such as Lourdes and Fatima. Their relationships with Jean Vanier lasted until the end of their lives.

The Study explained Vanier’s inability to commit and lack of empathy due to his absent and distant parents. These female members of the mystic sect also felt the absence of their parent during childhood. Is that why they felt unable to establish an exclusive relationship with one other? Each one was deeply religious and sought to fill that absence by communion with God. However, prayer and contemplation were insufficient. They required physical touching and expressions of love to feel that communion.

These core members of the mystical sect, they found the love they desperately needed within the group. It gave them strength and purpose. However, to grow closer together, they needed to look outside themselves. Soon they would be able to tighten their circle by sharing their love with others. Vanier would soon meet two men who changed his life forever. Two intellectually disabled men would give purpose to Vanier’s life and to teach him to share with the weak and the needy who had no one to love them. This led to the founding of L’Arche.

Part III in September