CHAPTER XXI
THE VOWS, AN IDEAL AND A SAFEGUARD
THE VOWS, AN IDEAL AND A SAFEGUARD
"We have been making vows ever since the second or third year after our foundation".
The practice of making vows was not incorporated intothe Constitutions of the Congregation of the Mission. Vincent thought it would be inappropriate to include it in the Common Rules since no other community did so. [1] We have already noted that private vows had been taken in the community, on a voluntary basis, from the second, third or fourth year after the foundation of the Congregation, i.e. from 1627 or 1628 [2] onwards. These were the traditional vows of poverty, chastity and obedience common to all religious communities, together with a fourth vow of stability, so that missionaries would devote their whole lives to working for the salvation of poor country people. Vincent has explained the reasons why these first missionaries made this decision. Firstly it was "the desire to embrace the most perfect state possible without becoming a religious", (a desire no doubt inspired by Vincent himself), and secondly, "to become more closely united to Our Lord and to his Church; the Superior of the Company to its members and the members to its head. [3] The practice of making vows only came about after a long process similar to that which preceded the development of the Rules. In some ways it was more difficult and more controversial to legislate for the vows. As happened with the Rules, the process developed over three stages; 1633 1642, 1642 1653 and 1653 1660.
Vincent spoke about the way the vows had developed when he told the Company about the pontifical brief approving them. The summary he wrote in a letter to Fr. Edmund Jolly gives us further guidance on this point.
"We have presented the Holy Father's brief to the family here and it is directed to the priests as well as to the lay brothers, giving them to understand how from the very beginning of the Company, God granted it the desire of being in the most perfect state possible short of becoming a religious order and it was for this reason that we took vows; to unite ourselves more closely to Our Lord and to the Church; the Superior of the Company to its members, and the members to its head; this was already being done in the second or third year after the community was founded. These vows of poverty etc. were simple vows and we renewed them after two or three years. We finally made a rule which was approved by the Archbishop of Paris and after that time we all made our vows together, but no sooner had we started to do this than some of the community began to complain and these complaints were noised abroad.
We were obliged to summon the leading doctors of theology in Paris to ask them if we had acted rightly. They agreed that we had. So we called an assembly here of the main Superiors and some former Superiors in the Company and among other matters we dealt with this question. They agreed with the theologians that we should continue the practice, in spite of difficulties both within and outside the company. But the evil spirit tries to thwart the works of God and only gives up after battling to the bitter end so these difficulties continued and even increased. This meant we had to consult these doctors again to see if they were of the same opinion in spite of the difficulties that had arisen. They kept to their original decision and put this in writing for us in a statement signed by three of the most distinguished Jesuits. Yet all this didn't satisfy people. We called a second assembly of the principal Superiors of the Company and they agreed, as they had done on the first occasion, that we should continue in this way. But ever since then there has been disagreement. We finally had recourse to the oracle of God's will, who eventually gave us the brief which confirms our manner of taking vows." [4]
During the period 1633 1642 there was no constitutional ruling on the taking of vows. Each individual was free to make vows or not after he had prayed about it and sought advice. [5] The bull "Salvatori nostri" makes no mention of any vows at all when giving approbation to the Congregation. In spite of this, the practice continued; in 1639 most of the missionaries had taken the four vows and they even considered introducing an extra vow of obedience to the bishops in the excercise of works proper to the Congregation." [6] But Vincent was determined to incorporate the taking of vows into the constitutional framework of the Company. It was one of those areas where Vincent was most adamant even though he met with all kinds of opposition from within and outside the community. The battle continued right to the end of his life but never for a moment would he yield to pressure, even though this came from people who were very dear to him. There can be no doubt that this attitude was rooted in his unshakable conviction that this was God's will in the matter. As we know, in such cases Vincent was never prepared to compromise.
"I am perplexed and full of doubts".
Vincent was not happy with the idea of vows being optional as was the custom up to 1639, so he began to seek approval for the vows from the Holy See. [7] It is worth mentioning that this was the year that the first missionaries who had entered the Congregation under the new system would complete their internal seminary. This must have been the catalyst that moved Vincent to start making arrangements. Early that year, he sent to Rome a missionary who was new to the Congregation, though he was not too young in age. This man was Fr. Louis Lebreton and he was given the task of bringing before the Curia the question of approval for the vows and other matters that were of interest to the community. [8] He expected to achieve his first objective without much delay but it wasn't as simple as that.
There were numerous objections from Rome but the greatest obstacle was that it was considered inappropriate for a congregation of secular priests to take vows. Vincent confessed himself bewildered in face of these never ending objections and so tried various solutions which mark several changes in his thinking. His first plan was to abandon the idea of solemn vows and petition, instead, for four simple ones (Nov. '39). Then he began to think in terms of one single vow of stability with excommunication for those who did not observe poverty and obedience (Feb. '40). Then he suggested three simple vows on completion of the internal seminary, followed by a solemn vow of stability some years later (August, '40). This was changed to a proposal to have a single vow of stability (Oct. '40) then a simple vow of stability after two years novitiate, to be followed by a solemn vow eight or ten years later, and then a sworn oath binding under pain of excommunication instead of the other three vows (Nov. '40). At one point it seemed the Congregation was prepared to declare itself a religious order if that was the only way they could have vows and they even petitioned to make religious vows. [9]
"We made a rule".
The impossible task of overcoming all the difficulties put forward by Rome made Vincent try another tack. As we know, the bull, "Salvatori nostri", authorised the Archbishop of Paris to approve all kinds of statutes and ordinances (ordinationes) relative to the life style and government of the Congregation. Applying this pontifical concession to the letter, Vincent drew up an ordinance (ordinatio) by which all future members of the Congregation would, at the end of their second year in the seminary, pronounce simple vows of poverty, chastity, obedience and stability in working for the salvation of poor country people. These vows were to be pronounced during Mass, in the presence of the Superior but not addressed to him, and dispensation from these vows could only be granted by the Sovereign Pontiff or the Superior General. In this way the Congregation would not constitute a religious order and its members would still belong to the secular clergy. This ordinance was not compulsory for those who were already members of the Company but the Superior could allow these to make vows, too, if they wished. Vincent respected the liberty and the rights of the individual. [10] The ordinance was followed by the formula for the vows and an explanation of the vow of poverty. [11]
The ordinance had to be approved by the Archbishop of Paris in order to be valid and Vincent petitioned for this. The Archbishop found not a few difficulties in this original idea put forward by Vincent, and before giving his approval he consulted the doctors of his Council. After considering the proposal for three years he finally gave his approval which dated from 19th Oct. 1641. [12] A few months later, on 24th Feb. 1642, the feast of St. Matthias, Vincent and the vast majority of his companions either made their vows or renewed them. [13]
The matter was still not completely settled. From within and from outside the Community came protests from those who questioned the validity of the ordinance and its approbation. To pacify these dissenters Vincent held a consultation with the leading doctors of theology in Paris, and their opinion seemed to be favourable. Not content with this, he had the ordinance ratified by the 1642 assembly. [14] He had won this first battle but he was still a long way from winning the war.
"They immediately started to complain".
Indeed, during the second period we mentioned, (1642 1653) the debate about the vows became so acrimonious that it provoked the most serious crisis the young community had ever known.
The nub of the matter was the question of whether vows would make the Congregation into a religious order, something contrary to its original secular character. Those who opposed the vows declared it did and Vincent assured them this was not so. He had foreseen the danger and thought he had averted it by repeating, almost word for word, in the ordinance's final clause, the Archbishop's decree of approbation, "notwithstanding the making of these said vows, the Congregation will not be deemed a religious order and therefore it will not cease to be part of the secular clergy".
For many canon lawyers at that time it seemed like squaring the circle but Vincent was convinced of the validity of his formula.
"God's providence has finally inspired the company to embrace a state of life where we have the happiness of being religious in the sense that we take simple vows but we remain part of the secular clergy. We are as much under obedience to the bishop as are the humblest priests in their diocese in all matters concerning our works".... "We are not a religious order and we maintain that although we take simple vows we do not claim to be religious but remain part of the clergy. [15]
After the Archbishop's approval of the ordinance and its ratification by the assembly of '42, the official position was that opinion was favourable to the vows. In spite of this there continued to be criticism and, in fact, this increased. In no other matter did Vincent de Paul experience so much opposition from within the congregation. Neither his authority as Superior General nor his prestigious position as Founder was sufficient to disarm his critics. Vincent faced this situation with unrelenting tenacity and we see the level of his patience, firmness and his negotiating skills. In 1647 the conflict was brought out into the open. When it was time to renew the vows, and it was customary to do this during a retreat, a small group of missionaries led by a priest and a cleric, refused to renew their vows, stating that these had no validity. Vincent launched a counter attack during a brief and fervent address.
"I gave them a short talk on two points; the first was on the reasons we have for renewing them (the vows) since God wishes to give us the grace attached to making vows, and the second point was on the means we have of doing this. On this second point I mentioned two things; first, I begged those who didn't feel able to persevere to leave, and secondly, I said that a sign that someone has this grace is that he is determined never to speak against this holy action but to defend it on every occasion against those who attack it, since it must happen that these vows will be contested by people in the community and outside of it". [16]
Vincent's eloquence won them over. Even the ringleader of the small rebellion came and humbly begged permission to renew his vows. He brought along "a pile of things he had laid by in private" and Vincent, with his usual combination of severity and gentleness, allowed him to keep his bits and pieces. [17]
However, Vincent had no illusions that the problem was solved. Opposition to the vows intensified and he had to find a radical solution. Once again he had recourse to his friends, the doctors of theology in Paris. The penitentiary Jacques Charton, Duval the younger, Pereyret, Cornet and Coqueret again pronounced in his favour. He took further steps to have the vows approved by the Holy See through the efforts of Frs. Portail, Dehorgny and Alméras, but it wasn't an easy task. The Francophile Pope, Urban VIII was succeeded in 1644 by Innocent X whose portrait was painted by Velázquez. This pontiff was more inclined to favour the Spanish and he had little regard for the religious state of life. Vincent waited patiently for better times. He was so convinced of the rightness of his cause that he refused to back down and this conviction inspired him with optimism and confidence. [18]
"We held a second assembly".
Approval from Rome seemed to be a long time coming. While Vincent never gave up hope that approval would eventually be given, he decided on a quicker course of action; he would bring the matter before another assembly of the Congregation and, as we have previously mentioned, this was convoked for July, 1651. As in the 1642 assembly, the main business concerned the vows. This time it was the main topic of debate. We need to follow the proceedings in some detail so as to understand Vincent's system of government.
Four possible options
Scarcely had the assembly begun, on the morning of July 1st, when the problem was raised with great frankness and four possible solutions were suggested: 1) that they continue to take vows in the manner agreed on at the previous assembly; 2) that they scrap them; 3) that they omit the more difficult points like dispensations being reserved to the Pope and the Superior General, and 4) that they find another way of retaining the vows.
It is not easy to follow the course of the debate in detail because all four solutions are often combined in the propositions put forward by the assembly delegates and because Fr. Luc's diary, which is our source of information, contains phrases which are not very clear because his notes were brief and fragmentary. For this reason there have been different interpretations of what happened. The explanation we are about to offer comes after long and prayerful analysis of the texts. [19]
One thing that is absolutely clear is that the delegates enjoyed complete freedom of speech throughout the assembly. As he had done in 1642, Vincent came before his sons as an equal, without trying to impose his opinion which was well known right from the start. During the evening session of the first day he outlined the arguments in favour of each of the solutions mentioned in the opening address.
He gave the following reasons for retaining the vows:
"Fr. Condren disagrees with St. Thomas and it is his opinion that Our Lord made vows; taking vows is a very ancient and holy practice in the Church and even in the Synagogue; vows are a very pleasing holocaust to God who is offered both the tree and its fruits; actions performed in virtue of the vow are more meritorious and individuals who, left to themselves are as unstable as water, are strengthened in their good intentions; the Company will be more perfect and its subjects will be more available for distant or difficult missions".
Then he gave the reasons for discontinuing the vows:
"Quite a few congregations such as the Oratory in Rome or St. Nicolas and Saint Sulpice in France, flourish and do good works even though their members do not take vows. Many members of the Company are strongly opposed to taking vows. There is more freedom without vows, and more merit. Without vows we are more like the clergy to whose ranks we belong. Ecclesiastics will have more confidence in us and feel more at ease. The bishops will have no reason to be suspicious. All our difficulties will vanish.
As for the proposal to omit those aspects of the vows that cause most difficulty; such as dispensation being reserved to the Pope and the Superior General, the only reason advanced for this is that the bishops would then retain their authority over the missionaries.
The fourth solution that we find some other way of retaining the vows, really means that we should ask the Holy See to approve them. This course of action is based on the following reasoning: there is some doubt about the validity of our present vows even though the Archbishop of Paris believes he had the authority to approve them and he is supported in this by his Council and some of the theologians, although other theologians disagree. If we were to send to Rome a missionary who could devote all his time exclusively to this project then we would be successful, because everything can be settled in Rome, given time and patience. Our present difficulties will eventually disappear because our decision was only taken after lengthy consideration and much prayer".
On the following day, Sunday, 2nd July, there was a brief summary of what had been said the previous day and then the debate reopened.
The second and third days were devoted to studying the first two options; the preservation or the discontinuance of the vows. Straightaway three different viewpoints emerged. Frs. Grimal, Thibault, Gilles, Becu and Le Gros declared themselves in favour of keeping the vows as they were; Frs. Dehorgny, Alméras, Lambert and Cuissot were against the principle of making vows, and a compromise solution with some minor changes was proposed by Blatiron, Portail and Du Chesne.
The strongest argument for retaining the vows was put forward by Fr. Gilles. Among other things, he said,
"The Company cannot exist without vows. So everyone should be obliged to take vows at the end of the two years of seminary. However, we should not pressurise older members into making vows as this might lead them to criticise the practice. Neither should there be any recriminations against those who choose not to make vows."
The strongest case against making vows was put forward, strangely enough, by one of Vincent's most faithful friends, Fr. Alméras. His juridical training led him to reject them. As they stand the vows are invalid, he argued, and they were not acceptable to Popes Urban VIII and Innocent X. At this point, Vincent interrupted him to say he had instructed Fr. Lebreton to ask for religious vows, not vows as they were then practised by the Company. Fr. Alméras continued his speech. The vows are invalid because the powers delegated to the Archbishop of Paris in the bull "Salvatori nostri" were of a very general nature and did not cover such specific areas as the vows, which required special authorisation. Moreover, he doubted very much whether they should be making vows, since the practice caused so many difficulties within the community and outside of it; they were an obstacle for new members of the community and, finally, if they took vows they would be religious.
He then gave the counter arguments. It would be said that theirs was an arduous ministry. He would answer that people didn't work any less hard if they didn't take vows or that those who did take vows didn't necessarily work harder; the Capuchins, for example, can't find anybody willing to go to Picardy. The Superior's decision would be accepted with regard to mission as much as in other matters, and his firmness would serve just as well as compliance with a vow. Anything else would show a want of confidence in God. It might also be argued that discontinuing the vows would involve change. But change is sometimes a good thing as M. Vincent has shown by reforming the liturgy. Finally, it has been said that taking vows is the more perfect course of action. It is also more perfect to embrace the religious state and yet Rome puts so many obstacles in the way of those who wish to do this.
The third position was defended by Blatiron and Du Chesne. The main point that thay made was that vows should be optional. Blatiron favoured the Jesuit system where some members took vows and other didn't. His reason for wanting vows to be optional was that he had been Superior at Genoa and knew from experience that there was great opposition in Italy, both to the custom of taking vows and to the religious state itself. Du Chesne was in favour of complete freedom in this matter for then there would be no need to petition Rome.
The third day closed with a brief address given by Vincent who gave a spiritual dimension to all the points discussed.
"We must pray earnestly to know what is God's will for the Company and how we can put an end to whatever causes divisions in it. Let us continue to study this question until we get a greater consensus of opinion".
"Most of us are in favour of making vows"
On the fourth day the dabate entered a new phase. Once again Vincent opened the proceedings to clarify some points concerning the real nature of the problem, which turned on the question as to whether or not the Company would become a religious order if its members took vows. Basing his remarks on the bull "Ascendente Domino" he argued as follows;
"For a community to be constituted a religious order because its members take vows, these vows would have to be made within an approved religious order. Well since the Council of Lyons and the Lateran Council in Pope Innocent III's time, it has been forbidden to found new religious orders (which would be declared invalid) unless these followed the teachings of one of the four approved monastic rules. The Popes and the Council of Trent have made an exception only in the case of the Jesuits. The Congregation of the Mission does not come into this category. Therefore it is not a religious order."
Having clarified this point, he went on to dismiss some of the objections brought forward on previous days.
"Nobody is obliged to make vows if he doesn't enter the community, just as no woman is obliged to marry and no widow is obliged to enter a community founded for widows. But if they do marry or join a community they must fulfil the duties of their state. To discontinue the vows is a backward step. It is not easy to revoke a law once it is established practice. As for it being a good idea to adapt ourselves to what people around us think, you have to remember that one can't please everybody. It's like the tale of the father and his son who go off on a journey with their donkey. No matter what they did they always found somebody ready to criticise."
Then he opened the debate on the third point which was whether or not it would be right to restrict to the Pope and the Superior General, the right to dispense from the vows.
Once again there were differences of opinion although the positions taken were somewhat different from those of the previous debate.
Becu and Thibault were in favour of retaining the vows but against the reservation clause. Blatiron, as might be expected from his ideas on freedom of choice, was also against the reservation.
"If we were to take vows it would make people think we were religious and this is particularly so in Italy so we would not be well received there. We would find it hard to get any priests to join us. We are the bishop's coadjutors. If the bishops had to select from religious orders they would choose more learned men like the Jesuits. If the vows are going to be reserved then it is better not to make them at all. We could restore unity in the community by authorising those who wish to make vows to do so and by not allowing, dispensations. This would make it easier for us to have the vows approved."
The trio who supported the vows, Grimal, Gilles and Le Gros, were also in favour of the reservation; Grimal because "some bond is essential" and Le Gros because he saw the Company as an edifice whose foundations were the rules and the vows, "If we can't do without the first, then we can't do without the second either."
As on the previous occasion it was Fr. Gilles who delivered the tour de force.
"I have a horror," he said, "of altering any resolution taken at a general assembly. Doesn't the Holy Spirit guide these assemblies? Then where is this guidance? All these changes are very disturbing. As for myself, it was the vows that kept me in the community when I had a young fellow of 25 as my Superior. If we change things now we'll be shillyshallying again at the next assembly and this is very bad for the Company. 'Omnis mutatio morbus' (all change is weakness) says Aristotle. You can't change from hot to cold. A statesman once remarked to me one day, "It is easy to change one's state in life but I would rather die five deaths than change. And an Oratorian admitted to me, 'The Oratory is
just a respectable lodging house."
We are very different from the Jesuits. Their vows are made within a recognised religious community as we know from the bull "Ascendente Domino". Not even the lay brothers retain their right of inheritance. Their fourth vow is a solemn one. The houses of professed religious are not allowed to own goods. They are exempt from the Ordinary. Those who leave are excommunicated and regarded as apostates, the only future open to them is to join the Carthusians. They make various vows and promises. Their ministries and habits are very different from ours.
Most of us are in favour of having vows. There is nobody in the Company who is not prepared to make them. So what, if the Italians don't like them? The daughter should follow the mother, not the mother follow her daughter! It is not morally sound to follow the opinion of one single theologian... I have read that there isn't a single opinion, no matter how stupid it might be, that has not been defended by some learned man. I would rather leave the company than see the vows discontinued. I don't think there is anything to discuss on this question."
"Our Lord wishes us to make them"
With Gilles' speech, matters seemed to be at an impasse and yet this opened the way to a compromise solution. This was the fourth suggestion, put forward by Vincent, that they should have recourse to Rome.
This was acceptable to those in favour of the vows and to those who opposed them. In the previous debate this had been suggested as the only solution by Dehorgny, Portail and Lambert. Alméras, who was so much against the current practice of taking vows, agreed with them. Really, the question under discussion was not so much whether they should make vows or not, but rather the question of whether the community should continue in that state of uncertainty in which it found itself because of the doubtful validity of episcopal approval for their vows. Fr. Lambert put the position very clearly, "It is good to make vows but we need to consult Rome."
Vincent, who had kept silent throughout this long discussion, closed the proceedings with a speech in which he defended the vows.
"Our Lord wishes us to make vows. As soon as I can I will send somebody to Rome for the sole purpose of negotiating this."
They had came to a unanimous decision, something which had seemed impossible at first. Vincent was satisfied. He had saved the vows and the juridical structure would afford them more importance than previously.
There now remained just one practical matter that caused anxiety to the assembly delegates how were they to reply to anyone who asked them about their vows? On 20th July, when the Assembly had been debating other matters for a fortnight, this question was put in writing and they asked for an answer. Vincent gave his reply in a long and vigorous speech which showed very clearly his thinking on the subject.
"Let us make a distinction", he said, "between two sets of people; those for whom our vows are none of their business and important people who require us to give them a satisfactory answer. To the former we need only reply that we make simple vows. Our answer to the others should be this: first of all our vows bind us to God, and secondly they bind the members to the Company. Because of the vows there is no difficulty about sending a man to a seminary 50 leagues away, or to the Indies or to any other place. Thirdly, the vows make us more like Christ and more fit to carry out our ministries. Fourthly, they make for greater equality among us and are a bond of unity between individuals."
He then went on to review the most frequently voiced objections to the vows.
First. The vows diminish the bishops' authority. Answer: A bishop's authority can be undermined in two ways; by refusing him the right to exercise some of his powers like administering confirmation or absolving from heresy and this is something the Pope might do, or by removing people from his jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is meant for subjects, not for prelates. If I remove myself from a bishop's jurisdiction by leaving his diocese I deny him the power he used to have over me but I don't do him any wrong. It is the same with
the vows.
Second objection. The Pope has not approved the vows. Answer: He would have done so if he had been informed about the matter at the start. A superior who destines somebody for a particular task must provide him with the necessary means to fulfil it. Besides, we do have papal approval though indirectly. The Archbishop of Paris was commissioned by the Pope and he studied the question for three years. He raised many difficulties but ended up saying he thought the vows were necessary. So I don't think we really need to go to Rome, but we will do.
Third objection. Missionaries make vows that will have to be discontinued later on when the Rules are modified. Answer: The Jesuits did this. But that isn't the point. We don't vow to keep the rules, but in accordance with the rules, we promise to observe the vows.
Fourth objection: What sort of poverty do we practise? Answer: The Canons of St. Augustine take a vow of poverty and yet they can have parishes and hold the position of Canon. The Knights of Malta can have lands and revenues in spite of their poverty.
Fifth objection: We had no authority to establish this rule. Answer: We have the power to make rules about anything provided it is lawful, worthy and not contrary to canon law. The rule concerning our vows fulfils these conditions.
The conclusion was a practical one and took the form of an injunction; "Gentlemen, we must all defend the vows."
"They all agreed"
The matter was settled once and for all. The assembly minutes which made no mention of the vicissitudes of the debate, simply recorded the conclusion that was reached.
"Everybody at the Assembly agreed that the vows should be retained. To make these more authentic it was agreed that papal approval for them be sought without delay." [20]
In compliance with the Assembly's decision they immmediately began negotiations with the Holy See, or to be more accurate, they immediately resumed them. Meanwhile, Vincent went a step further. They had to ask the Archbishop of Paris to approve the rules and the assembly did this in the form of a document written in Latin and dated 11th August, 1651, [21] which was the day that the assembly closed. Vincent used this occasion to obtain new approval, specifically for the vows, which was something the Assembly had not requested. In the episcopal letters approving the Rules and Constitutions as a whole, there was a paragraph devoted ex profeso to the vows. No doubt Vincent thought that this new approval by the Archbishop would put pressure on Rome. But there was an important difference between the approbation granted in 1641 and that of 1653 and this may have been the reason for Vincent's petition. In the first document, although the Archbishop mentioned the authority delegated to him by the Holy See, he had approved the vows as a personal concession, "de nostra gratia". In the new form of approbation the Archbishop, who was doubtless aware of the arguments concerning the validity of the vows, had it stated that he gave them his approval in virtue of apostolic authority.
"And insofar as it may be necessary, we approve and confirm anew, with the same apostolic authority, the rule or ordinance contained in the said Rules and Constitutions promulgated by you... twelve years ago and then approved and confirmed by us, concerning the simple vows taken in the Congregation." [22]
This was on the 23rd August, 1653. Vincent had just won his second victory and with it ended the second stage in the development of the juridical statute concerning the vows.
"We had to have recourse to the oracle of God's will"
The third stage lasts from 1653 to 1660 and so goes beyond the limits of this section of the book. In order to avoid repetition, and so as not to lose the thread of the story, we will give its history now.
The first priest to take charge of negotiations with the Roman Curia was Fr. Thomas Berthe, who began the work early in 1653. [23] At this time Berthe was a young priest, thirty one years old, very virtuous and highly intelligent. [24] Vincent thought so much of him that he suggested him, as well as Alméras, as his possible successor. [25] Berthe did the negotiating himself but long and detailed letters from Vincent instructed him on methods of procedure, the arguments to be put forward and the tactics to follow when dealing with distinguished personages in Rome. Progress was slow; partly because there was fierce opposition in Rome to the religious state of life so that Vincent had to keep on repeating that the missionaries were not religious, but secular priests; [26] and partly because Vincent himself was slow to finalise
the petition they were going to preseent. He was still working on it in October, 1654. [27] It had to be completed by the end of the year. The petition contained a very long and erudite explanation that the vows in question would in no way make the Congregation into a religious order and that the missionaries were not asking for or claiming this; in fact they were deliberately avoiding this term." [28]
Berthe's negotiating skills meant that the affair was making good progress until an unpleasant episode, which we will recount later, put paid to all his efforts. In Feb. 1655, the King of France (or rather Mazarin) was angry because the missionaries had given shelter in Rome to Cardinal de Retz, and French missionaries were obliged to leave the Eternal City. Berthe had to leave in a hurry, having first taken the precaution of leaving all the papers connected with the Congregation locked in a sealed chest in the Benedictine house of Fr. Placide which he decided would be the safest place for them. [29]
To add to these difficult circumstances there came another incident which was quite disturbing. The Superior at Genoa, Fr. Blatiron, who had put forward in the 1651 assembly the original suggestion that vows should only be taken by those appointed to positions of government, was imprudent enough to mention his ideas to the Archbishop of Genoa, Cardinal Durazzo, who thought highly of him. Vincent was very alarmed at the influence the Cardinal might have now that Berthe was not on the scene. Blatiron was temporarily in charge of the negotiations. To repair the damage Vincent wrote a long letter to the Superior at Genoa stating once more the arguments in favour of having vows and demolishing one by one, the objections put forward by Blatiron. [30]
"Even if they were to tear my eyes out"
A further threat to the vows being approved came from outside the Company, in the shape of opposition from certain important people, and especially the Oratorian Fathers. The spiritual sons of Bérulle were once again in conflict with Vincent. His reaction to this hostility was, if possible, even more heroic than in 1632. At least he expressed his feelings more strongly. This is not surprising considering that Vincent had not ceased to make progress from that time onwards in living out the evangelical counsels.
"As I see it", he wrote, "we continue to meet with difficulties, but we can't expect anything else since you have to deal with such a cardinal and such an important institution. This would not prevent me from honouring and loving them with the affection that children have for their parents, even if they were to tear my eyes out. I desire and beg of Our Lord that everyone in our Congregation should share these dispositions. Don't stop urging our case, Father, and be confident that this is God's will for he sometimes allows contradictions to arise among the saints and even among the angels, not revealing the same things to each."
[31]
"It has pleased God and the Pope to approve our vows"
Victory was in sight. The death of Innocent X and the election of his successor, Cardinal Chigi as Alexander VII in April, 1655, gave a favourable twist to the situation. It was not going to be all stalemate. Blatiron was replaced by a new negotiator, Fr. Edmund Jolley, who knew the ins and outs of the Roman Curia through having worked in the Apostolic Secretariat before entering the Congregation. [32] He continued Berthe's work. [33] His negotiations were very successful and he attributed this to God's special pretection and that of the Blessed Virgin. [34] The new Pope, whom Vincent had hastened to congratulate on his election, [35] published the bull "Ex commissa nobis" which accorded papal approval to the vows of the Congregation of the Mission under the same conditions and even using the same terms as Vincent had been describing them from 1641 onwards; simple and perpetual vows which could be dispensed by the Sovereign Pontiff and the Superior General of the Congregation; vows that did not designate the Company a religious order but allowed its members to remain part of the secular clergy. As a bonus, the brief accorded the Congregation of the Mission exemption from the Ordinary. [36]
The brief was a great consolation for Vincent. Exactly a month after its publication he gave the news to Fr. Blatiron in these words;
"As regards the vows it has finally pleased God and our Holy Father the Pope to approve the ones we make. We have offered this brief to Our Lord since it is the work of his hands." [37]
On that same day, during a ceremony held at Saint Lazare, and one that was to be repeated in all the other houses during the following months, the Community formally accepted the brief [38] which was drawn up as a deed of notary. [39]
And on January 25th, the missionaries, with very few exceptions, [40] renewed their vows in accordance with the terms of the papal document.
There were still a few loose ends to be tied up. The main one concerned the scope of the vow of poverty. Vincent's thinking on this subject had changed considerably, partly through the complex nature of the question and partly because of the resistance he encountered. Vincent's original idea, which he set out clearly in the explanation he gave in 1641; was that missionaries, while retaining the right to inherit property, were obliged to give up the administration and income of these to the Congregation and that if they left the Company they would have no right to claim the benefits from them. [41]
Such a rule had an obvious ascetic and community value. Missionaries who owned property were to act as though they were not owners by renouncing the administration, use and benefits of it. Private wealth was put at the disposal of all, thus establishing equality among all members of the community. It was right, thought Vincent, that those who had financial assets should help to support their brothers. This rule was still in force in 1651. During the assembly of that year Vincent repead it in exactly the same words he had used when defining it ten years earlier.
There followed an exhaustive discussion which brought to light the many legal difficulties that might ensue. It was decided to consult a panel of experts. [42] These must have decided in favour of the text because the approbation given by the Archbishop of Paris in August, 1653, made no
alterations whatsoever
The first change came in 1656. The records of the collective taking of vows on 25th January of that year contain an explanatory note about poverty which shows a significant modification. The missionary must still renounce the administration and use of his personal wealth but he can now either give this right over to the community, as previously, or to his needy relatives. Vincent had given in to pressure. He was obliged to make even more concessions. So as to settle the obligations of the vow of poverty once and for all, he went back to the Holy See, asking it to sanction the "basic statute" of poverty for the missionaries. The Pope did this in a new brief, "Alias nos", on 12th August, 1659. [43]
The application of this newly approved statute differed considerably from the original one. From now on the missionaries would retain not only the ownership of their goods but also the administration of them, together with their accrued interest and benefits, but they were to use this income for works of charity and could not spend it on anything for themselves without permission from the superior.
Whether he liked it or not, the Founder had bowed to the demands of many members of his community. He was flexible enough to give up his own point of view when essential values were not at stake. [44]
Ideal and safeguard
The juridical structures of the Congregation of the Mission which had been tentatively mapped out in the 1625 contract, were definitively settled when final approval was granted to the Rules and the vows. For thirty five years Vincent had pursued his objective with great tenacity and we don't know which to admire most; the sureness of his intuition or the great patience with which he succeeded, in the teeth of all opposition, in seeing them take concrete shape in the juridical texts approved by the Church's supreme authority.
His efforts resulted in something that was entirely new; a Congregation which belonged to the secular clergy and yet was exempt from the ordinary, and one that took vows. He had had his hesitations and his doubts but he never lost confidence that in the end his efforts would be rewarded. He had made concessions on minor points but had preserved the essentials. The final format was in keeping with the original plan; it had been developed and enriched with time but it had never been watered down or altered.
Perhaps the most original feature of Vincent's creation was the reconciling of two apparent opposites; the taking of vows and the secular nature of the Institute.
Vincent's refusual to embrace the religious state never faltered. Was this is a question of principle? We have no reason to think so from Vincent's writings. Was he afraid that religious structures might stifle the apostolic impetus of the Company or weaken its charism? We have no documentary evidence to support such a claim. [45]
We will have to have recourse to other sources of information to decide this question. There isn't the slightest doubt that Vincent held the religious life in high esteem. On more than one occasion he expressed regret at the suspicion and antagonism shown towards the religious state; [46] he often declared that he wished he had its spirit [47] and that he hoped to enjoy the reward promised to it. [48] Saint Chantal began to think it was Vincent's intention to combine the perfection of the ecclesiastical condition with that of the religious state of life but he humbly protested that this was not so. [49] He was so determined to introduce vows into the Company that at the most difficult point in the negotiations, in 1640, he was prepared to call it a religious congregation [50] and it appears he even went so far as to petition for religious vows. [51]
But these were extreme concessions which he made with great reluctance at a time when there seemed no other way out. In the event it proved to be a useless strategy because the difficulty they were encountering in having the vows approved came precisely from the fact that people thought taking vows would make the Congregation into a religious order.
Apart from the temporary disparity we have just mentioned, the option to keep the Congregation of the Mission within the body of the secular clergy was a constant from the early years of the foundation [52]to the end of Vincent's life. There were both theoretical and practical reasons for this. The secular nature of the community was inherent from the very beginning and the older missionaries brandished this argument when they opposed the taking of vows; the vocation they had been called to was that of a secular priest.
There were other reasons at that particular time. Opposition to new religious orders was very strong in Rome, especially during the pontificate of Innocent X (1644 1655) [53] and opposition was even stronger in France where the bishops exerted a lot of pressure. [54] In 1645 they ordered the reprinting of the works of Petrus Aurelius, (Saint Cyran) who, in his polemics against the Jesuits and Benedictines, defended the eminent dignity of the priesthood as superior to the taking of vows, which, according to him, were of human origin. [55] We should remember, too, that the first difficulties encountered in having the Congregation approved by Rome, stemmed from the fact that it was considered to be a new religious order. And finally, we should remember the very disedifying spectacle presented by numerous religious orders at that particular moment in the history of the Church in France.
Vincent was unhappy about the hostility then being shown to the religious orders but he had to give way before it. However, he never gave up the idea of vows which had been part of the Company's spiritual heritage right from the beginning. [56[ The reason most frequently suggested for taking vows is that thay help the individual to persevere in a difficult vocation which demands painful sacrifices. [57] But that is not the only reason. Vincentian spirituality with regard to the vows went beyond what was merely functional, and all through the years of controversy its development was perfectly coherent. Let us give a brief summary of this spirituality.
The initial inspiration to make vows sprang from a desire to be in the most perfect state possible and the wish to forge a bond with God and with the community. [58] The reasons given in the ordinatio of 1641 are that, besides the natural inconsistency of the human spirit, we can point to God's intervention in the Old Testament when he ordained circumcision and in the New Testament when he prescribed baptism; the example of the Church which only confers the priesthood on those who consecrate themselves to it for life, and the example of religious orders who always considered vows essential if members were to persevere in their vocation. [59] During the assembly of 1651 Vincent argued that taking vows created bonds with God and with the community, that it was a way of imitating Christ, and that vows made all members of the Company equal. [60] Four years later this same argument is presented in a letter to Fr. Blatiron, and Vincent's reflections on the matter develop and give added weight to the reasoning. Vows are made so that the Company may be in the state which is most pleasing to God, namely that of perfection, and so that its members may strive more faithfully for personal sanctification and be drawn to give themselves completely to God in this way. On the other hand, opposition to the vows comes, not from the spirit, but from human nature which demands more and more freedom. [61]
It was Vincent's special genius that combined the secular nature of the Company with the taking of vows; or, as he would have said, the inspiration came from God. [62]
The practice of making vows was not incorporated intothe Constitutions of the Congregation of the Mission. Vincent thought it would be inappropriate to include it in the Common Rules since no other community did so. [1] We have already noted that private vows had been taken in the community, on a voluntary basis, from the second, third or fourth year after the foundation of the Congregation, i.e. from 1627 or 1628 [2] onwards. These were the traditional vows of poverty, chastity and obedience common to all religious communities, together with a fourth vow of stability, so that missionaries would devote their whole lives to working for the salvation of poor country people. Vincent has explained the reasons why these first missionaries made this decision. Firstly it was "the desire to embrace the most perfect state possible without becoming a religious", (a desire no doubt inspired by Vincent himself), and secondly, "to become more closely united to Our Lord and to his Church; the Superior of the Company to its members and the members to its head. [3] The practice of making vows only came about after a long process similar to that which preceded the development of the Rules. In some ways it was more difficult and more controversial to legislate for the vows. As happened with the Rules, the process developed over three stages; 1633 1642, 1642 1653 and 1653 1660.
Vincent spoke about the way the vows had developed when he told the Company about the pontifical brief approving them. The summary he wrote in a letter to Fr. Edmund Jolly gives us further guidance on this point.
"We have presented the Holy Father's brief to the family here and it is directed to the priests as well as to the lay brothers, giving them to understand how from the very beginning of the Company, God granted it the desire of being in the most perfect state possible short of becoming a religious order and it was for this reason that we took vows; to unite ourselves more closely to Our Lord and to the Church; the Superior of the Company to its members, and the members to its head; this was already being done in the second or third year after the community was founded. These vows of poverty etc. were simple vows and we renewed them after two or three years. We finally made a rule which was approved by the Archbishop of Paris and after that time we all made our vows together, but no sooner had we started to do this than some of the community began to complain and these complaints were noised abroad.
We were obliged to summon the leading doctors of theology in Paris to ask them if we had acted rightly. They agreed that we had. So we called an assembly here of the main Superiors and some former Superiors in the Company and among other matters we dealt with this question. They agreed with the theologians that we should continue the practice, in spite of difficulties both within and outside the company. But the evil spirit tries to thwart the works of God and only gives up after battling to the bitter end so these difficulties continued and even increased. This meant we had to consult these doctors again to see if they were of the same opinion in spite of the difficulties that had arisen. They kept to their original decision and put this in writing for us in a statement signed by three of the most distinguished Jesuits. Yet all this didn't satisfy people. We called a second assembly of the principal Superiors of the Company and they agreed, as they had done on the first occasion, that we should continue in this way. But ever since then there has been disagreement. We finally had recourse to the oracle of God's will, who eventually gave us the brief which confirms our manner of taking vows." [4]
During the period 1633 1642 there was no constitutional ruling on the taking of vows. Each individual was free to make vows or not after he had prayed about it and sought advice. [5] The bull "Salvatori nostri" makes no mention of any vows at all when giving approbation to the Congregation. In spite of this, the practice continued; in 1639 most of the missionaries had taken the four vows and they even considered introducing an extra vow of obedience to the bishops in the excercise of works proper to the Congregation." [6] But Vincent was determined to incorporate the taking of vows into the constitutional framework of the Company. It was one of those areas where Vincent was most adamant even though he met with all kinds of opposition from within and outside the community. The battle continued right to the end of his life but never for a moment would he yield to pressure, even though this came from people who were very dear to him. There can be no doubt that this attitude was rooted in his unshakable conviction that this was God's will in the matter. As we know, in such cases Vincent was never prepared to compromise.
"I am perplexed and full of doubts".
Vincent was not happy with the idea of vows being optional as was the custom up to 1639, so he began to seek approval for the vows from the Holy See. [7] It is worth mentioning that this was the year that the first missionaries who had entered the Congregation under the new system would complete their internal seminary. This must have been the catalyst that moved Vincent to start making arrangements. Early that year, he sent to Rome a missionary who was new to the Congregation, though he was not too young in age. This man was Fr. Louis Lebreton and he was given the task of bringing before the Curia the question of approval for the vows and other matters that were of interest to the community. [8] He expected to achieve his first objective without much delay but it wasn't as simple as that.
There were numerous objections from Rome but the greatest obstacle was that it was considered inappropriate for a congregation of secular priests to take vows. Vincent confessed himself bewildered in face of these never ending objections and so tried various solutions which mark several changes in his thinking. His first plan was to abandon the idea of solemn vows and petition, instead, for four simple ones (Nov. '39). Then he began to think in terms of one single vow of stability with excommunication for those who did not observe poverty and obedience (Feb. '40). Then he suggested three simple vows on completion of the internal seminary, followed by a solemn vow of stability some years later (August, '40). This was changed to a proposal to have a single vow of stability (Oct. '40) then a simple vow of stability after two years novitiate, to be followed by a solemn vow eight or ten years later, and then a sworn oath binding under pain of excommunication instead of the other three vows (Nov. '40). At one point it seemed the Congregation was prepared to declare itself a religious order if that was the only way they could have vows and they even petitioned to make religious vows. [9]
"We made a rule".
The impossible task of overcoming all the difficulties put forward by Rome made Vincent try another tack. As we know, the bull, "Salvatori nostri", authorised the Archbishop of Paris to approve all kinds of statutes and ordinances (ordinationes) relative to the life style and government of the Congregation. Applying this pontifical concession to the letter, Vincent drew up an ordinance (ordinatio) by which all future members of the Congregation would, at the end of their second year in the seminary, pronounce simple vows of poverty, chastity, obedience and stability in working for the salvation of poor country people. These vows were to be pronounced during Mass, in the presence of the Superior but not addressed to him, and dispensation from these vows could only be granted by the Sovereign Pontiff or the Superior General. In this way the Congregation would not constitute a religious order and its members would still belong to the secular clergy. This ordinance was not compulsory for those who were already members of the Company but the Superior could allow these to make vows, too, if they wished. Vincent respected the liberty and the rights of the individual. [10] The ordinance was followed by the formula for the vows and an explanation of the vow of poverty. [11]
The ordinance had to be approved by the Archbishop of Paris in order to be valid and Vincent petitioned for this. The Archbishop found not a few difficulties in this original idea put forward by Vincent, and before giving his approval he consulted the doctors of his Council. After considering the proposal for three years he finally gave his approval which dated from 19th Oct. 1641. [12] A few months later, on 24th Feb. 1642, the feast of St. Matthias, Vincent and the vast majority of his companions either made their vows or renewed them. [13]
The matter was still not completely settled. From within and from outside the Community came protests from those who questioned the validity of the ordinance and its approbation. To pacify these dissenters Vincent held a consultation with the leading doctors of theology in Paris, and their opinion seemed to be favourable. Not content with this, he had the ordinance ratified by the 1642 assembly. [14] He had won this first battle but he was still a long way from winning the war.
"They immediately started to complain".
Indeed, during the second period we mentioned, (1642 1653) the debate about the vows became so acrimonious that it provoked the most serious crisis the young community had ever known.
The nub of the matter was the question of whether vows would make the Congregation into a religious order, something contrary to its original secular character. Those who opposed the vows declared it did and Vincent assured them this was not so. He had foreseen the danger and thought he had averted it by repeating, almost word for word, in the ordinance's final clause, the Archbishop's decree of approbation, "notwithstanding the making of these said vows, the Congregation will not be deemed a religious order and therefore it will not cease to be part of the secular clergy".
For many canon lawyers at that time it seemed like squaring the circle but Vincent was convinced of the validity of his formula.
"God's providence has finally inspired the company to embrace a state of life where we have the happiness of being religious in the sense that we take simple vows but we remain part of the secular clergy. We are as much under obedience to the bishop as are the humblest priests in their diocese in all matters concerning our works".... "We are not a religious order and we maintain that although we take simple vows we do not claim to be religious but remain part of the clergy. [15]
After the Archbishop's approval of the ordinance and its ratification by the assembly of '42, the official position was that opinion was favourable to the vows. In spite of this there continued to be criticism and, in fact, this increased. In no other matter did Vincent de Paul experience so much opposition from within the congregation. Neither his authority as Superior General nor his prestigious position as Founder was sufficient to disarm his critics. Vincent faced this situation with unrelenting tenacity and we see the level of his patience, firmness and his negotiating skills. In 1647 the conflict was brought out into the open. When it was time to renew the vows, and it was customary to do this during a retreat, a small group of missionaries led by a priest and a cleric, refused to renew their vows, stating that these had no validity. Vincent launched a counter attack during a brief and fervent address.
"I gave them a short talk on two points; the first was on the reasons we have for renewing them (the vows) since God wishes to give us the grace attached to making vows, and the second point was on the means we have of doing this. On this second point I mentioned two things; first, I begged those who didn't feel able to persevere to leave, and secondly, I said that a sign that someone has this grace is that he is determined never to speak against this holy action but to defend it on every occasion against those who attack it, since it must happen that these vows will be contested by people in the community and outside of it". [16]
Vincent's eloquence won them over. Even the ringleader of the small rebellion came and humbly begged permission to renew his vows. He brought along "a pile of things he had laid by in private" and Vincent, with his usual combination of severity and gentleness, allowed him to keep his bits and pieces. [17]
However, Vincent had no illusions that the problem was solved. Opposition to the vows intensified and he had to find a radical solution. Once again he had recourse to his friends, the doctors of theology in Paris. The penitentiary Jacques Charton, Duval the younger, Pereyret, Cornet and Coqueret again pronounced in his favour. He took further steps to have the vows approved by the Holy See through the efforts of Frs. Portail, Dehorgny and Alméras, but it wasn't an easy task. The Francophile Pope, Urban VIII was succeeded in 1644 by Innocent X whose portrait was painted by Velázquez. This pontiff was more inclined to favour the Spanish and he had little regard for the religious state of life. Vincent waited patiently for better times. He was so convinced of the rightness of his cause that he refused to back down and this conviction inspired him with optimism and confidence. [18]
"We held a second assembly".
Approval from Rome seemed to be a long time coming. While Vincent never gave up hope that approval would eventually be given, he decided on a quicker course of action; he would bring the matter before another assembly of the Congregation and, as we have previously mentioned, this was convoked for July, 1651. As in the 1642 assembly, the main business concerned the vows. This time it was the main topic of debate. We need to follow the proceedings in some detail so as to understand Vincent's system of government.
Four possible options
Scarcely had the assembly begun, on the morning of July 1st, when the problem was raised with great frankness and four possible solutions were suggested: 1) that they continue to take vows in the manner agreed on at the previous assembly; 2) that they scrap them; 3) that they omit the more difficult points like dispensations being reserved to the Pope and the Superior General, and 4) that they find another way of retaining the vows.
It is not easy to follow the course of the debate in detail because all four solutions are often combined in the propositions put forward by the assembly delegates and because Fr. Luc's diary, which is our source of information, contains phrases which are not very clear because his notes were brief and fragmentary. For this reason there have been different interpretations of what happened. The explanation we are about to offer comes after long and prayerful analysis of the texts. [19]
One thing that is absolutely clear is that the delegates enjoyed complete freedom of speech throughout the assembly. As he had done in 1642, Vincent came before his sons as an equal, without trying to impose his opinion which was well known right from the start. During the evening session of the first day he outlined the arguments in favour of each of the solutions mentioned in the opening address.
He gave the following reasons for retaining the vows:
"Fr. Condren disagrees with St. Thomas and it is his opinion that Our Lord made vows; taking vows is a very ancient and holy practice in the Church and even in the Synagogue; vows are a very pleasing holocaust to God who is offered both the tree and its fruits; actions performed in virtue of the vow are more meritorious and individuals who, left to themselves are as unstable as water, are strengthened in their good intentions; the Company will be more perfect and its subjects will be more available for distant or difficult missions".
Then he gave the reasons for discontinuing the vows:
"Quite a few congregations such as the Oratory in Rome or St. Nicolas and Saint Sulpice in France, flourish and do good works even though their members do not take vows. Many members of the Company are strongly opposed to taking vows. There is more freedom without vows, and more merit. Without vows we are more like the clergy to whose ranks we belong. Ecclesiastics will have more confidence in us and feel more at ease. The bishops will have no reason to be suspicious. All our difficulties will vanish.
As for the proposal to omit those aspects of the vows that cause most difficulty; such as dispensation being reserved to the Pope and the Superior General, the only reason advanced for this is that the bishops would then retain their authority over the missionaries.
The fourth solution that we find some other way of retaining the vows, really means that we should ask the Holy See to approve them. This course of action is based on the following reasoning: there is some doubt about the validity of our present vows even though the Archbishop of Paris believes he had the authority to approve them and he is supported in this by his Council and some of the theologians, although other theologians disagree. If we were to send to Rome a missionary who could devote all his time exclusively to this project then we would be successful, because everything can be settled in Rome, given time and patience. Our present difficulties will eventually disappear because our decision was only taken after lengthy consideration and much prayer".
On the following day, Sunday, 2nd July, there was a brief summary of what had been said the previous day and then the debate reopened.
The second and third days were devoted to studying the first two options; the preservation or the discontinuance of the vows. Straightaway three different viewpoints emerged. Frs. Grimal, Thibault, Gilles, Becu and Le Gros declared themselves in favour of keeping the vows as they were; Frs. Dehorgny, Alméras, Lambert and Cuissot were against the principle of making vows, and a compromise solution with some minor changes was proposed by Blatiron, Portail and Du Chesne.
The strongest argument for retaining the vows was put forward by Fr. Gilles. Among other things, he said,
"The Company cannot exist without vows. So everyone should be obliged to take vows at the end of the two years of seminary. However, we should not pressurise older members into making vows as this might lead them to criticise the practice. Neither should there be any recriminations against those who choose not to make vows."
The strongest case against making vows was put forward, strangely enough, by one of Vincent's most faithful friends, Fr. Alméras. His juridical training led him to reject them. As they stand the vows are invalid, he argued, and they were not acceptable to Popes Urban VIII and Innocent X. At this point, Vincent interrupted him to say he had instructed Fr. Lebreton to ask for religious vows, not vows as they were then practised by the Company. Fr. Alméras continued his speech. The vows are invalid because the powers delegated to the Archbishop of Paris in the bull "Salvatori nostri" were of a very general nature and did not cover such specific areas as the vows, which required special authorisation. Moreover, he doubted very much whether they should be making vows, since the practice caused so many difficulties within the community and outside of it; they were an obstacle for new members of the community and, finally, if they took vows they would be religious.
He then gave the counter arguments. It would be said that theirs was an arduous ministry. He would answer that people didn't work any less hard if they didn't take vows or that those who did take vows didn't necessarily work harder; the Capuchins, for example, can't find anybody willing to go to Picardy. The Superior's decision would be accepted with regard to mission as much as in other matters, and his firmness would serve just as well as compliance with a vow. Anything else would show a want of confidence in God. It might also be argued that discontinuing the vows would involve change. But change is sometimes a good thing as M. Vincent has shown by reforming the liturgy. Finally, it has been said that taking vows is the more perfect course of action. It is also more perfect to embrace the religious state and yet Rome puts so many obstacles in the way of those who wish to do this.
The third position was defended by Blatiron and Du Chesne. The main point that thay made was that vows should be optional. Blatiron favoured the Jesuit system where some members took vows and other didn't. His reason for wanting vows to be optional was that he had been Superior at Genoa and knew from experience that there was great opposition in Italy, both to the custom of taking vows and to the religious state itself. Du Chesne was in favour of complete freedom in this matter for then there would be no need to petition Rome.
The third day closed with a brief address given by Vincent who gave a spiritual dimension to all the points discussed.
"We must pray earnestly to know what is God's will for the Company and how we can put an end to whatever causes divisions in it. Let us continue to study this question until we get a greater consensus of opinion".
"Most of us are in favour of making vows"
On the fourth day the dabate entered a new phase. Once again Vincent opened the proceedings to clarify some points concerning the real nature of the problem, which turned on the question as to whether or not the Company would become a religious order if its members took vows. Basing his remarks on the bull "Ascendente Domino" he argued as follows;
"For a community to be constituted a religious order because its members take vows, these vows would have to be made within an approved religious order. Well since the Council of Lyons and the Lateran Council in Pope Innocent III's time, it has been forbidden to found new religious orders (which would be declared invalid) unless these followed the teachings of one of the four approved monastic rules. The Popes and the Council of Trent have made an exception only in the case of the Jesuits. The Congregation of the Mission does not come into this category. Therefore it is not a religious order."
Having clarified this point, he went on to dismiss some of the objections brought forward on previous days.
"Nobody is obliged to make vows if he doesn't enter the community, just as no woman is obliged to marry and no widow is obliged to enter a community founded for widows. But if they do marry or join a community they must fulfil the duties of their state. To discontinue the vows is a backward step. It is not easy to revoke a law once it is established practice. As for it being a good idea to adapt ourselves to what people around us think, you have to remember that one can't please everybody. It's like the tale of the father and his son who go off on a journey with their donkey. No matter what they did they always found somebody ready to criticise."
Then he opened the debate on the third point which was whether or not it would be right to restrict to the Pope and the Superior General, the right to dispense from the vows.
Once again there were differences of opinion although the positions taken were somewhat different from those of the previous debate.
Becu and Thibault were in favour of retaining the vows but against the reservation clause. Blatiron, as might be expected from his ideas on freedom of choice, was also against the reservation.
"If we were to take vows it would make people think we were religious and this is particularly so in Italy so we would not be well received there. We would find it hard to get any priests to join us. We are the bishop's coadjutors. If the bishops had to select from religious orders they would choose more learned men like the Jesuits. If the vows are going to be reserved then it is better not to make them at all. We could restore unity in the community by authorising those who wish to make vows to do so and by not allowing, dispensations. This would make it easier for us to have the vows approved."
The trio who supported the vows, Grimal, Gilles and Le Gros, were also in favour of the reservation; Grimal because "some bond is essential" and Le Gros because he saw the Company as an edifice whose foundations were the rules and the vows, "If we can't do without the first, then we can't do without the second either."
As on the previous occasion it was Fr. Gilles who delivered the tour de force.
"I have a horror," he said, "of altering any resolution taken at a general assembly. Doesn't the Holy Spirit guide these assemblies? Then where is this guidance? All these changes are very disturbing. As for myself, it was the vows that kept me in the community when I had a young fellow of 25 as my Superior. If we change things now we'll be shillyshallying again at the next assembly and this is very bad for the Company. 'Omnis mutatio morbus' (all change is weakness) says Aristotle. You can't change from hot to cold. A statesman once remarked to me one day, "It is easy to change one's state in life but I would rather die five deaths than change. And an Oratorian admitted to me, 'The Oratory is
just a respectable lodging house."
We are very different from the Jesuits. Their vows are made within a recognised religious community as we know from the bull "Ascendente Domino". Not even the lay brothers retain their right of inheritance. Their fourth vow is a solemn one. The houses of professed religious are not allowed to own goods. They are exempt from the Ordinary. Those who leave are excommunicated and regarded as apostates, the only future open to them is to join the Carthusians. They make various vows and promises. Their ministries and habits are very different from ours.
Most of us are in favour of having vows. There is nobody in the Company who is not prepared to make them. So what, if the Italians don't like them? The daughter should follow the mother, not the mother follow her daughter! It is not morally sound to follow the opinion of one single theologian... I have read that there isn't a single opinion, no matter how stupid it might be, that has not been defended by some learned man. I would rather leave the company than see the vows discontinued. I don't think there is anything to discuss on this question."
"Our Lord wishes us to make them"
With Gilles' speech, matters seemed to be at an impasse and yet this opened the way to a compromise solution. This was the fourth suggestion, put forward by Vincent, that they should have recourse to Rome.
This was acceptable to those in favour of the vows and to those who opposed them. In the previous debate this had been suggested as the only solution by Dehorgny, Portail and Lambert. Alméras, who was so much against the current practice of taking vows, agreed with them. Really, the question under discussion was not so much whether they should make vows or not, but rather the question of whether the community should continue in that state of uncertainty in which it found itself because of the doubtful validity of episcopal approval for their vows. Fr. Lambert put the position very clearly, "It is good to make vows but we need to consult Rome."
Vincent, who had kept silent throughout this long discussion, closed the proceedings with a speech in which he defended the vows.
"Our Lord wishes us to make vows. As soon as I can I will send somebody to Rome for the sole purpose of negotiating this."
They had came to a unanimous decision, something which had seemed impossible at first. Vincent was satisfied. He had saved the vows and the juridical structure would afford them more importance than previously.
There now remained just one practical matter that caused anxiety to the assembly delegates how were they to reply to anyone who asked them about their vows? On 20th July, when the Assembly had been debating other matters for a fortnight, this question was put in writing and they asked for an answer. Vincent gave his reply in a long and vigorous speech which showed very clearly his thinking on the subject.
"Let us make a distinction", he said, "between two sets of people; those for whom our vows are none of their business and important people who require us to give them a satisfactory answer. To the former we need only reply that we make simple vows. Our answer to the others should be this: first of all our vows bind us to God, and secondly they bind the members to the Company. Because of the vows there is no difficulty about sending a man to a seminary 50 leagues away, or to the Indies or to any other place. Thirdly, the vows make us more like Christ and more fit to carry out our ministries. Fourthly, they make for greater equality among us and are a bond of unity between individuals."
He then went on to review the most frequently voiced objections to the vows.
First. The vows diminish the bishops' authority. Answer: A bishop's authority can be undermined in two ways; by refusing him the right to exercise some of his powers like administering confirmation or absolving from heresy and this is something the Pope might do, or by removing people from his jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is meant for subjects, not for prelates. If I remove myself from a bishop's jurisdiction by leaving his diocese I deny him the power he used to have over me but I don't do him any wrong. It is the same with
the vows.
Second objection. The Pope has not approved the vows. Answer: He would have done so if he had been informed about the matter at the start. A superior who destines somebody for a particular task must provide him with the necessary means to fulfil it. Besides, we do have papal approval though indirectly. The Archbishop of Paris was commissioned by the Pope and he studied the question for three years. He raised many difficulties but ended up saying he thought the vows were necessary. So I don't think we really need to go to Rome, but we will do.
Third objection. Missionaries make vows that will have to be discontinued later on when the Rules are modified. Answer: The Jesuits did this. But that isn't the point. We don't vow to keep the rules, but in accordance with the rules, we promise to observe the vows.
Fourth objection: What sort of poverty do we practise? Answer: The Canons of St. Augustine take a vow of poverty and yet they can have parishes and hold the position of Canon. The Knights of Malta can have lands and revenues in spite of their poverty.
Fifth objection: We had no authority to establish this rule. Answer: We have the power to make rules about anything provided it is lawful, worthy and not contrary to canon law. The rule concerning our vows fulfils these conditions.
The conclusion was a practical one and took the form of an injunction; "Gentlemen, we must all defend the vows."
"They all agreed"
The matter was settled once and for all. The assembly minutes which made no mention of the vicissitudes of the debate, simply recorded the conclusion that was reached.
"Everybody at the Assembly agreed that the vows should be retained. To make these more authentic it was agreed that papal approval for them be sought without delay." [20]
In compliance with the Assembly's decision they immmediately began negotiations with the Holy See, or to be more accurate, they immediately resumed them. Meanwhile, Vincent went a step further. They had to ask the Archbishop of Paris to approve the rules and the assembly did this in the form of a document written in Latin and dated 11th August, 1651, [21] which was the day that the assembly closed. Vincent used this occasion to obtain new approval, specifically for the vows, which was something the Assembly had not requested. In the episcopal letters approving the Rules and Constitutions as a whole, there was a paragraph devoted ex profeso to the vows. No doubt Vincent thought that this new approval by the Archbishop would put pressure on Rome. But there was an important difference between the approbation granted in 1641 and that of 1653 and this may have been the reason for Vincent's petition. In the first document, although the Archbishop mentioned the authority delegated to him by the Holy See, he had approved the vows as a personal concession, "de nostra gratia". In the new form of approbation the Archbishop, who was doubtless aware of the arguments concerning the validity of the vows, had it stated that he gave them his approval in virtue of apostolic authority.
"And insofar as it may be necessary, we approve and confirm anew, with the same apostolic authority, the rule or ordinance contained in the said Rules and Constitutions promulgated by you... twelve years ago and then approved and confirmed by us, concerning the simple vows taken in the Congregation." [22]
This was on the 23rd August, 1653. Vincent had just won his second victory and with it ended the second stage in the development of the juridical statute concerning the vows.
"We had to have recourse to the oracle of God's will"
The third stage lasts from 1653 to 1660 and so goes beyond the limits of this section of the book. In order to avoid repetition, and so as not to lose the thread of the story, we will give its history now.
The first priest to take charge of negotiations with the Roman Curia was Fr. Thomas Berthe, who began the work early in 1653. [23] At this time Berthe was a young priest, thirty one years old, very virtuous and highly intelligent. [24] Vincent thought so much of him that he suggested him, as well as Alméras, as his possible successor. [25] Berthe did the negotiating himself but long and detailed letters from Vincent instructed him on methods of procedure, the arguments to be put forward and the tactics to follow when dealing with distinguished personages in Rome. Progress was slow; partly because there was fierce opposition in Rome to the religious state of life so that Vincent had to keep on repeating that the missionaries were not religious, but secular priests; [26] and partly because Vincent himself was slow to finalise
the petition they were going to preseent. He was still working on it in October, 1654. [27] It had to be completed by the end of the year. The petition contained a very long and erudite explanation that the vows in question would in no way make the Congregation into a religious order and that the missionaries were not asking for or claiming this; in fact they were deliberately avoiding this term." [28]
Berthe's negotiating skills meant that the affair was making good progress until an unpleasant episode, which we will recount later, put paid to all his efforts. In Feb. 1655, the King of France (or rather Mazarin) was angry because the missionaries had given shelter in Rome to Cardinal de Retz, and French missionaries were obliged to leave the Eternal City. Berthe had to leave in a hurry, having first taken the precaution of leaving all the papers connected with the Congregation locked in a sealed chest in the Benedictine house of Fr. Placide which he decided would be the safest place for them. [29]
To add to these difficult circumstances there came another incident which was quite disturbing. The Superior at Genoa, Fr. Blatiron, who had put forward in the 1651 assembly the original suggestion that vows should only be taken by those appointed to positions of government, was imprudent enough to mention his ideas to the Archbishop of Genoa, Cardinal Durazzo, who thought highly of him. Vincent was very alarmed at the influence the Cardinal might have now that Berthe was not on the scene. Blatiron was temporarily in charge of the negotiations. To repair the damage Vincent wrote a long letter to the Superior at Genoa stating once more the arguments in favour of having vows and demolishing one by one, the objections put forward by Blatiron. [30]
"Even if they were to tear my eyes out"
A further threat to the vows being approved came from outside the Company, in the shape of opposition from certain important people, and especially the Oratorian Fathers. The spiritual sons of Bérulle were once again in conflict with Vincent. His reaction to this hostility was, if possible, even more heroic than in 1632. At least he expressed his feelings more strongly. This is not surprising considering that Vincent had not ceased to make progress from that time onwards in living out the evangelical counsels.
"As I see it", he wrote, "we continue to meet with difficulties, but we can't expect anything else since you have to deal with such a cardinal and such an important institution. This would not prevent me from honouring and loving them with the affection that children have for their parents, even if they were to tear my eyes out. I desire and beg of Our Lord that everyone in our Congregation should share these dispositions. Don't stop urging our case, Father, and be confident that this is God's will for he sometimes allows contradictions to arise among the saints and even among the angels, not revealing the same things to each."
[31]
"It has pleased God and the Pope to approve our vows"
Victory was in sight. The death of Innocent X and the election of his successor, Cardinal Chigi as Alexander VII in April, 1655, gave a favourable twist to the situation. It was not going to be all stalemate. Blatiron was replaced by a new negotiator, Fr. Edmund Jolley, who knew the ins and outs of the Roman Curia through having worked in the Apostolic Secretariat before entering the Congregation. [32] He continued Berthe's work. [33] His negotiations were very successful and he attributed this to God's special pretection and that of the Blessed Virgin. [34] The new Pope, whom Vincent had hastened to congratulate on his election, [35] published the bull "Ex commissa nobis" which accorded papal approval to the vows of the Congregation of the Mission under the same conditions and even using the same terms as Vincent had been describing them from 1641 onwards; simple and perpetual vows which could be dispensed by the Sovereign Pontiff and the Superior General of the Congregation; vows that did not designate the Company a religious order but allowed its members to remain part of the secular clergy. As a bonus, the brief accorded the Congregation of the Mission exemption from the Ordinary. [36]
The brief was a great consolation for Vincent. Exactly a month after its publication he gave the news to Fr. Blatiron in these words;
"As regards the vows it has finally pleased God and our Holy Father the Pope to approve the ones we make. We have offered this brief to Our Lord since it is the work of his hands." [37]
On that same day, during a ceremony held at Saint Lazare, and one that was to be repeated in all the other houses during the following months, the Community formally accepted the brief [38] which was drawn up as a deed of notary. [39]
And on January 25th, the missionaries, with very few exceptions, [40] renewed their vows in accordance with the terms of the papal document.
There were still a few loose ends to be tied up. The main one concerned the scope of the vow of poverty. Vincent's thinking on this subject had changed considerably, partly through the complex nature of the question and partly because of the resistance he encountered. Vincent's original idea, which he set out clearly in the explanation he gave in 1641; was that missionaries, while retaining the right to inherit property, were obliged to give up the administration and income of these to the Congregation and that if they left the Company they would have no right to claim the benefits from them. [41]
Such a rule had an obvious ascetic and community value. Missionaries who owned property were to act as though they were not owners by renouncing the administration, use and benefits of it. Private wealth was put at the disposal of all, thus establishing equality among all members of the community. It was right, thought Vincent, that those who had financial assets should help to support their brothers. This rule was still in force in 1651. During the assembly of that year Vincent repead it in exactly the same words he had used when defining it ten years earlier.
There followed an exhaustive discussion which brought to light the many legal difficulties that might ensue. It was decided to consult a panel of experts. [42] These must have decided in favour of the text because the approbation given by the Archbishop of Paris in August, 1653, made no
alterations whatsoever
The first change came in 1656. The records of the collective taking of vows on 25th January of that year contain an explanatory note about poverty which shows a significant modification. The missionary must still renounce the administration and use of his personal wealth but he can now either give this right over to the community, as previously, or to his needy relatives. Vincent had given in to pressure. He was obliged to make even more concessions. So as to settle the obligations of the vow of poverty once and for all, he went back to the Holy See, asking it to sanction the "basic statute" of poverty for the missionaries. The Pope did this in a new brief, "Alias nos", on 12th August, 1659. [43]
The application of this newly approved statute differed considerably from the original one. From now on the missionaries would retain not only the ownership of their goods but also the administration of them, together with their accrued interest and benefits, but they were to use this income for works of charity and could not spend it on anything for themselves without permission from the superior.
Whether he liked it or not, the Founder had bowed to the demands of many members of his community. He was flexible enough to give up his own point of view when essential values were not at stake. [44]
Ideal and safeguard
The juridical structures of the Congregation of the Mission which had been tentatively mapped out in the 1625 contract, were definitively settled when final approval was granted to the Rules and the vows. For thirty five years Vincent had pursued his objective with great tenacity and we don't know which to admire most; the sureness of his intuition or the great patience with which he succeeded, in the teeth of all opposition, in seeing them take concrete shape in the juridical texts approved by the Church's supreme authority.
His efforts resulted in something that was entirely new; a Congregation which belonged to the secular clergy and yet was exempt from the ordinary, and one that took vows. He had had his hesitations and his doubts but he never lost confidence that in the end his efforts would be rewarded. He had made concessions on minor points but had preserved the essentials. The final format was in keeping with the original plan; it had been developed and enriched with time but it had never been watered down or altered.
Perhaps the most original feature of Vincent's creation was the reconciling of two apparent opposites; the taking of vows and the secular nature of the Institute.
Vincent's refusual to embrace the religious state never faltered. Was this is a question of principle? We have no reason to think so from Vincent's writings. Was he afraid that religious structures might stifle the apostolic impetus of the Company or weaken its charism? We have no documentary evidence to support such a claim. [45]
We will have to have recourse to other sources of information to decide this question. There isn't the slightest doubt that Vincent held the religious life in high esteem. On more than one occasion he expressed regret at the suspicion and antagonism shown towards the religious state; [46] he often declared that he wished he had its spirit [47] and that he hoped to enjoy the reward promised to it. [48] Saint Chantal began to think it was Vincent's intention to combine the perfection of the ecclesiastical condition with that of the religious state of life but he humbly protested that this was not so. [49] He was so determined to introduce vows into the Company that at the most difficult point in the negotiations, in 1640, he was prepared to call it a religious congregation [50] and it appears he even went so far as to petition for religious vows. [51]
But these were extreme concessions which he made with great reluctance at a time when there seemed no other way out. In the event it proved to be a useless strategy because the difficulty they were encountering in having the vows approved came precisely from the fact that people thought taking vows would make the Congregation into a religious order.
Apart from the temporary disparity we have just mentioned, the option to keep the Congregation of the Mission within the body of the secular clergy was a constant from the early years of the foundation [52]to the end of Vincent's life. There were both theoretical and practical reasons for this. The secular nature of the community was inherent from the very beginning and the older missionaries brandished this argument when they opposed the taking of vows; the vocation they had been called to was that of a secular priest.
There were other reasons at that particular time. Opposition to new religious orders was very strong in Rome, especially during the pontificate of Innocent X (1644 1655) [53] and opposition was even stronger in France where the bishops exerted a lot of pressure. [54] In 1645 they ordered the reprinting of the works of Petrus Aurelius, (Saint Cyran) who, in his polemics against the Jesuits and Benedictines, defended the eminent dignity of the priesthood as superior to the taking of vows, which, according to him, were of human origin. [55] We should remember, too, that the first difficulties encountered in having the Congregation approved by Rome, stemmed from the fact that it was considered to be a new religious order. And finally, we should remember the very disedifying spectacle presented by numerous religious orders at that particular moment in the history of the Church in France.
Vincent was unhappy about the hostility then being shown to the religious orders but he had to give way before it. However, he never gave up the idea of vows which had been part of the Company's spiritual heritage right from the beginning. [56[ The reason most frequently suggested for taking vows is that thay help the individual to persevere in a difficult vocation which demands painful sacrifices. [57] But that is not the only reason. Vincentian spirituality with regard to the vows went beyond what was merely functional, and all through the years of controversy its development was perfectly coherent. Let us give a brief summary of this spirituality.
The initial inspiration to make vows sprang from a desire to be in the most perfect state possible and the wish to forge a bond with God and with the community. [58] The reasons given in the ordinatio of 1641 are that, besides the natural inconsistency of the human spirit, we can point to God's intervention in the Old Testament when he ordained circumcision and in the New Testament when he prescribed baptism; the example of the Church which only confers the priesthood on those who consecrate themselves to it for life, and the example of religious orders who always considered vows essential if members were to persevere in their vocation. [59] During the assembly of 1651 Vincent argued that taking vows created bonds with God and with the community, that it was a way of imitating Christ, and that vows made all members of the Company equal. [60] Four years later this same argument is presented in a letter to Fr. Blatiron, and Vincent's reflections on the matter develop and give added weight to the reasoning. Vows are made so that the Company may be in the state which is most pleasing to God, namely that of perfection, and so that its members may strive more faithfully for personal sanctification and be drawn to give themselves completely to God in this way. On the other hand, opposition to the vows comes, not from the spirit, but from human nature which demands more and more freedom. [61]
It was Vincent's special genius that combined the secular nature of the Company with the taking of vows; or, as he would have said, the inspiration came from God. [62]
