Marie Euphrasie Pelletier Et Ses Chemins De Réconciliation

Mary Euphrasia Pelletier and her ways of reconciliation

During your journey in France in order to arrive in Angers, for most of you, you passed by Chartres, famous for its cathedral. One of the windows represents the apostles carried by the prophets of the Old Testament. The craftsman who imagined the theme of this window, the master glazier who made it 700 years ago speak to us of a profound reality: each generation is carried by the preceeding one. While we seek together the ways of reconciliation for today, it is good to turn towards the past and to question our foundress: what tensions did she experience? How did she cope with them? How did she feel?

1. Mary Euphrasia was born during a revolutionary period in France. 10 ans of violence with some calmer periods and others so awful that theyhave since been called : the Terror. Let us weigh carefully this word, to live in terror.

Perhaps some of you have experience a period of great violence in your country: war, threat of terrorism … Can you stand up or simply raise your hand?

Rose-Virginie’s parents were put in prison for political reasons, leaving their five children to the charity of their neighbours. They were forced to live on the island of Noirmoutier; in a house that did not belong to them, without their furniture, their linen … Noirmoutier at the time was not yet a place for holidays.

The year 1796 knew a period of calm but the traces of the Revolution were very present: families torn apart by opposing opinions, denunciations, condemnations, few families had been spared. And then, houses destroyed, monuments damaged, mutilated, disaffected churches serving as shops, stables… You all know the episode about the young Rose- Virginie taking the initiative to clean the crypt of the church. Do you realize what was in the crypt under the main altar? Dung, straw soiled by the horses belonging to the army that were sheltered in the church

Are there not in our lives, in our groups some cluttered crypts? Areas of our lives that we prefer not to look at?

Vendée, the region of France where Rose-Virginie lived, was mainly and fiercely royalist. Many objects-souvenirs that are to be found on Noirmoutier are decorated with two hearts entwined: God and the king, the twofold attachment of the Vendéens. Now, Rose-Virginie’s parents were republicans, open and moderate republicans. Rose-Virginie would meet many royalists on Noirmoutier, in her boarding school in Tours then in Angers, like M. de Neuville or Mgr. Angebault, to take only two examples. She lived in a period that was troubled politically: 2 revolutions in 1830 and 1848, a coup d’état in 1851 … But after that, it was a question of beginning to live togather again!

What can Rose Virginie teach us about living in politically difficult circumstances: What did she learn from her parents, who cared for the sick and wounded of both sides?

2. The XIXth century saw great policial transformation but also a profound and irreversible economic and social evolution. The use of the steam machine brought many consequences in its wake: increase in production, birth of the factories, becoming bigger and biggerm displacement of the population, new means

1 of transport… In the new factories, dozens then hundreds of workers were subject to dangerous work, with timetables from 14/16 hours a day, 6 days out of 7, and that without any social protection. A worker who was injured or sick got no compensation; the whole family was in want.

A gap was opened up between the social classes – and what Karl Marx would call “class struggle”, driving force of history still only existed as a theory – but conflicts would soon arise.

Mary Euphrasia knew the workers’ living conditions; she saw the marks of them in the women and young girls she received. But she was also in contact with people from affluent milieus, benefacters who were indispensible to the life of the house. When there was question of the future of a person who was leaving the Good Shepherd, friends and benefacters were sollicited.

The testimonies to the Process of Canonisation tell us that the Mother House helped in differenct ways; giving food and clothing to the families of sick workers…We see that she quickly paid for work ordered from outside knowing that the craftsment lived from day to day. She recommended the Sisters never to keep a workman waiting in the parlour so as to avoid him losing his day’s pay. She even went as far as paying the bridge tax (the tax imposed on people using the bridge) for the parents of such and such a young girl in order to promote family reunions, so that the price of the crossing would not be a pretext for “abandoning” a difficult daughter placed with the Good Shepherd.

We also know how much Mary Euphrasia recommended the Sisters not to neglect teaching all the young girls in the house read, write and calculate. “Being instructed and knowing how to work, they would be able, not only to provide for their own needs, but also help their families.” Today we talk about action long term.

To inform oneself and gain knowledge about situations of need or injustice … To act both in giving urgent help and in formation for the future … To develop contacts between two opposing social groups…what can these lines of action of our foundress say to us today ?

3. The French Revolution committed many excesses and violence. All the same, it promulgated the first Human Rights Declaration, whose article 1 said: “All men are born free and equal in right” The consequences of this affirmation are considerable, as much on the level of individual liberty as on the right of peoples to self- determination. One could develop these consequences for days! But I will stick to Mary Euphrasia in Angers.

In 1842, a young girl absconded from the Good Shepherd by jumping over the wall and sprained her ankle. Taken up by the local police, she complained of being “locked up” and mistreated. The enquiries proved that the family had begged the Good Shepherd to accept her and that the adolescent wanted to put pressure on by moaning about her lot. Some days later she came to ask pardon and beg for her readmission. But in the meantime, a republican, anticlerical journalist, a lawyer, got hold of information so as to launch a campaign against the church. The polemic would last for weeks, with daily articles.

2 How does one react? At the Good Shepherd, M. de Neuville went to court to answer to the accusations concerning the mistreatment of which the young girls were victims. When the truth was known about the living conditions of the young girls at the Mother House, Mary Euphrasia was opposed, against the advice of M. de Neuville and his friends, to any pursuit of Grégoire Bordillon. He, despite their differences of opinion, would remember this during the 1848 Revolution, and, as Prefect, would protect the Good Shepherd. Beyond the differences of philosophical or religious opinion, Mary Euphrasia would only defend « the holy work », that is, what concerned the mission. She would not go further. She did not profit from a situation to destroy and adversary.

Is he/she who thinks differently to me, to us, automatically an enemy? When I have won a position, will I pursue the combat until the other has been crushed? If the other wins my position what do I expect from him/her?

4. The Church, also was subject to different currents. At the end of the Revolution, the Church in France had to be rebuilt. In the proper sense: many buildings had been ransacked or very damaged. You will visit Tours and you will see that the statues over the door of the cathedral are nearly all decapitated; and it is the same almost everywhere in France, from the Revolution. It was more all the realities of the Church that had been attacked. For example, in 1827, so 25 years after the end of the Revolution, not even 10 Eudists were left

The Church found herself divided into “official” priests, having taken the oath to the Republic and priests who resisted (they were called refractory) who had to hide, live clandestinely or emigrate. There were 30 to 40 000 priests who emigrated. Mary Euphrasia worked with priests from these two « Churches », the most famous being Mgr Montault, the Bishop of Angers, for the foundation of the Generalate.

Let us think of the Church in the countries of Eastern Europe (Hungary, for example) during 40 years of communist regime. Let us also think of the Church of China even today, having a State Church and a clandestine Church.

Another split arose around authority in the Church. Certain people – the Gallicans1 defended the authority of all the bishops in a certain country against the personal authority of the Pope. Others thought that the Pope, successor to Peter, had a personal authority over the whole Church. In France they were called Ultramontains, beyond the mountains that separated France from Rome. This question would be addressed during the stormy debates during the first Vatican Council leading to the declaration on papal infallibility in 1870. Mary Euphrasia worked with gallican bishops, like Mgr. Angebault, of whom we will talk tomorrow; and also ultramontain bishops.

Our Church is still going through tension and ruptures. So then, where does my love of the Church lead me?

Mary Euphrasia was also in contact with other Churches. In her day, the general conviction was that the Roman Catholic Church was the only true one. “Outside of

1 Gallicanism – Josephism in Austria and other similar movements – were before the Revolution. The crisis between the french government and the papacy had known a acute phase in 18th century.

3 the Church, no salvation!” – understood: outside the Roman Church. Since then, notably through the text “Dignitatis Humanae”2 of Vatican Council II, relgious freedom is has been recognized as a fundamental right of the person and of communities. Let us quote the foundation in London, in an Anglican England, for which the Sisters left Angers in secular dress, where the school children rang at the door of the house so as to see what a Catholic Sister looked like. Let us think about Bangalore (India) where the Sisters had to face strong competition between Catholics and Protestants for the frequentation of school and church. Free teas, gifts of uniforms, free transport were means of this competition, a difficult challenge for the Sisters to take up. At Smyrna, the oppostion of the Greek Catholics would end in the closure of the house! There are many other examples: in Egypt, the House welcomed children of 15 nationalities and of 9 different religions. As for Islam, Mary Euphrasia had asked the specialists, Eugène Boré (1809-1878) in particular. From this orientalist, Mary Euphrasia knew that it was practically impossible to convert the Muslims, that the best approach was to open a school for all the children without distiction between race or religion. This is what the missionary Sisters in Egypt did. The Foundress prepared the Sisters for the meeting with believers of other Churches3 on three fronts: first of all, know the religion of the other. Then, be discreet in the welcoming of women and children in difficulty, without engaging in polemics. And finally, if the opposition is too strong, if it risks leading to conflicts in the country, it is better to leave. If evangelization remains the first goal, it is not done by a “holy war” and putting pressure on people. A person in difficulty is to be taken into account without religious discrimination. Today, we are convinced of this; it was not the general opinion in 1840.

Que connaissez-vous des religions autres que l’Eglise catholique romaine ? Y a-t-il chez vous concurrence, rivalité entre les Eglises ? Comment réagissez-vous ?

5. L’activité du Bon-Pasteur dans tant de pays différents a conduit Marie-Euphrasie et ses Sœurs au cœur de dissensions politiques, sociales, religieuses. Notre fondatrice s’est gardée à distance de ces groupes et de leurs conflits. Elle a évité de prendre parti, un autre parti que celui des jeunes et des femmes accueillies. Elle a cependant traité avec des personnes très diverses sans se laisser abuser par une quelconque étiquette religieuse ou politique. Il est vrai qu’elle n’a pas été à l’abri d’une certaine compromission. En Algérie, en 1851, lorsque l’autorité militaire lui impose les prisonnières politiques à recevoir en urgence, les Sœurs ne peuvent refuser la demande/l’ordre du Général. Mais quand Madame Roland – (1805-1852), féministe républicaine - se montrera odieuse pour se faire renvoyer, après avoir patienté à la limite du possible, son départ sera sollicité et obtenu. Dès lors, l’attitude des autres détenues politiques changera du tout au tout. Chaque personne est plus, vaut plus que son apparence, que ce qu’on dit d’elle, que son passé. Et pour l’œuvre sainte, personne n’est exclu a priori. Il faut toujours renouer les fils, rebâtir, reconstruire, inlassablement, avec la patience de Dieu.

2 Declaration on religious freedom, promulgated 7th December 1965 3 See the accompanying text Nº 2

4 TEXTES d’APPUI 1. Gallicans et Ultramontains

- « Ma Mère, qu’entend-on par Gallican et Ultramontain ? sont-ce deux partis opposés dans l’Eglise ? - « Voici une explication que je n’avais pas pensé de vous donner, mais que je suis bine aise que vous me demandiez. Les Gallicans et les Ultramontains, ni opposés entre eux, ni opposés à l’Eglise, ont seulement une manière différente de se soumettre. Les Gallicans ne se soumettent qu’aux décisions solennelles de l’Eglise, telles que celles des Conciles, du Sacré Collège… Partout ailleurs, ils examinent et se servent de leur jugement. Les Ultramontains, au contraire, s’en rapportent à la seule voix du pape et se soumettent à sa simple volonté. Les Jésuites sont ultramontains et voilà pourquoi ils sont les fils chéris de l’Eglise, et l’un de ses plus fermes appuis. Notre Congrégation, je l’espère, peut bien aussi se glorifier de ce titre, car je ne crois pas que l’on puisse être plus soumis à l’Eglise que nous le sommes. » (au cours d’un « Noviciat », octobre 1841)

2. Œcuménisme

Les questions que plusieurs d’entre vous m’ont faites pendant la récréation me font réfléchir de quelle importance il est de vous instruire solidement… Vous me demandiez si l’Eglise grecque était d’accord avec l’Eglise romaine et si l’on pouvait se sauver dans cette Eglise. A ce sujet, je vous ai répondu et je vous le répète maintenant, il ne faut pas confondre l’Eglise grecque et le schisme grec. Le pape approuve l’Eglise et condamne le schisme. Ce qu’on appelle l’Eglise grecque n’est qu’une différence de cérémonie pour la forme extérieure tandis que le schisme est un refus ouvert contre l’autorité suprême du Souverain pontife. L’Eglise grecque dérive immédiatement des apôtres, ses coutumes sont celles qu’ils observaient et qu’ils enseignaient et les changements que nous remarquons dans l’Eglise romaine sont ceux qu’ont nécessité les sentiments et les usages des lieux ? A la messe des grecs, on communie sous les deux espèces, c’est du pain que l’on donne, au lieu d’hostie, et l’on se tient debout à la sainte table. Ces différentes particularités se rapprochent beaucoup, comme vous le voyez, de l’ancienne Pâque et de la sainte Cène. J’ai vu à Rome le Patriarche grec, il était venu visiter notre Monastère et je le suppliai de vouloir bien nous dire la Sainte Messe. Je ne le puis, ma chère fille, me répondit-il, à moins que le pape m’en donne la permission, car à Rome, j’évite d’officier en public, à cause de la différence de nos cérémonies. D’après cette objection, nous fîmes demander le consentement du Saint Père qui, en le donnant, ajouta : « Est-ce que mes filles du Bon- Pasteur veulent devenir grecques ? » Remarquez qu’il n’a pas dit : schismatiques. Pour vous faire comprendre que ces différences ne rompent nullement l’unité de l’Eglise dans sa croyance et dans sa morale, je vous citerai notre congrégation. Croyez-vous pouvoir faire en Amérique comme en France ? Et ne pensez-vous pas qu’il faudra vous conformer un peu aux usages et aux coutumes des lieux ? » (au cours d’un « Noviciat », octobre 1841)

3. Témoignage de Sœur Clémentine Muller

« Jamais je n’ai entendu la Servante de Dieu faire la moindre médisance, la moindre critique, la moindre raillerie blessante. Jamais je n’ai remarqué dans sa voix la moindre nuance d’intonation ironique. Et, jugeant par ce que j’ai entendu, je dirais que ceux-là qui osent prétendre que la Servante de Dieu ait prononcé quelque nom avec un son de voix ironique, se sont trompés dans leur interprétation. La Servante de Dieu savait

5 admirablement pardonner les offenses. En ce qui concerne Mgr Angebault, j’ignorais les difficultés qui existaient entre lui et le Bon-Pasteur et je n’aurais jamais pu les soupçonner en considérant la conduite de notre Mère. Elle se montrait si respectueuse et empressée, et quand Mgr devait venir à la communauté, elle en parlait avec une joie si cordiale et nous faisait préparer la fête avec tant d’empressement qu’on n’aurait jamais dit que le prélat ne fût pas l’ami le plus dévoué et le bienfaiteur le plus généreux de la Servante de Dieu et de sa congrégation… c’est longtemps après la mort de la servante de Dieu que j’ai appris qu’il y avait eu des démêlés entre Mgr Angebault et notre communauté. » 1151. Juxta 23 inter. Sœur Clémentine Muller

HORAIRE PROPOSE POUR LA JOURNEE DU 18 JUIN 2006

9 h Premier exposé

Sur place, personnellement, prise de connaissance des textes d’appui. Questions de clarification

10 h 30 Pause

11 h Travail de groupe sur l’intervention et les textes d’appui. Relever une phrase qui vous interpelle.

12 h Mise en commun. (Distribution des questions pour l’après-midi)

15 h Travail de groupe

16 h Pause

16 h 30 Mise en commun

QUESTIONS POUR LES TRAVAUX DE GROUPE (15h)

1. Repérez, là où vous êtes en mission, les groupes antagonistes.

2. Comment vous positionnez-vous dans ce contexte ?

3. Relever, dans notre société, les pas réalisés les uns vers les autres entre groupes opposés.

La mise en commun portera sur vos trouvailles à la question 3.

6 Chaque « réconciliation » sera évoquée (par écrit ou par photo) sur un support papier/carton et présentée à la prière universelle au cours de l’Eucharistie de 18 heures.