VIGILANCE OVER RECTORS: A LOOK INTO SOME ANTI-MODERNIST INTERVENTIONS INVOLVING CARDINAL MERRY DEL VAL

ALBERT CECILIO A. FLORES

To make sure that the instruction given in seminaries and other Catholic edu- cational institutions was orthodox and faithful to the directives coming from the , it was deemed necessary to be vigilant over the persons heading these institutions, that is, the rectors. This paper looks into three cases of vigi- lance over rectors in which Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val1 (1865-1930) was involved. These cases concerned Pierre Batiffol (1861-1929) of Toulouse, Paulin Ladeuze (1870-1940) of Louvain and Umberto Fracassini (1862-1950) of Perugia. Hopefully, this investigation will contribute to a better understan- ding of this particular aspect of the anti-modernist repression that took place during the pontificate of Pius X (1903-1914), particularly Merry del Val’s role in it.

Batiffol (Toulouse)

On 12 August 1907 Cardinal Andreas Steinhuber (1825-1907), prefect of the Congregation of the Index, notified the archbishop of Toulouse, Jean Augustin Germain (1839-1928), about the dicastery’s decision concerning Batiffol’s L’Eucharistie, la présence réelle et la transubstantiation.2 Batiffol’s work was

1 A fairly recent biography is Alberto J. GONZÁLEZ CHAVES, Rafael Merry del Val, Madrid nd 2004. See also José María JAVIERRE, Merry del Val, 2 edition, Barcelona 1965; Pio CENCI, Il Cardinale Raffaele Merry del Val, Roma 1933; and CONGREGATIO DE CAUSIS SANCTO- RUM, Romana beatificationis et canonizationis S.D. Raphaelis Card. Merry del Val. Informa- tio. Tabella testium. Summarium. Litterae postulatoriae super causae introductione et sum- marium ex officio super scriptis, Romae 1957. 2 For the draft of the letter to Germain, see ACDF Index Prot. 138 (1906-1907), n. 265. Batif- fol’s work was denounced to the Index in May 1906 by Louis Billot, upon the “expressed de- sire” of Pius X; ACDF Index Diari 22 (1894-1907), 220 (1 May 1906). The task to prepare a votum was given to Enrico Buonpensiere, who proposed the condemnation of the book; see Buonpensiere’s votum in ACDF Index Prot. 138 (1906-1907), n. 150. In the preparatory con- gregation of 29 November 1906, the were divided over Buonpensiere’s conclu-

474 ALBERT CECILIO A. FLORES declared worthy of censure and thus, according to the Index cardinals, it should be condemned. However, the cardinals decided against promulgating the decree of condemnation and ordered Batiffol to correct the book entirely, revise it so that readers would know that he himself retracted his errors, and make sure that the new edition would not be published without the approval of the congregation.3 Within a week Germain reported to Steinhuber that the rec- tor of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse humbly submitted, accepting the judgment and instructions of the dicastery.4 A month and a half later, in early October, Germain referred to Merry del Val Batiffol’s questions concerning “Pascendi”’s prohibition on taking cour- ses in state universities and the French government’s requirement for the insti- tute’s license candidates.5 In his letter, the archbishop of Toulouse also told Merry del Val that Batiffol “est disposé à nous donner, sur tous les points, complète satisfaction”.6 Describing the French prelate as a good priest of un- questionable talent who had rendered services to the Church, Germain ex- pressed the desire to keep him as rector of the institute: si maintenant il nous donne, comme il l’a promis, tant au point de vue de la doc- trine qu’au point de vue de la discipline toutes les garanties que nous desirons, j’ose espérer que Votre Eminence … ne trouvera pas mauvais que je le man- tienne dans sa position.7 Batiffol would later lament that did not contemplate the possibility of removing him from his position until Germain’s letter reached Merry del Val.8 Merry del Val answered Germain with two letters: the first, dated 8 October 1907, discussed Batiffol’s own case9 and the second, dated 9 October 1907, addressed the issue of interpreting “Pascendi”’s directive.10 According to Mer- ry del Val, in as much as Batiffol had given his assurances both in doctrine and in discipline, Pius X was not giving the formal order to remove him im- mediately from his office. However his situation remained in suspense. Hence

sions, and so in the plenary congregation of 11 December 1906, the cardinals decided that an- other should review the book; ACDF Index Diari 22 (1894-1907), 230-233.235. Is- idoro Donzella was tasked to write the second votum; see Donzella’s votum in ACDF Index Prot. 138 (1906-1907), n. 244. 3 ACDF Index Diari 22 (1894-1907), 267-269. For a summary of the events leading to this 1907 decision on Batiffol’s work, see also ACDF Index Prot. 140 (1910-1911), n. 142 (Memoria sulla vicenda della condanna dell’opera di Batiffol). 4 Germain’s reply, dated 18 August 1907, is in ACDF, Index Prot. 138 (1906-1907), n. 266. 5 Letter, Batiffol to Germain, 30 September 1907, in ASV Segr. Stato 1910, rub. 7, fasc. unico, 4r-6r. 6 Letter, Germain to Merry del Val, 2 October 1907, in ASV Segr. Stato 1910, rub. 7, fasc. uni- co, 7r-7v, esp. 7r. 7 ASV Segr. Stato 1910, rub. 7, fasc unico 7v. 8 See the letter of Batiffol to Birot, dated 6 December 1907; Marcel BÉCAMEL, Comment Mon- seigneur Batiffol quitta Toulouse, à la Noël 1907, in: Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 72 (1971), 284-285. 9 ASV Segr. Stato 1910, rub. 7, fasc. unico, 9. 10 ASV Segr. Stato 1910, rub. 7, fasc. unico, 10r-10v.