EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses 91/2 (2015) 295-309. doi: 10.2143/ETL.91.2.3085095 © 2015 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved. The Resurgence of Integrism The Action of the Holy Office against René Draguet Ward DE PRIL KULeuven I. INTRODUCTION On July 4, 1942, the Belgian Archbishop Ernest Van Roey received a letter from the Holy Office, instructing him – without any further explana- tion – to prudently remove René Draguet (1896-1980) from his teaching duties at the Louvain Faculty of Theology1. Draguet, a secular priest, theo- logian and orientalist, had been teaching fundamental theology – at that time called dogmaticageneralis– since 1927. One day earlier, Van Roey had received the instruction from the Holy Office that the Catholic Univer- sity of Leuven had to deprive Vincenze Buffon, a former student of the Faculty of Theology, of his doctor’s title2. Buffon’s dissertation on Paolo Sarpi – written under the direction of Draguet – had been “condemned” by the Holy Office two weeks earlier (June 17, 1942)3. These decisions hit the University of Louvain very hard: one of its professors and one of its doctors were denounced by the Holy Office. Some months earlier, Louvain theologians had been startled when Louis Charlier’s Essaisurleproblèmethéologique4 had been put on the Index, together with Marie-Dominique Chenu’s UneÉcoledethéologie:Le Saulchoir5. Charlier was a professor at the Dominican studiumin Louvain. It was common knowledge that he shared the outspoken views of Draguet on the nature and method of theology. Ever since the Essaisurlepro- blèmethéologiquehad come out in late 1938, rumours were circulating that Draguet was its real author. The close ties of both Charlier and Buffon as “disciples” of Draguet seem to make of him the key figure in the sanctions issued by the Holy Office in 1942. The case of the Louvain theologians was 1. Archives Archdiocese of Malines (AAM), VanRoeyCollection-IV,5c, Marchetti- Selvaggiani to Van Roey, July 4, 1942. 2. AAM, VanRoeyCollection-IV,5b, Marchetti-Selvaggiani to Van Roey, July 3, 1942. 3. V. BUFFON, ChiesadiCristoeChiesaromananelleopereenelleletteredifraPaolo Sarpi (Dissertationes ad gradum doctoris in Facultate Theologica consequendum conscriptae. Series I, tomus 95), Leuven, Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis, 1941. 4. L. CHARLIER, Essaisurleproblèmethéologique (Bibliothèque Orientations. Section scientifique, 1), Thuillies, Ramgal, 1938. 5. M.-D. CHENU, UneÉcoledethéologie:LeSaulchoir, Kain-lez-Tournai – Étiolles, Le Saulchoir, 1937. 998150.indb8150.indb 229595 118/06/158/06/15 110:540:54 296 W. DE PRIL inseparable from the vicissitudes of Marie-Dominique Chenu and Le Saulchoir. In what follows, I will try to sketch the complex relations between the sanctions against Draguet, Buffon, Charlier and Chenu in their broader historical-theological context of theological renewal. II. CONTEXT The 1930s are of crucial importance in the history of 20th-century Catholic theology. In this decade, the foundations were laid of the theo- logical developments in the 1940s and 1950s, sanctioned at the Second Vatican Council: the discovery of the importance of history (Lieuxthéo- logiquesenacte) and the believing subject for theology (Chenu), the reform of ecclesiology and nascent ecumenical reflection (Congar) and the recovery of the broad and deep Catholic tradition (de Lubac)6. One of the most directly relevant factors in explaining this revival and renewal is the changed ecclesiastical situation, “the waning of the anti-modernist zealotry that had nearly smothered Catholic intellectual life in the two decades after the condemnation [of modernism] in 1907”7. In 1929, the first historical study of modernism had appeared: Lemodernismedansl’Égliseof Jean Rivière8. The work was still very apologetic: Rivière wanted to show that modern- ism was a reality and not a myth created by the imagination of the Magis- terium9. But it was important, because modernism was dealt with as some- thing that belonged to the past and was an object of historical study. The last chapter, entitled “Fin du modernisme”, was quite clear in that regard. Here we find Rivière stating that “il est permis de dire sans témérité que la phase du modernisme aigu est maintenant close”10. Two years later and in response to Rivière’s study, Chenu considered the time ripe for a his- torical-theological reflection on the modernist crisis11. In Lesensetles leçonsd’unecrisereligieuse12, Chenu approached modernism as a crisis 6. J.A. KOMONCHAK, ReturningfromExile:CatholicTheologyinthe1930s, in G. BAUM (ed.), TheTwentiethCentury:ATheologicalOverview, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 1999, p. 45. 7. Ibid., p. 36. 8. J. RIVIÈRE, Lemodernismedansl’Église:Étuded’histoirereligieusecontemporaine, Paris, Letouzey, 1929. 9. Cf. R. DRAGUET, review of Lemodernismedansl’Église, by J. Rivière, in Revue d’histoireecclésiastique26 (1930) 427-430, p. 427. 10. Quoted in P. COLIN, L’audaceetlesoupçon:Lacrisedumodernismedanslecatho- licismefrançais1893-1914(Anthropologiques), Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1997, p. 465. 11. In the academic year 1933-1934, Chenu studied the modernist crisis in the context of his course Histoiredesdoctrineschrétiennes. See C. BAUER, OrtswechselderTheologie: M.-DominiqueChenuimKontextseinerProgrammschrift“UneÉcoledethéologie:Le Saulchoir”(Tübinger Perspektiven zur Pastoraltheologie und Religionspädagogik), vol. 1, Berlin, Lit, 2010, p. 227. 12. M.-D. CHENU, Lesensetlesleçonsd’unecrisereligieuse, in LaVieIntellectuelle (1931) 356-380. 998150.indb8150.indb 229696 118/06/158/06/15 110:540:54 THE ACTION OF THE HOLY OFFICE AGAINST RENÉ DRAGUET 297 of growth for the Church: after grammar in the 9th century and dialectics in the 12th, history proposed to become theology’s handmaiden in the 20th cen- tury. For Chenu, the task of post-“modernist” theology consisted in “reap- ing the fruits” of the historical method13. The idea that the time was right to rescue for the Church whatever was of value in modernism was clearly shared by Draguet and Charlier, especially with regard to the application of the historical-critical method to Christian data14. This interest in history has certainly been one of the most prominent constituent parts of the theo- logical renewal from the mid-1930s onwards15.Yet, this historical orienta- tion could give rise to quite divergent forms of renewal, as is proved by the concrete projects of Draguet and Charlier and that of Chenu. I will briefly discuss these projects before examining the opposition they raised in Roman circles, leading up to the condemnations of 1942. 1. TheTheologicalRenewalofRenéDraguetandLouisCharlier Draguet started his academic career as a historian of Christian doc- trine. Especially his study of the monophysitism of the 5th and 6th cen- turies instilled into his mind a profound sensitivity for the importance of the historical, literary and grammatical context of a doctrine together with an abhorrence of any dogmatic-apologetic reading of the Christian past16. By appointing Draguet to the chair of fundamental theology in 1927, rector Paulin Ladeuze hoped to integrate the results of historical sciences into theology. In the following years Draguet developed a specific theo- logical theory in an attempt to respect the legitimate claims of both faith (dogma) and facts (history). He aimed at addressing anew and in an orthodox way the problems history posed to theology since the crisis of modernism. 13. Cf. C.F. POTWOROWSKI, ContemplationandIncarnation:TheTheologyofMarie- DominiqueChenu(McGill Queen’s Studies in the History of Ideas, 33), Montreal, McGill- Queen’s University Press, 2001, pp. 101-102. 14. Cf. G. FLYNN, YvesCongar’sVisionoftheChurchinaWorldofUnbelief, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004, p. 32. 15. Cf. Chenu’s foreword in C. GEFFRÉ, Unnouvelâgedelathéologie(Cogitatio fidei, 68), Paris, Cerf, 1972, p. 8: “Entre tant de réflexions et de suggestions, je m’attacherai volon- tiers à la méthode historique, comme dénominateur commun des problèmes et des novations, tels que je les ai rencontrés, reconnus, énoncés, tels que, aujourd’hui, je les ressens, parfois comme en impasse. Des souvenirs précis me remontent en mémoire, épisodes minuscules de l’itinéraire de la théologie qui va de la crise moderniste à l’ultime sursaut avant liquidation, lorsque fut dénoncée en haut lieu la nouvelle théologie en 1946-1950, avec l’encyclique Humanigeneris”. 16. See especially his dissertation: Juliend’HalicarnasseetsacontroverseavecSévère d’Antiochesurl’incorruptibilitéducorpsduChrist:Étuded’histoirelittéraireetdoctrinale suiviedesFragmentsdogmatiquesdeJulien,textesyriaqueettraductiongrecque (Universi- tas catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Faculta Theologica consequen- dum conscriptae. Series II, tomus 12), Leuven, 1924. 998150.indb8150.indb 229797 118/06/158/06/15 110:540:54 298 W. DE PRIL Most importantly, the results of scientific history turned out to be incon- sistent with theological claims on the apostolic origin of dogmatic and institutional Catholicism. Instead of manipulating historical records, Draguet urged to take account of the importance of history in unfolding Revelation. Historical facts show us that the revealed was only handed on to the Church in the state of principles that had to be specified later on in a process of dogmatic development. This reality was indicated by Draguet as the “law” of revelation17. An intervention of the Magisterium explaining the exact meaning of the revealed principles is thus necessary. Theology as the “sci- ence of