Eugene was Vicar General of his uncle Fortuné, Bishop of Marseille, and was closely involved in the pastoral letters sent out by his uncle. The Mazenods were always fearless when it came to defending the rights of the church against the civil authorities. Eugene refers to one of these incidents in his letter to Fr. Suzanne. As I write this reflection today, it is election time here in the US and Eugene’s message continues to challenge us in our political choices as to who we seek to please.
I am surprised that the pastoral letter has not inspired you with reflections other than the remark about the displeasure of the Prefect. The response of thinking people here prompts a different conclusion and at the seminary they were inclined to applaud, which will prove to you that they still have some feeling for what is right.
It is a bishop’s duty to apply the remedy that fits the disease. Who cares whether Prefects are hurt or not – too bad if they are corrupt. St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom show little concern about such repercussions.
Letter to Marius Suzanne, 7 March 1827, EO VII n 264
Yvon Beaudoin, in a footnote to this letter, gives the background. In future years we will be seeing a lot more about conflicts between the French government and Eugene. “An allusion to the Lenten pastoral of 1827. Abbé de la Bruyère, priest of the diocese of Viviers, preached at Marseilles with much success until being interdicted by the Bishop. The latter had grave motives for acting in this manner, motives that he preferred not to make known in public. Many priests and lay people of Marseilles spoke in defence of the Abbé. In his pastoral letter of February 11, Fortuné addressed serious reproaches to them: “. . . The duties of the faithful in regard to their Bishop, so clearly laid down in apostolic times, have just recently again been disregarded by some wayward men, to the great scandal of all our flock…….”. The civil authorities judged this public intervention to be too strong, all the more because no one was alluding any more to this affair. “The multiple errors [of the Bishop] although caused by the purest principles, estrange from him those who could support him in his episcopate and are an obstacle for the public servants” wrote the Procurator, General La Boulie, to the Minister. March 3, 1827. “Like myself, the Prefect [Villeneuve-Bargemont] groans over the mistakes of the good Bishop .” National Archives, Paris, BB 18 1294.”
“The separation of church and state was meant to protect church from state; a state that declares religion off limits in public life is a state that declares itself supreme over all religious values.” Ben Shapiro
I have never really given much thought to the separation of Church and state until fairly recently. My faith, my spirituality, all begins and ends with God. It seems to colour what I do, how I think, how I live and have being. Not perfectly and not in a self righteous or goody-goody way – but still there in a deep breathing-in-as-air kind of way. Life isnot all ‘black and white’, boxed in and limited.
How do I live? Who do I seek to please in the way I live, the choices I make, the hats I wear? Does there have to be separation there from God and Church? Is the path we walk more like a tightrope, so limited and narrow? Do I wear two faces – one for church on Sundays and another for business and daily life? I used to separate God from various parts of my life, but I confess that is harder for me to do now, in fact I find that I don’t really want to be bothered with doing that. I don’t want to be a ‘separated’ person – it’s too much work.