Last week we discussed the Evangelical and Reformed penchant for invoking Roman, Jesuitical, counter-reformational mystics as a way of instructing the flock, and we registered our objections to such under the title of Peddling Fénelon. Protestant infatuation with François Fénelon is just one example of this tendency, and it is quite common for Fénelon to be cited by Protestants as a giant of the faith, a great Christian philosopher and an even greater evangelist—the very model of restraint and deference. By way of example, we notice that this Presbyterian church includes a citation from Fénelon on the footer of its downloads page, and this Presbyterian church features a quote from Fénelon on its “my favorite quotes” page.

We need not wonder what the Huguenots—whose wives and children were taken from them—would think of the high praises their descendants now lavish on him. He was a nefarious persecutor of the church, and sought by the most vile means to suppress the Gospel, separating wives from their husbands, taking children from their parents by force, and by such measures attempting to extract confessions and conversions from them, indoctrinating them against their will in the “Mission for New Catholics.” Not a few of his recalcitrant “students” ended up in the Bastille for their resistance to his preaching.

Those who doubt Fénelon’s depravity need only examine the evidence compiled against him in the 1872 exposé by Emmanuel Orentin Douen, L’Intolérance de Fénelon. Douen’s research includes his examination of reams of correspondence from the archives of La Maison des Nouvelles Catholiques while Fénelon was its superior. His work is unavailable in English but has been sufficiently summarized in English in a review published by the editors of The Christian Quarterly (Volume V, January – October, 1873). We provide their review below, for information only, and commend to those who can read it, Douen’s work in French, linked above.

Before we leave our readers to the editorial review of Douen’s work, we cannot help but smile at the story of two very “obstinate” young Huguenot ladies, Marguerite Hammonnet and Mademoiselle de Laure, both of whom, separated from their parents and under great duress, nevertheless would not yield to Fénelon and his “persuasive oratory.” Of their testimony we are informed from the archives of the “Mission for New Catholics,” while it was yet under Fénelon’s administration:

Marguerite Hammonnet: “The eldest Hammonnet is very obstinate. She is only four years old, and yet it is very dangerous to give her the liberty to see those who are not yet converted, or are bad Catholics.” (Douen, p. 216)

Mademoiselle de Laure: “Aged eleven years; has not yet communicated [received communion]; cannot without danger be sent back to her parents.” (Douen, p. 219)

While modern Protestants insist on doing Fénelon’s work for him, we pray the Lord that we may raise up such “stubborn” and “obstinate” children as these for the perseverance of His church in the coming generation.

Now, the 1873 review  of L’Intolérance de Fénelon…

_____________________________________

 L’Intolérance de Fénelon: Etudes Historiques, d’apres des Documents pour la pluparts inedits. Par O. Douen. (The Intolerance of Fénelon: Historical Studies after Documents for the most part unpublished. By O. Douen.) Paris: Sandoz & Fischbacher. 1872. 12mo. pp.336.

For almost two centuries, the name of Fénelon has had a currency in the world as almost a synonym of religious forbearance, tolerance, and freedom. As is common in such cases, once give a name a strong impulse in a certain direction, and it increases from period to period in ever-accumulating force in that direction until, some day, some iconoclast in history, by newer and deeper and more discriminating inquiries into the hidden historical sources of the past, breaks the spell of this false reputation and veneration, and shows men that they have been long deceived into a blind idol-worship, that it was all a delusion. The “mild and gentle Fénelon,” “the enemy of all constraint of conscience and religious persecution,” are expressions long since familiar to the world; and it is almost like a sacrilege to attempt to break violently into this pleasant faith, and rob men — Protestants, Catholics, and indifferentists, alike — of this cherished delusion. Yet this our author has done, with a steady, bold, unsparing hand; and, surely, not without success !

What accounts for this high reputation of Fénelon, if not really sustained by the truth of history? We may suggest some causes: The period of history in France in the midst of which Fénelon lived and acted, was one of general, fierce, bloody, unrelenting, and long-continued intolerance and persecution. It was the order and fashion and boast of the day, to be intolerant and actually persecuting. Any even apparent exception to this, in any degree, would stand forth with marked contrast. A man might still be intolerant and even persecuting; but if less than the general order of things, if he would demand any mitigation or relaxation, he would appear to Protestants and Catholics a tolerant man, by comparison. Again, a man’s words and pretensions of “gentleness,” “sweetness,” “forbearance,” “love,” and the like, if constantly repeated and wide-spread, concealing and expounding his acts, however really these may belie his pretensions — especially if these words are sounded forth with skillful rhetoric and consummate art, and amid the charm of high places — will go very far to deceive the world. Both these things, we confidently believe, were true of Fénelon.

Furthermore, another most important fact is, the wickedly false use of words by the men, from the king, Louis XIV, down to the lowest of his minions, male and female, who played their parts in that bloody drama. This is, indeed, one of the most repulsive and accursed pages in that history. The choicest words of noblest meaning about freedom and Christian charity, etc., are continually, with the most delicate suavity, on the lips of all the great leaders in this awful persecution. The ingenuous mind becomes bewildered by the atrocity of this general hypocrisy and profanity. We can submit whole pages of the noblest, “sweetest” utterances from the most abominable of these persecutors, including always, of course, the king. Here is where one of the chief deceptions lies. This charge, alas! rests with crushing weight also upon Fénelon. His language, with the everlasting prating about “douceur” in it, is a masterpiece of artfulness; he wrote on Rhetoric, and was a master in it. This is one of the most painful things in Fénelon’s character. Finally, the history of the chief actors in this drama has been mainly written by cunning Catholics, whose task it was to conceal the bad and deceive the world. By these men the documents have been skillfully handled, the darkest pages, the incriminating passages, suppressed. To this class belongs the history of Fénelon by Cardinal Bausset.

We are aware that Protestants have quietly allowed themselves to be taught the life of Fénelon by such men as Bausset, and have become eulogists of his hero. In the history of Protestantism in France, our day will reveal yet many things hidden before. The researches now made will, perhaps for the first time, bring this great dramatic history in its full truth before the world.

The book before us treats of Fénelon in his direct relations to Protestants. This embraces his history, first, as Superior of the Nouvelles Catholiques; and second, as Missionary in Saintonge. The conduct of Fénelon in these two positions occupies the principal part of the book — two hundred pages. The remainder is occupied with Appendices. These are: 1. The Remonstrances of the Clergy and the Revocation of Nantes; 2. List of the Recluses of the House of the Nouvelles Catholiques; 3. Two Episodes of the Revocation (1, the Pastor of the Desert, Givry; 2, the Pastor du Vigneau) ; 4. Letters of Fénelon, written from Saintonge ; 5. Attempts at Fusion of Catholicism and Protestantism; 6. A Trap Laid by a Bishop for a Proscribed Pastor.

The Nouvelles Catholiques was an establishment in Paris — with branch institutions — under the special favor of the king, for Protestant ladies, “converted,” or “to be converted” to the Catholic religion. Of this Fénelon was made the superior. The history of the Nouvelles Catholiques is one of the darkest pages in the atrocious history of Catholic persecution of that day in France. The inmates were largely children, young girls, not seldom under ten years of age, taken violently from their parents, often by stealth; others were older, but seized by force, and incarcerated in these “retreats,” as they were euphemistically called; they were really prisons.

Like all such institutions, the greatest care was taken to cover with the veil of dark secrecy the details of its inner history. Every one connected with these “retreats,” from the superior to the humblest devoted familiar and menial, well understood this, and was faithful to his trust. But, in spite of all this care, many terrible facts inevitably reached public knowledge. Were all that happened within these mysterious walls revealed, what a terrible history we would read!

But let us cite some of these facts that have been brought into light from secret records and other sources. The Nouvelles Catholiques, according to the author of its Constitutions or Regulations, “was intended to furnish to young Protestant ladies, converts to the Church, or desiring to become such, a safe retreat against the persecution of their relatives, and against the artifices of heretics.” One of its directors says that its inmates “found here, with joy, a retreat assured against the persecution of their relatives.” How enormous, as usual, was the lying in these calm, sweet words, will appear from a few only of the facts we cite from the history of this delightful “retreat from persecution.” And, first, we will show how these inmates were brought to the Nouvelles Catholiques. We cite documents of high authority.

The Marquis de Seignelay, on the part of the king, wrote to the lieutenant-general of police the following laconic orders :

“October 20, 1685.
“His majesty desires that you send and bring from Charenton, Magdeleine Risol, and that you have her placed in the Nouvelles Catholiques.”

The next is fuller:

“April 24, 1685.
“His majesty desires that you have placed in the Nouveaux, or Nouvelles Catholiques, those of children of the woman Rousseau, that are yet quite young; in these houses their board will be paid by his majesty, after you have informed me what is to be paid. With reference to the others who are of riper years, his majesty relies on you to induce them, by such means as you will think most proper, to be converted.”

Mark, “relies on you” — the lieutenant-general of police — to induce them to be converted by means you may adopt! Nothing plainer than this. Here comes one of still plainer speech:

“January 24, 1686.
“The king knows that the wife of the man Trouillard, apothecary at Paris, and who is at present with the Duke and the Duchess de Bouillon, is one of the most stubborn Huguenots in existence. And, as her conversion may bring about that of her husband, his majesty desires that you have her arrested and taken to the Nouvelles Catholiques, according to the order which I here send you.”

To facilitate these arrests M. de Harlay, Procureur-General, who, in the name of the law, presided over this work of forced conversions, asked of the Archbishop of Paris blank orders, signed by his reverence, to use at discretion:

“April 2, 1686.
“Monsieur, — I have only two or three of your orders to receive women into the convents left. I pray you to have the kindness to send me a dozen. I am,” etc., etc.

The most terrible scenes occurred sometimes in these arrests of women. Even the very young sometimes resisted to the last, at the very doors of this “sweet retreat,” with fury and cries of agony. Wives were torn from husbands; daughters, very often little children, from parents.

How free these “converts ” were, is seen from some orders from the same high source. We cite only these, that the truth of these representations may not be doubted. Mother Gamier was Fénelon’s co-operant subaltern in the Nouvelles Catholiques.

“The Secretary of State to Mother Garnier.
“February 12, 1686.
“The king orders me to write to you, that it is his desire that all the women or girls of the pretended Protestant religion, that may be placed in your house, shall receive no visits, nor even letters, that you have not seen before; and further, that those who have Catholic girls to wait on them, shall not be allowed to go to the parlor, nor to go out without being accompanied by one of the sisters of the community.”

“February 17, 1686.
[After the same order forbidding all intercourse, as in the preceding, this note continues:] “His majesty has, besides, also been informed that some of the women refuse to hear the instructions that are offered to them. Wherefore, his majesty orders me to say to you, that you are to make known to those so refusing, that this conduct displeases him, and that he will not hesitate to take, in respect to these, such resolutions as will not be agreeable to them.”

This last threat simply signified that they would be, as they often were, sent to the Bastile and other citadels, or even to the notorious Hôpital General, a receptacle of the vilest characters.

Some of these wretched prisoners — generally of eminent, often of noble, families — became insane by their imprisonment and maltreatment.

“Mademoiselle des Forges, daughter of Theodore Le Coq, a counselor and eminent man, was at first confined at the house of the Benedictines de la Madeleine du Tresnel, of which Fenelon was also superior, and then taken to the Nouvelles Catholiques. She would not even hear her keepers speak of religion. She was a lady of character, education, and talents. ‘The treatment she received,’ writes one of her relatives, de Beringhen, ‘finally destroyed her reason and her life— she became insane.’ “

In this condition, her jailers made her sign a formula of abjuration of her faith. She was in this condition sent back to her family; scarcely arrived there, in 1687, this wreck of a once accomplished lady, threw her self from the third story of the house on the pavement. There lay the palpitating remains of one of Fénelon’s converts! Let posterity study this man in the face of this scene; he will meet it in the Great Day!

A noble lady, Madame de la Fresnaye, was arrested and placed in this same retreat, January 30, 1686. In less than three months, by reason of mental agony, loss of freedom, and persecution, she became insane. On the 4th of May, Seignelay sent this order to la Reynie:

“Mother Gamier has written to me that la dame de la Fresnaye, who is at the Nouvelles Catholiques, is insane, and that it is necessary to place her in confinement. The king desires that you examine to see if this is true, and that you let me know where she can be placed.”

Where she was confined is not stated. But it is noteworthy that, according to a record in the state secretary’s office, three years later she was banished, by an order dating November 21, 1689, from the kingdom, “unless she became converted.” These cases of insanity are abundant. Space and the very horror of these recitals forbid us to continue them further.

And now, to the end of this terrible picture we only add, that Fénelon was the superior, the genius, all this time, of the Nouvelles Catholiques! And must we not regard it as a bitter irony — if it were not a most abominable hypocrisy — when we hear one of these sweet-tongued, rhetorical Catholic eulogists of Fénelon say :

“However ordinary, however common were the functions of Fénelon — in charge of the Nouvelles Catholiques — soon all admired the uncommon manner in which he fulfilled them, and the Nouvelles Catholiques became the theater of his glory and of his reputation.”

Such is the gilded language of Father Querbœuf in his “Life of Fénelon.”

We feel constrained to add one ray to this “glory.” Nineteen ladies that he called “opiniâtres” (obstinate), he, “the gentlest of men” (le plus doux des homines, presque un saint), “almost a saint,” sent, for their obstinacy in not heeding his “eloquence, simple, noble, persuasive,” into citadels, the Bastile, etc., where they were subjected to the treatment of State criminals. The sad list of these names is preserved, and it is also registered before a higher judge than Louis XIV! After long imprisonment, most of these noble women remained true to their faith, and were finally — ten of them — expelled from France. So much, too, for the truth of his wonderful, almost miraculous, success in converting.

As missionary in Saintonge, Fénelon reveals precisely the same character as superior of the Retreats — sweet words, ambition, craftiness, intolerance — the proofs of the most direct kind are superabundant, crushing.

Of Madame Guyon — his former intimate friend, who was, for her opinions, once shared by Fénelon, confined in the Bastile — this “gentlest of men” said: “I am willing that she shall die there, that we shall never see her again, and that we shall never hear any one speak of her again.” And elsewhere he says of her: “If it is true that this woman wanted to establish this damnable system [Molinism], she ought to be burned instead of giving her the communion, as Mons. de Meaux [Bossuet] has done.” And yet Madame Guyon’s error was only the teaching of an extravagant notion of mystical love to God! This was the cowardly palinode he sang for the ears of the king. In his old age, on the verge of the grave, he wrote thus of toleration:

“The Church must be ready to punish, in the most exemplary manner, all disobedience of indocile spirits. It must finally prefer God to men, and the truth, basely attacked, to a false peace, which will only serve to prepare a more dangerous trouble. Nothing would be more cruel than a cowardly compassion which would tolerate the contagion in the whole flock, where it daily grows without measure. In such an extremity we must employ, says Saint Augustine, a medicinal rigor, a terrible tenderness, and a severe charity. . . . ‘The vigilance and industry of the shepherds,’ says he, ‘must crush the wolves, wherever they show themselves.’ “

By the wolves the “sweet Fenelon” designates the Protestants.

These are only some few of Fénelon’s utterances, revealing the real intolerance of his spirit. He was never weary of lauding the “douceur,” the “gentleness, and good-will” of Louis XIV toward his Huguenot subjects. In word and deed abundant, he invoked, permitted, and justified the use of cruel, persecuting force in the suppression of heresy and in the conversion of heretics.

Fénelon was an extreme Ultramontanist in doctrine, and an absolutist who, as St. Simon, his biographer, says, “insisted on being oracle; on ruling as master, without giving a reason to any body; on reigning directly, without control.” “His spirit,” says Nisard, “would brook no contradiction—was one thirsting for absolute control.” Such was Fénelon!