LA MENNAIS (from 1834: LAMENNAIS), FÉLICITÉ-ROBERT de. - French publicist and philosopher, b. at St-Malo on June 19, 1782, approx. two years after his brother Jean-Marie, d. at Paris on Feb. 27, 1854.
I. LIFE AND WORKS
Having lost his mother in 1787, the orphan was cared for by his aunt, des Saudrais.
He then worked for ten years in collaboration with him, both at the Seminary of St-Malo as a teacher of mathematics, and at the Chesnoie estate on the translation of the Guide spirituel, and around the works Réflexions sur l'état de l'Eglise en France pendant le XVIIIe siècle (1808) and Tradition de l'Eglise sur l'institution des évêques (1814).
To avoid Napoleon's reprisals, having opposed him in the Tradition, L. M. took refuge in England during the "Hundred Days," placing himself under the guidance of the exiled abbot Carron. The latter exercised a considerable ascendancy over him and decided him, shortly after his repatriation (1815), to receive subdeacon's orders. With a hesitating spirit he received, in 1816, the diaconate and the priesthood. Then, yielding to the impulse of his genius, he undertook the Essai sur l'indifférence en matière de religion, whose first volume (1817), written in dark hours of anguish, but powerfully inspired and imbued with a conquering faith, deeply moved literary and philosophical circles.
In the second volume of the Essai (1820), he opposed his doctrine of common sense to the philosophy of private judgment. The book and its apologetics provoked lively opposition, led by the Sulpicians and Jesuits. Having failed to overcome the criticism by means of the Défense de l'Essai (1821), and wishing to guard against eventual censure, he submitted the work to Rome. The favorable judgment of three examiners and the imprimatur granted by the Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace deluded L. M. regarding the soundness of the work and the orthodoxy of his ideas. Trusting in such approvals, he developed his thesis in volumes III and IV of the Essai (1823 and 1825). He attacked the "Reformation," the Revolution, liberal institutions, and the Université. Then, passing to action with the intent to "propagate his doctrine and work for the advent of the new Christianity" (Fonck), he used the most varied means: pamphlets, books, reviews, a school, a religious congregation. Removed from the Drapeau blanc, he collaborated on the Mémorial catholique (1824), distributed in the seminaries the booklet In quattuor articulos declarationis anno 1682 editate aphorismata ad iuniores theologos (1826);
he published in two parts (1825 and 1826) De la religion considérée dans ses rapports avec l'ordre politique et civil, the book defined by Frayssinous as "terrible in talent," soon followed by another titled: Des progrès de la Révolution et de la lutte contre l'Église. The government and the Gallican episcopate united to parry his audacity. He was condemned to pay a fine, and the work De la religion was confiscated and destroyed; the apologist was then censured in the declaration of April 3, 1826, signed, at the instigation of Mgr. Frayssinous, by fourteen prelates gathered in Paris.
The opposition exacerbated L. M.'s ultramontanism. After the Mémorial catholique, his tribune became the Avenir (v.), the banner of French Catholic liberalism matured by the July Revolution, and inspired by the motto "God and Liberty"; but, during the thirteen months of the newspaper's life, L. M. learned more than once that he would incur Rome's censures if the Avenir did not modify its ideas, especially regarding the sovereignty of the people and insurrection against sovereigns. He then consented, but without enthusiasm, to go to Rome "to consult the Lord in Silo" (1831). Gregory XVI, in response to the memorial presented to him by L. M., Lacordaire, and Montalembert, announced that he would have their doctrines examined and at the same time advised them to return to France. A little later he received them benevolently, but wished any allusion to the reason for the journey to be avoided during the audience. L. M. remained in expectation, not suspecting that they were waiting,
before speaking, for his departure from Rome. On the way back, in Munich, he was communicated the encyclical Mirari vos with an enclosed letter from Card. Pacca, in which the main accusations concerning the Avenir were listed, namely: 1) the editors had arrogated to themselves the right to publicly discuss and decide very delicate questions regarding the government of the Church, of exclusive pontifical competence; 2) their ideas on civil and political liberty, disapproved by the Pope, were such as to foment the spirit of revolt and sedition; 3) regarding freedom of worship and of the press, the editors professed opinions that were not only blameworthy, but opposed to the teaching and practice of the Church; 4) they had filled the measure of the Holy Father's sorrow by proposing the "Act of Union" to all those who hoped for the freedom of the world and wanted to implement II. Out of deference, the pontifical document had named neither L. M. nor the Avenir. But this does not give one the right to minimize the scope of the encyclical, which, rather than mere imprudences committed, struck and censured heterodox doctrines.
L. M., having returned to France, hastened to announce that the editors of the Avenir "respectfully submissive to the supreme authority of the Vicar of Christ, were leaving the arena and insistently invited their friends to give an identical example of Christian obedience" (Sept. 10, 1832). Then began the period of crisis that lasted two years. The act
of submission was followed by hesitations, distinctions leading to the false interpretation of the encyclical, the first religious doubts, the publication of the Paroles d'un croyant, the shipwreck of faith and, fatal epilogue, apostasy.
Is it permissible to doubt the sincerity of the declaration of Sept. 10, 1832? Indeed, many adversaries of L. M. insinuated suspicions, prompting him to write in Affaires de Rome: "Our declaration was barely made public, when words of distrust and discontent were already being whispered underfoot. It was not complete enough, explicit enough; it too closely recalled the respectful silence of the Jansenists. Intrigues were ordered, calumnies were spread, timid souls were disturbed by charitable impostures uttered in a sorrowful tone. Then came direct provocations, insults, public outrages. Gregory XVI himself, ill-informed by good-faith reporters, declared in his brief of Oct. 5, 1833, to the Bishop of Rennes: 'A letter from the same L. M. has reached us, published by
LA MENNAIS, FÉLICITÉ-ROBERT de - "Autograph letter written from Rome on July 17, 1832, to Mr. De Potter, but published by the newspapers in Feb. 1833." Brussels, Royal Library, ms. II, 5488, vol. V, n. 117.
the newspapers (Journal de la Haye, Feb. 22, 1833, n. 16) which has necessarily filled the measure of our affliction, as it is clear proof that he still retains and upholds the ideas advocated, which we hoped he would abjure forever'." However, the letter alluded to here, recently discovered in the manuscript office of the Royal Library of Brussels (ms. II, 5488, vol. V, n. 117), was written from Rome on July 1, 1832, that is to say six weeks before the encyclical Mirari vos, and seventy-two days before the adherence of the editors of the Avenir to the same: it is therefore impossible to declare it contradictory to the act of submission of Sept. 10, or to adduce it to reproach L. M. with his obstinacy in error.
After the censure of Toulouse and the brief to Monsignor d'Astros (May 8, 1833), L. M. notified the Pope that he would henceforth remain entirely foreign to ecclesiastical affairs
(Aug. 4, 1833). Following the brief of Oct. 5 to the Bishop of Rennes, he delimited the scope within which he intended to restrict his obedience. Finally, on Dec. 11, 1833, he signed a fourth and final declaration, the text of which had been proposed on Oct. 5. At the same time, he decided to suspend all priestly activity.
The following year, precisely on April 30, 1834, when faith, long wavering in his soul, was giving its last flickers, he published a book "of small bulk but immense perversity" (Gregory XVI) titled Paroles d'un croyant.
The encyclical Singulari nos of July 15, 1834, condemned the pamphlet, the system of common sense, and, once again, the liberal doctrines of L. M. Refusing to submit, he abandoned the Church and joined the ranks of her adversaries. From then on he also altered his surname, adopting the plebeian form Lamennais. He thus began a new life, predominantly political, dominated by sociological concerns, and with some literary and philosophical manifestations.
During the summer of 1834, L. M. replied to the reproaches aroused by Paroles d'un croyant with the article De l'absolutisme et de la liberté, published in the Revue des deux mondes. In 1835 he published Troisièmes mélanges, preceded by an elaborate preface which, reprinted in the Complete Works (1844) under the title Du catholicisme dans ses rapports avec la société politique, was considered the public and definitive act of his secession not only from the Church but also from Catholicism. In 1836-37 he published Affaires de Rome, a self-defense of high literary value and, in certain pages, of a naturalness and grace rarely achieved by the writer in other works. In it he recounts his clashes with the Holy See regarding the Avenir and the Paroles d'un croyant; he wishes "that this brief writing be considered as intended to close the series of those published in the last twenty-five years."
From then on, L. M. would be nothing other than the moralist, philosopher, and poleicist of democracy. He would publish, in 1838, the Livre du peuple, a treatise on morals or a catechism taught by a priest who in the meantime had retained only, according to Mazzini, faith in Christian morality; and the Politique à l'usage du peuple, in which articles written for the newspaper Le monde are gathered together; in 1839, L'Esclavage moderne, an impassioned philippic against the subjection of the proletariat to an unjust society; in 1840, Le pays et le gouvernement, a harsh and violent satire of the regime and the July monarchy, which would earn him a sentence of two thousand francs fine and twelve months in prison. During his imprisonment he collected and published Discussions critiques, inspired by resentment over his condemnation and directed above all against the Church. Upon leaving prison, he published two pamphlets: De la religion, a collection of brief formulas, seemingly intended in the author's mind to become the catechism of the future, and *Du passé et de
l'avenir du peuple*, which contains the spiritualist theory of "progress" as imagined by L. M.—constant, indefinite, of which Christianity is merely a simple phase.
The Esquisse d'une philosophie, a work of primary importance in L. M.'s intentions (it was to consist of six volumes; four appeared: three in 1840 and the fourth in 1846). Abbé Bourdard perceives in it the impotent effort of a great intellect at the mercy of the waves, after (to quote a scriptural expression) "his faith has suffered shipwreck" (Oeuvres complètes, III, p. 317), and Jules Simon
"the effort of a great spirit to unite in a complete and regular system doctrines of which no stylistic decorum is capable of masking the radical impotence" (ibid., p. 316).
L. M. occupied himself with social questions until the end; he was obsessed with them throughout the book Amschapands et Darvands (1843) and even in the notes and reflections added to his translation of the Gospels (1846).
The Revolution of 1848, announced by him as inevitable, brought him bitter disillusionment. Although elected a deputy of the capital and a member of the council tasked with drafting a new charter, his advice was rejected and his projects for social organization were shelved. L. M. expressed his grievances in the newspaper he edited, and following the coup d'état of Dec. 2, 1851,
LA MENNAIS, FÉLICITÉ-ROBERT de - Exaltation of the papacy, autograph conclusion of the Tradition de l'Église sur l'institution des évêques, III, Liege-Paris 1814, pp. 407-409 - Jersey, Archive of the Brothers of Ploërmel.
he definitively retired from active life to dedicate his last energies to the translation of the Divine Comedy. The work is preceded by a vast introduction that can be considered the spiritual and intellectual testament of the writer. It is a long indictment against the Roman Church, leaving no doubt regarding the total or near-total ruin of his early beliefs.
L. M. fell ill on Jan. 16, 1854. His circle, dominated by a certain Auguste Barbet, kept watchful guard to prevent any contact between the sick man and any of the priests who attempted to approach him. He passed away without having shown the slightest sign of repentance. His body was buried in the common pit of the Père-Lachaise cemetery. To the gravedigger, who asked if a cross should be placed, Barbet replied: "No!"
II. PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINES
The year 1834 is, in the life of L. M., the year of secession, which clearly separates the works and doctrines of the Catholic priest from those of the subsequent unfaithful priest. Before 1834 we find L. M. 1) an apologist, 2) a forerunner of the doctrine of common sense, 3) an ultramontane, 4) a liberal, 5) the leader of social Catholicism; after 1834, L. M. is 6) a spiritualist democrat and then a socialist, 7) a rationalist and pantheist.1. - L. M. reproaches ancient theology for limiting itself to the traditional proofs of Christianity, which are incapable, according to him, "of making an impression on minds," and establishes the principle: "Ever since reason has declared itself sovereign, it is necessary to invest it directly upon its very throne and force it to bow down, on pain of death, before the reason of God." He thus upsets the foundations of apologetics: in fact, it is no longer a question of arriving at faith by means of reason, but rather of arriving at reason by means of faith. Having posited such premises, L. M. attempts to base Christianity upon the foundation of humanity's universal beliefs. Meanwhile, he attacks systematic indifference, which he holds responsible for social disturbances; perceiving in it a negation rather than a doctrinal affirmation, he groups dogmatic ineffectuals into three categories: those who do not believe religion is necessary for the people; those who admit the necessity of a religion for all men but reject Revelation; those who, while recognizing the necessity of a revealed religion, accept only certain fundamental articles while allowing the denial of the others. L. M. admonishes all these indifferent people who, to justify their attitude, proclaim truth to be inaccessible: "There is no peace for the intellect except when it is certain of possessing the truth; there is no peace reigning among peoples except when they are conscious of obeying the order." He thus meant that for him the religious problem and the social one depend at the same time upon the problem of certainty. But upon what basis should the foundation of certainty be established?
2. — Upon common sense, that is, the unanimous testimony of the human race. L. M. first "breaks down" individual reason, finding in it three main elements: the senses, the feelings, reasoning; he then describes, in his own way, their functioning and value, observing that they are imperfect instruments, but since their imperfections vary according to individuals, their agreement on a point constitutes proof of truth that is more or less significant depending on the number of testimonies. Isolated, testimony offers only a simple probability; innumerable, however, it determines absolute certainty. It can in no way deceive when it is expressed by the voice of the human race, assuming a universal character. Therefore, considered individually, man cannot know with certainty; but considered collectively, he can know something; that is, individual reason is impotent, whereas common, general, universal reason is not. Hence the denomination of the doctrine of common sense or universal consent attributed to this singular system, in which two such distinct terms as sensus and consensus are found confused. L. M. took the effect for the cause and vice versa: "There are truths upon which everyone agrees; therefore the consent of all is for each person the sole criterion of certainty." Here lies the error in its entity, notes Balmès. Had he probed the subject more deeply, L. M. would not have fallen into this grave error. The certainty of the individual does not derive from general consent; rather, the consent is general because every individual manages to express II.
3. — In the Tradition de l'Eglise sur l'institution des évêques, L. M. outlines his ultramontane thesis on the prerogatives of the Holy See, the indefectibility of the Roman Church, and the infallibility of the Pope; but while basing the foundation of pontifical jurisdiction upon authority, he traces a limit to it, since he does not yet believe in the indirect power of the pontiffs over kings in temporal matters. He therefore engages in and sustains against Gallicanism, of which he will be the "gravedigger" (P. Lasserre),
4. — L. M.'s slide toward liberalism was manifest in 1829. In the work Des progrès de la Révolution, he preaches "the union of order and liberty"; spiritual unity having been fractured and the unity of faith broken, the tolerance of opinions appears an obvious social necessity. It would be "folly" to pretend to be able to "bind the spirit in shackles" and gag thought. Only a regime of liberty can assure Catholics the desired security. And since L. M. is convinced that the Revolution will consume the schism between State and Church, he hopes that the latter, separated from the State, will draw close to and go toward the people. "The true support of the Church is the trust of the weak whom she protects; her power, their love." This was annulling, if not invoking the disappearance of institutions which, "having extinguished the breath that animated them at their origin, henceforth diverge from the true interests of the peoples."
5. — After the days of July 1830, L. M. founds the Avenir with the motto "God and Liberty," becoming the leading exponent of liberal Catholicism in France. He opines that the Church, similarly to civil society, undergoes transformations which, while not altering the divine element inherent in it, lead it to adapt to the genius of peoples as well as to the needs of the times. Indeed, every decisive turning point of humanity is determined by an evolution of the Church. The hour has come for it to emancipate itself; but it cannot be free before having separated itself from the State: a separation, moreover, already initiated by the State itself. It is therefore urgent to reclaim religious liberty, freedom of education,
that of persons and goods, that is, the enjoyment of rights without which even society cannot be conceived: claims that presuppose freedom of the press. Then, within the chaos established by the subversion of the ancient order, Christianity "will raise up another society, which again and always will be nothing other than the expression of the stage to which humanity has arrived by progressive evolution under its influence; an intellectual and moral development this is, which brings and necessitates an adequate progress of liberty" (Avenir, Dec. 20, 1830). Within these lines lies, in embryo, the entire theory of liberal Catholicism.
6. - The condemnation of the Avenir brought about the crisis that was to submerge the faith of L. M. "I believe that the Church cannot remain as it is, that what is human and what is divine enclosed within it has never been clearly distinguished, and that everything is preparing for its transformation" (letter to Montalembert, Jan. 1, 1834). He therefore abandons it with the claim of recomposing the spiritual unity of the human race on new bases, but always through the medium of Christianity; then, having distanced himself from the Roman Church, although still a member of that "imperishable Church whose terrestrial life is not bound to a single form," he dedicates himself to the education of "spiritualist democracy," sustained by the thought that his total self-sacrifice will not be in vain for the progress of humanity. And at first he incites the people to revolt. Anyone who might object that such was not the intent of L. M. when he wrote Paroles d'un croyant should reflect, with Bellessort, on how dangerous it is to divide humanity into two classes: "those who possess everything and who have the vices; those who possess nothing and have all the virtues." Finally, L. M.'s thought culminates in socialism, the endpoint of his politico-religious evolution, which is logical, having always admitted that a certain popular sovereignty emanates from the essential sovereignty of God.
7. - When the encyclical Singulari failed to denounce the philosophy of "common sense" as rash and dangerous, L. M., deeply wounded, re-examined his traditionalist ideas and passed over to rationalism. Previously he denied all value to individual reason; now he loudly professes that it alone has the right to judge, nor is it any longer possible to defend the faith. In it he will discover, in fact, upon analyzing it, two fundamental prejudices: "the early-instilled idea that one could not, without offending conscience, doubt the teaching imparted by an authority reputed infallible; the opinion, accepted by ignorance and developed by priestly culture, of a truly existing otherworldly order. Neither prejudice resists the examination of reason, since the authority interrogated 'dies if it answers'; and the very notion of the supernatural is erased and disappears as soon as man, having deeply investigated the laws of nature, has recognized that such a notion does not correspond and cannot correspond to any reality" (C. Boutard [V. BIBLICA.], III, p. 141). He declares the hypothesis of a supernatural Revelation to be illusory, indeed useless; is reason not sufficient unto itself for as much as it needs to know? He does not even bother to examine the fact upon which Catholic faith rests, in the final analysis; and nevertheless he declares that he believes in God, in the immortality of the soul, in future sanctions: nothing else, or almost nothing. Must L. M.'s belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ be excluded? His Esquisse d'une philosophie, a work left unfinished, is pervaded by the Trinitarian idea and that of evolution. One notes therein the continuous preoccupation to harmonize theological conceptions and personal observations. The author denies the existence of evil and rejects the thesis of original sin, the Incarnation, the Redemption, Grace. If, in antithesis to pantheism, he is inspired by the theological dogma of creation, he interprets it in such a way as to fall himself into the error
that he presumes to refute. Two attractions then contend for the author's soul: logic pushes him toward absolute rationalism; sentiment holds him back in a pious pantheism.