FATHER CHEVALIER AND HIS TIMES

Fr Jean Tostain MSC

Given at the General Chapter, Issoudun, September 1999
Translated by Fr Ray Deisburg MSC (USA Province)

I am honoured by Father General’s invitation to speak about “Fr. Chevalier and his times.” I am also somewhat embarrassed, since I do not consider myself particularly competent…

It was thought that, to speak about “Fr. Chevalier and his times”, it would be good to call on a Frenchman, for the history of France at the time of our founder strongly influenced his journey, we might even say determined it. But in our different Provinces there are confreres who are infinitely more qualified than I to speak about the spirit and message of Fr. Chevalier, and more detailed research will be necessary in the future.

Introduction

To speak about the times of Fr Chevalier is not merely of anecdotal interest. It is the key to understanding the journey which was that of our founder. His vocation, his mission, was to bring “a true remedy to the evils of his time”. To understand better what were the evils and the times is to understand better his mission and the mission which he left to the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

The “evils of his time” should not be understood as temporary evils, or passing difficulties which all human societies experience. Jules Chevalier was aware that the times in which he lived deeply portrayed the evils of all human history.

The difficulties of his time were part of a serious crisis, whose roots went deep into the past and which brought about a lasting upheaval. The Church of France, in particular, experienced this upheaval very intensely. The strongest and clearest expression of the upheaval was the French Revolution, although its origins go further back in history. The genius of Fr Chevalier was that he would come to understand that it was useless to try to restore an old order, and that to remedy the evils brought about by its disappearance it would be necessary to bring people to a new world.

“From the heart of Christ, I see a new world emerging…”

What is remarkable is that Jules Chevalier seems always to have been aware, at least intuitively, of the evils of his time. For him it was not a sudden discovery, a kind of “conversion”. The discovery or sudden insight occurred with regard to the “remedy” for these evils, which came to him all of a sudden with the revelation of what the “devotion” to the Sacred Heart is in reality.

During childhood we are marked unwittingly by events and environment. The upheavals of the French Revolution of 1789 were still recent history for the young Jules Chevalier. Our founder was born in 1824, only 35 years after all these events had started. In his childhood, he lived with the consequences.

In Richelieu, Chevalier’s birthplace, the church had been transformed by the revolutionaries into a “temple of Reason” and then left practically in ruins. It had only been partially repaired by the time Jules was a child. Richelieu had been entirely and artificially constructed to serve the chateau of the prince of Richelieu. Other than the chateau, confiscated at the time of the Revolution, the young Jules knew only the ruins whose stones were still sold to the highest bidder. The church… the chateau… were, in his eyes, a miniature example of a society that had lost its landmarks.

Throughout the country, the entire social system had collapsed. The search for equality had generated the desire to eliminate everything that was not “the people”: the nobles, the wealthy, the priests, as well as the intellectuals and the scholars had been pursued, arrested, beheaded. By the time Jules Chevalier came on the scene, the furor had finally died down. But his mother had been raised by an aunt who had been to prison because she was accused of having hidden priests. Family memories often leave more of a mark, especially for the children, than major events farther away.

Already we can guess what would be the reaction of Jules Chevalier throughout his life. Since nothing seemed certain, he turned instinctively toward that which is eternal and certain: God. The child was very pious, getting up early to serve Mass, offering to help the priest with anything.

There was more here than just a passing sentiment as often happens with children. Jules began quite young to work as a shoemaker, in a trade of little interest to him, yet time-consuming. In those days, children worked 10 hours a day. That left him little free time. And if he had to get up earlier to attend Mass, he never had time to play with youngsters his own age. Hoping against all hope of one day entering the seminary, it was while repairing shoes that he learned Latin grammar.

While these may seem like small matters, they indicate the way in which Jules Chevalier already wanted to be on top of his times rather than letting them control him.

1. Jules Chevalier and the Ideas of His Time

The French Revolution, which had repercussions even into the smallest villages, was much more than the kind of simple revolution that many countries have experienced over the course of history. It was not just a matter of changing the government, but a complete reversal of mentality, a collapse of the value system which had guided the western world up to that point. The closest comparison we can make is that of the collapse of the Soviet world, although the comparison is weak. The Soviet system was fairly recent (3/4 of a century), and was faced with the “free” world. The French Revolution, on the other hand, was the event which marked the end of a value system established for more than ten centuries, the reference point for the western world, which we call Christendom.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the most imposing assembly of the entire Middle Ages, consecrated the theocratic form of government, already clearly instituted by Pope Innocent III. The Church has the two “powers”, the spiritual and the temporal. The authority of sovereigns comes from papal delegation, which in turn comes directly from divine delegation. It was never imagined that there could be any other form of government than monarchical rule, with a “divine right” of kings under the authority of the Pope, who did not hesitate to put an entire country under interdict if the monarch did not conform to Christian law, Christian morality and papal authority.

The Church had total control over all teaching (only Catholic universities where theology had a place of prominence), over science (only the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, the book which explained everything. We note that only 150 years before the Revolution was the condemnation of Galileo), over justice (there were only ecclesiastical tribunals), over politics and the alliances between nations, over the arts, literature, etc. In short, over all aspects of people’s lives.

The first crack in this system of values was the arrival of Protestantism (Luther in the 16th century). Although simplified, we could say that first of all there was a denial of the authority of the Pope over consciences, but also a certain questioning of revelation, allowing great room for the personal interpretation of Scripture. In his “Little Treatise on Human Freedom”, Luther affirmed only the authority of Holy Scripture and clarified the doctrine of justification by faith. “Human liberty” “Liberty” would be the key word of the French Revolution.

In his book on the Sacred Heart, Fr Chevalier ascribes the first real break to the French philosopher Descartes (1596-1650). Breaking with Scholasticism, Descartes allowed only reason as the basis of all science. The “method” that he advocates is to achieve truth starting from an evident intuition followed by logical deduction. “Reason”, after liberty, is the other key word of the French Revolution, which went so far as to establish grandiose ceremonies to the “goddess Reason” (even seen in Richelieu). Reason opposed to revelation: therein is the root of upheaval.

People of good will at the time of Jules Chevalier were torn between fidelity to that which the Church had been for centuries and that which was good in the new ideas. Reason and freedom are values that Christian faith does not repudiate, quite the contrary; but they can be used wrongly.

With regard to reason, St Paul wrote:

“For what can be known about God is evident… As a result they have no excuse;… they became vain in their reasoning…; while claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1, 19-22).

With regard to freedom, for St Paul the choice is simple: Man does not know how to be free. Either he recognizes his dependence on God and God frees him, or he does not recognize it and becomes a slave to sin.

“Do you not know… that you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Rom. 6,16) “For you were called for freedom.” (Gal. 5,13)

Now St Margaret Mary (1647-1690) was a contemporary of Descartes (she was born 3 years before his death) and Fr Chevalier in his book on the Sacred Heart presents the revelations and devotion to the Sacred Heart as a response to the new philosophy.

This was the discovery he made on the eve of his subdiaconate. For him, it was a new insight. By discovering in the Sacred Heart “the center, the pivotal point, the quintessence of Christianity”, he discovered by that very fact the remedy for the evils of his time. Love overcomes the conflict between authority and freedom, just as it does between revelation and reason.

To the reason-revelation conflict, St John answers “…everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God” (I Jn 4, 7); or again in St Paul “love rejoices with the truth” (I Cor. 13, 6). To the freedom-obedience conflict, St John says “For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” (I Jn 5, 3), echoing the words of Jesus: “For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Mt 11, 30).

We can understand his joy over this evidence that enlightens everything, resolves everything.

It is often said that there was nothing surprising in Fr Chevalier’s decision to include the Sacred Heart in the title of his congregation, for many of the numerous congregations begun in the 19th century put themselves under the protection of the Sacred Heart. Devotion to the Sacred Heart was quite popular in the church of France and among the people (1873: Sacred Heart Besilica, Montmartre). But as Fr Braun has written:

“The devotion to the Sacred Heart was not, for our Founder, one devotion among many. For Jules Chevalier, the devotion to the Sacred Heart was the essence of Christianity, the center where all converges, the compendium of everything, it embraces everything and is the answer to everything.”

It was first “a personal discovery which, from the beginning, connects to the mystery of the Incarnation, the mystery of the epiphany, of the manifestation of the love of God in Jesus Christ, with his human heart, his heart open to all.”

The Sacred Heart is “the whole Jesus” as Fr Chevalier never tired of saying and repeating. And Jesus is the love of God incarnate, continuing to “be incarnated” in humanity.

Thus understood, “devotion” to the Sacred Heart was truly for Fr Chevalier the answer to the main evils of his time: rationalism and egoism (in the sense of: I alone decide what is good and what I must believe and do). Reason and Freedom are the two entities which, in this context, become evils. They were evils to which the response was often an intransigent dogmatism and moralism, which also have no place in the Kingdom of Love.

Love transcends all dogma and paths of reason. Did not St Paul say to the Corinthians:

If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing;… If knowledge, it will be brought to nothing… Love never fails”. (I Cor 13, 8).

2. Jules Chevalier and the Society of His Time

Another context which Fr Chevalier faced during his time was the arrival of democracy. For us in the 20th century, it is an essential good, and if it is not yet established in all countries, we are certain that it is only a matter of time and that all nations are moving, often painfully, toward democracy. In the 19th century, it was a complete upheaval of all established values. Democracy was in fact born from the French Revolution. That is why, once again, this revolution was not just a local event, but one of global importance.

Certainly “democratic” governments had existed in ancient times, but in reality there was a social class in charge, the aristocrats (in Greek, aristos meaning the best). There was no question that the ordinary people, much less the slaves, took part in decision making.

However the idea of democracy had been making headway for some decades. We can see it in the Protestant communities who went to establish themselves in what would become the United States of America and who in fact lived democracy. But this was due to a series of historical circumstances rather than the deliberate desire to establish a new system of social relationships. There was no leader to preach the democratic system in opposition to some other, but only the desire to be free from the dominance of England (which was for the most part a liberal enough government) and to manage by themselves.

The theoretical concept of democracy was born with the French philosophers of the 18th century who set the stage for the Revolution and who are called the “philosophers of the Enlightenment”.

Among them, we note in particular Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his Social Contract, one of his numerous works which had far-reaching effects, Rousseau imagines original man, “natural” man, at the zero moment where there is still no legitimacy. Therefore if this legitimacy did not exist for all eternity, it comes neither from nature (such as, for example, the authority of parents), nor from God, but from man’s will, that is to say, from a contract. In this manner, the idea of democracy is born: what constitutes a political regime as valid is not the fact it reflects the natural order, nor that it is based on a claimed “divine law”, but that is rooted in the “will of the people”. What is decided or allowed by all, or at least by the majority, becomes the norm; that is what is right and legitimate.

It is understandable that the Church of that time did not want democracy. Even today, we can certainly question some of the consequences of this system, which Churchill described as “the worst of all systems of government, with the exception of all the others”. Even a die-hard democrat can wonder about the legitimacy of certain things which are recognized as “legal”, such as abortion, euthanasia, etc.

The French clergy would vigorously oppose democracy. It was not, as has often been suggested, to defend its privileges. The lower clergy had an important and decisive role in the meetings of the “Etats Generaux” (Three Classes) which marked the beginnings of the Revolution. It was under their influence that the first revolutionary laws were passed, such as the abolition of privileges (August 4, 1789). And the clergy of the 19th century, in the post-revolutionary period, was a poor, generous and selfless clergy, such as we find in the Cure of Ars. There was in this sense a true renewal of the clergy. But the clergy remained deeply committed to the monarchical government which alone, it seemed to them, was capable of maintaining the divine law and of opposing the random “law” of democracy. In today’s terminology and with our present values, we say that the clergy of that time was “on the right”, while a large part of the present-day clergy prides itself on being “left”. But these categories do not apply to the 19th century. “Being on the left” today means to stand on the side of the poor, to defend the poor. The clergy of France in the 19th century was much more “on the side of the poor” than we, multiplying works of charity, teaching the poorest of the poor, and themselves living, for the most part, in great poverty. But they found themselves on the side of the rich in their struggle for the “restoration”, and thus for the definitive return of the king, but above all for the return of true, fundamental values.

At the end of the 19th century, after many rather pitiful attempts at restoring the monarchy (Louise XVIII, Charles X, Louise Philippe, Napoleon III), and some especially bloody convulsive starts (the revolution of 1848, the “Commune” in 1871), and a war (1870), the Republic (already the third one) is definitively instituted, by the majority. It is not until 21 years later that Pope Leo XIII in 1892, and therefore rather late, declares that the Church in France must accept the republican government which, one hundred years after the revolution, had toned down a lot. For the majority of the clergy this was wrenching and incomprehensible.

Where was Fr Chevalier in this serious debate of his time? We would be tempted first of all to say that he in no way entered the polemic. Contrary to all those who had some authority or an audience in the French Church then, and it is a remarkable exception, we find nothing in his writing in defence of the principle of the monarchy; and Fr Chevalier would have had occasion with the crowds coming to Issoudun, or with the widespread Annals. It is also true that we cannot say that he was “republican”. He could not be. It was impossible for him to be a republican with the meaning that it had then. For a republican of that era was defined by his admiration of the revolution which snatched the French away from servitude to nobles and priests. Thus a catholic appeared to be a witness for an obscure religion that was meant to disappear, and which should be helped to disappear!

Thus Fr Chevalier, from the beginning, does not stay outside of, but above the debate. His purpose, his mission is to struggle against what he calls indifference and egoism, which are for him the principal evils of his time.” Indifference is to ignore God, to have lost reference to God. Egoism or selfishness is to find value only in what suits the individual, without reference to anyone but himself.

Fr Chevalier does not speak of “struggle”, of “combat”, of “restoration”, of “re-establishment”, he speaks of the “remedy” needed against the two evils of his time, and this remedy is to make known God’s love. Whatever the political regime, the essential thing for him is to establish the reign of love, the love of the Word Incarnate. When Fr Chevalier goes to find Emile Maugenest to propose the foundation of a congregation, he says to him: “Two scourges are eating away at our unfortunate century: indifference and selfishness. We need an effective remedy to be applied to these evils… This remedy is found in the Sacred Heart of Jesus who is nothing other than love and charity…”

Contrary to the preachers of his era, heirs of a long Jansenist tradition, who called to penance, to conversion, to a “return” to the right way, shaking up the people (who were becoming fewer) recalling their duties and the demands of an almighty God, Fr Chevalier asked the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart “to speak often about the mercy of God.” Let people know that God loves them and that they can love him. His policy is this: not to change the institutions but to get at the deeper evil by changing people’s hearts. Where love reigns, there is no more injustice.

Our MSC Constitutions, even in their renewed and expanded form, are the concretisation of the message of Fr Chevalier who himself wrote the first version. We read:

“With our Founder, we contemplate Jesus Christ, united to his father… He is the good Shepherd… he gives us the will to serve… He helps us live and work for justice and peace… He casts out fear… We want to proclaim his love to the world” (6-10)

They continue:

“Follow the example of Jesus, we will strive to lead others to God… to unite them to him by love, and to free them from fear… the sprit of our Society… is above all one of love for justice and concern for all especially the very poor.” (6-13)

“We will be attentive, as our Founder was, to those who suffer…In the poor and the little ones, in all the victims of injustice and violence, we will discover the face of Christ… We will work courageously to guarantee their human rights and to change the hearts of their oppressors.”(20-22)

What could be more “republican” than that!

Fortunately, the new Constitutions speak about “respect for human rights”. The “Declaration of the Rights of Man” dates from the same year as the French Revolution (1789), was expanded in 1793 and then in 1795, and served as a basis for the United Nations Declaration in 1948.

The revolutionaries, after eliminating the past based on “divine law”, felt obligated to create a new basis of rights, the “human rights”. Fr Chevalier does not denounce these “Human rights”, as the Church of his time would do so vigorously. And it is true that he does not talk about them either. It was a taboo and controversial subject. Yet he wrote some simple, almost naïve, but marvellous lines on the fact that each person is a unique being and thus worthy of infinite respect (cf. The Sacred Heart, pp. 81-85 in the French edition).

Moreover, we have a reflection no doubt of this “democratic” spirit of Fr Chevalier, who did not want to speak about obligation and duty, submission and obedience, but only love, in the way our Constitutions speak about obedience, recalling that “Jesus became obedient out of love… We profess obedience to share in his spirit of obedience that we may serve better our brothers… It is in communion with our brothers that we seek to discover the will of God” (38-40).

This political problem (Royalists, Republicans, etc.) could have at times seemed secondary. In France it had (and keeps!) considerable importance because of the historical context and of the decisive impact it seemed to have for the future of the Church. It was very important at the time of Fr Chevalier. He did not avoid it, but surpassed it.

3. Jules Chevalier and the Church of His Time

In the powerful currents manifested in the Church, Fr Chevalier ardently presented himself as an “ultramontanist”.

Ultramontanism (from “ultra” beyond, and “montes” mountains, in this case the Alps) refers to a very strong line of thought favourable to the authority of the Pope, which spread in Catholic milieus in France as well as in Germanic countries throughout the 19th century. It was opposed to the theories of Gallicanism (from Gallica: France) and other movements which tended to make the authority of national councils prevail over that of the Pope, and the sovereign rights of the State over the operation of a national Church. Gallicanism did not originate with the Revolution; it had much deeper roots. Kings and States, reacting to the absolute authority of Rome in all matters, wanted more autonomy and independence. But in the 19th century, Ultramontanism mounted a reaction against the excesses to which these theories had given rise; like the “Civil Constitution of the Clergy” in 1790 whereby all priests had to swear allegiance to the State and the “organic articles” added by Napoleon to the Concordat of 1801 in order to give power to the State over the organization of the Church. The ultramontanist movement sought the restoration of the spiritual authority of the Pope after the revolutionary crisis, an issue to which Pius VII then Gregory XVI devoted themselves. It was Pius IX especially (1846-1878) who would engage, with the approval of the majority of Catholics, in the politics of Roman centralization and of the powers of the Pope. This would have its crowning glory in 1870 with the proclamation, through the 1st Vatican Council, of the dogma of papal infallibility.

It is a question that is difficult to treat briefly. It started, primarily in our country, many violent and long controversies which are far from extinguished.

For it is true that conservatives saw in the restoration of the spiritual authority of the Pope the hope of restoring a social order based on the pre-eminence of the Church.

It is true that to his encyclical Quanta Cura in 1864, condemning naturalism, liberalism and indifference, Pius IX added his “Syllabus”, condemning 80 “errors of our times”. Certain propositions were courageous (the ravages of economic liberalism were condemned for the first time) but many others appeared unacceptable, especially to us today, such as the refusal of the separation of Church and State, the proclamation of the Catholic religion as the only religion of the State, the refusal of all public worship of other religions, etc. It was an awkward and unfortunate text, but which merely repeated the earlier condemnations of other Popes and which was perhaps more of a warning than a condemnation.

Thus many confreres, especially in France, knowing the attachment of Fr Chevalier to the Pope, considered our Founder a conservative who should not be followed on this point. The reproach is not justified.

Fr Chevalier’s ties to the Holy See are much earlier than Pius IX. From his basic courses in the seminary, Jules Chevalier saw only the damage done by the old Gallicanism. And so in France, in the wake of the Anglican Church, the General Assembly of the Clergy, meeting in “Council” in 1682, had proclaimed the freedom of the Gallic Church almost independent from Rome. King Louise XIV (1638-1715) thought of himself as head of the Church in France, consecrated by anointing, supported in this by the upper clergy and by prominent men like Bossuet.

For Jules Chevalier all the misfortunes of the Church of France came from this break with the universal Church for the benefit of the local Churches. It is a point of view which does not strongly agree with our own times. Today we would like to have more autonomy for the local Churches so that they might better adapt to pastoral and liturgical plans, to needs, to cultures, to the mentalities of each country. But what preoccupied Jules Chevalier was the independence of the Church. France, among other countries, had experienced a Church subjected to civil power. The Church then was considered a political instrument, a guarantee of social order; she had a prominent place in the good functioning of State affairs. This is obviously not its role and for Jules Chevalier the Gallic Church had thus lost its raison d’etre, which is essentially to announce the Kingdom of God and not to manage earthly kingdoms. It seemed to him then that giving the universal Church its rightful place was a guarantee of freedom, of renewal, of rebirth of original purity.

Napoleon, coming to power in 1799, was aware that after the violence of the Revolution, damaged national unity could not be restored without religious peace. And so he began difficult negotiations with Rome which finally resulted in a Concordat in 1801. A concordat is a compromise. Thus the Catholic religion is recognized as the religion “of majority of Frenchmen” and no longer “of the State”, and that the Emperor reserves the right and exclusive power to name bishops. Under his authority come the publication in France of all texts of the Holy See, the running of Synods, etc. Therefore what a Jules Chevalier, who lived his whole life under the Concordat, wanted was the full and complete independence of the Church.

On the eve of the Concordat, to justify himself before the Assembly to which he belonged, Napoleon declared:

“I do not see in religion the mystery of the Incarnation, but the mystery of the social order; she attaches to heaven an idea of equality which prevents that the rich be massacred by the poor. How can we have order in the State without religion?… When a man dies of hunger next to another who abounds in goods, it is impossible for him to accept this difference if there is not an authority who says to him: God wants it so; there have to be poor and rich in the world; but later and for all eternity, the distribution will be different.”

Jules Chevalier evidently had another idea of the priest.

This same Napoleon, a few years later, held Pope Pius VII prisoner for five years outside of Rome (1809-1814). And he called a National Council (1811) which decided, under his pressure, to give to archbishops the power of investing bishops, since the Pope was “unable to”. This happened only ten years before the birth of Jules Chevalier.

Thus, in this his time, Father Chevalier was an “Ultramontanist” not in dreaming of an all-powerful Church, but in wanting to see reborn an independent Church which could become once again fully herself. He loved the Church “as Christ loved the Church…” He wanted her to be resplendent, without blemish, holy and irreproachable” (cf. Eph. 5, 25-27). For this new world that he saw “emerging from the Heart of Christ, this creation, so fertile, full of grandeur, and inspired by love and mercy, is the Church, the mystical Body of Christ, which makes this new creation present on earth…”

Conclusion

“Fr Chevalier and his times” is a vast subject. A session of a week at least would be necessary to treat it and delve more deeply into some concrete facts.

With regard to the Ideas of his time,

• we should speak about anticlericalism and some of its consequences, such as the expulsion of religious, the separation of Church and State.

With regard to the Society of his time,

• We would have to look at the serious problem of the great poverty of the people, of the rural exodus, of industrialization and the emergence of a wretched and exploited class of workers; we would have to tackle the very interesting subject of the lightening progress of science, and in particular of medicine, a materialistic, mechanistic medicine to which Fr Chevalier is strongly opposed (principally in his book on the Sacred Heart).

With regard to the Church of his time,

• we would have to look at the Jansenist movement, with its ancient roots yet so powerful still; we should also spend time on the deplorable pastoral situation of the era, and how Fr Chevalier dealt with this, especially as a pastor; we should speak about the extraordinary missionary momentum in France in the 19th century and, in particular, the vision of Fr Chevalier; we need to consider the beginning of a multitude of religious congregations during this time, and in this context, how our MSC congregation is unique; and we should also speak of the intuition that Fr Chevalier had on the role of laity in the Church. In his time, this vision was not understood or approved, it now seems essential for the Church of our time.

Many other subjects could also be tackled, subjects that are perhaps secondary but revealing. Within the time limit, I could only (and I fear, very poorly) suggest general subjects, but ones which appear to me to be essential.

I am deeply convinced that what we most need to be aware of is that Fr Chevalier did not leave us a way of acting, a “method” that we should apply or adapt to our era. It could even be that in similar situations, times having changed, the world having changed, we would take a different approach from his. Fr Chevalier is not an intellectual who elaborated a doctrine, He was above all a man of intuition. Whatever the evils we encounter, it is from this intuition that we are inspired to find a remedy.

Our founder lived in a century crisscrossed by powerful and contradictory currents, a century of upheavals. But he had this intuition about what was essential: God the Father is love, the Word sent by him is love, his Incarnation is the Incarnation of love, and the Church coming forth from his open Heart can only be love. To open people’s eyes and hearts to this love is the essential mission. It is valid for all times, including ours, and for all situations. Father Chevalier does not favour any particular means nor any particular mission. “Everywhere… for all… by all… by all means and all ministries…” provided that we have the essential goal.

“With our Founder, we contemplate Jesus Christ, united to his Father…”

and like Paul completing in his flesh what is lacking in the passion of Christ (Col 1, 24), we want to achieve what is still lacking in the coming of this “new world…, this creation inspired by love and mercy…”

Jules Chevalier did not leave us a method. He bequeathed us a spirit.

Fr Jean Tostain, MSC
Issoudun, September 8, 1999