P. Paul J. McGuire SCJ
THE ROLE OF SPIRITUAL DIRECTION
IN THE UNFOLDING OF
LEO DEHON’S CHARISM
AS A FOUNDER
Commissione Generale pro Beatificazione di p. Dehon
Curia Generale SCJ
Roma – 2004
Nota per i lettori
Ecco un altro fascicolo della serie che conterrà articoli, sussidi, ecc… riguardanti la
personalità e la spiritualità di p. Dehon, per dare la possibilità a tutti di una conoscenza
più approfondita del nostro p. Fondatore, in vista della sua Beatificazione – a Dio
piacendo.
1. P. Mario Panciera scj: P. Dehon e i Dehoniani. Un profeta dei tempi moderni.
2. P. Umberto Chiarello scj: Il Miracolo attribuito a P. Dehon. Iter processuale.
3. P. Egidio Driedonkx scj: El Padre Dehon y el Clero.
4. P. Manuel Joaquim Gomes Barbosa scj: Padre Dehon homem de Igreja.
5. P. Umberto Chiarello scj: Leone Dehon – Apostolo dei nuovi tempi (1843-1925).
6. PP. Tullio Benini scj – André Perroux scj : Père Dehon, qui êtes-vous ?
7. P. Albert Vander Helst scj: Onze spiritualiteit van Priesters van het H. Hart.
8. P. Juan José Arnaiz Ecker scj: Espiritualidad Dehoniana en la pastoral parroquial.
9. P. Muzio Ventrella scj: Il P. Dehon nomade dell’amore di Dio.
10. P. André Perroux scj: Le Père Dehon et sa famille.
11. P. Eduardo Perales Pons scj: El P. León Dehon y la oración.
12. P. Evaristo Martínez de Alegría scj: La santità e i santi.
13. P. Egidio Driedonkx scj: El Padre Dehon y la formación de los laicos.
14. P. Umberto Chiarello scj: Padre Dehon e la famiglia dehoniana.
15. P. Eduardo Perales Pons scj: El Padre Dehon hombre de oblación.
16. P. Jerzy Bernaciak scj: Sługa boży O. J.L. Dehon świadek wartości, które nie
przemijają.
17. P. Egidio Driedonkx scj: El Padre Dehon y las misiones.
18. P. Heiner Wilmer scj: Den Charakter Zuerst Erziehungsmaximen bei Leo Dehon.
19. P. Marcial Maçaneiro scj: A oferta do Coração.
20. P. Angelo Cavagna scj: L’impegno sociale di P. Dehon.
21. P. John Czyzynski scj: Father Dhon - A Man of Oblation trough Love.
22. P. Eugeniusz Ziemann scj: Umiłowanie Kościoła przez o. Jana Leona Dehona.
23. André Perroux scj: Il senso di Chiesa secondo Padre Dehon.
24. Egidio Driedonkx scj: El oratorio diocesano de Soissons.
25. Mirosław Daniluk scj: Ks. Leon dehon, propagator odnowy trzeciego zakonu
franciszkańskiego.
26. Józef Gawel scj: O. Leon Jan Dehon i Eucharystia.
27. Angelo Cavagna scj: Centenario dell’Enciclica “Rerum Novarum” di Leone XIII.
28. Jan Sypko scj: Eucharystyczne Praktyki.
29. Egidio Driedonkx scj: La dirección espiritual del P. Dehon a Clara Baume, laica
consagrada – 1919-1295.
30. Paul McGuire scj: The Role of Spiritual Direction in the unfolding of Leo Dehon’s
Charism as a Founder.
THE ROLE OF SPIRITUAL DIRECTION
IN THE UNFOLDING OF
LEO DEHON’S CHARISM AS A FOUNDER
All the members of Leo Dehon’s Congregation are familiar with his instructions
about spiritual direction that are found in his Spiritual Directory: “A Religious without a
spiritual Director would be a poor Religious and he will accomplish nothing
worthwhile.”1 Later he quotes Bernard of Clairvaux: “The one who considers himself his
own guide has made himself the disciple of a fool.”2 Father Dehon’s high estimation of
this practice is due in part to the universal testimony of the saints and spiritual authors,
but it probably owes more to his own personal experience of direction. He drew up a list
of the directors he had from his youth into old age and, in particular, he often expressed
his lasting gratitude for the direction that he received from Melchior Freyd at the French
Seminary in Rome. He considered Father Freyd as his true spiritual father and said that
he obeyed him blindly. But a closer examination of the data casts doubt on the claim that
he ever blindly submitted to Father Freyd’s direction or that he had a spiritual director
throughout his entire adult life.
As it is currently practiced, spiritual direction is significantly different from many of
the methods that were used in the past. Among contemporary authors there is general
agreement that the term itself is inadequate and misleading. It is neither “spiritual,” if this
term is meant to exclude the intellectual, physical, social or political dimensions of the
life of faith, nor is it “direction,” which implies that one person exercises authority over
another’s prayer, beliefs, choices or behavior.3 Often in the past, though this was by no
means a universal practice, the director was considered an authority figure whose advice
was to be obeyed. For example, Adolphe Tanquerey, the author of a manual on the
spiritual life that was widely used in seminaries in the 20th century, wrote: “We should
submit to his decision... our spiritual director may be mistaken, but we make no mistake
in obeying him.”4 Although the term itself is too embedded in tradition to be changed or
abandoned, in current practice it is understood quite simply as “the help one person gives
to another to enable him to become himself in faith.”5 It is the guidance that a Christian
who is more knowledgeable, more experienced, and more skilled in spiritual and
psychological matters gives to another who requests assistance to help him grow in
Christian maturity.6 In this sense the director is a guide and companion who accompanies
another as he seeks to find and do the will of God. This was the kind of direction that Leo
Dehon received from Father Freyd.7
The Dehonian Archives contain a single, undated sheet of paper on which he listed
“My Directors:” at La Capelle his mother, at Hazebrouck Father Dehaene, at Saint
Sulpice in Paris Fathers Prével and Fouilhouze, in Rome Father Freyd, at Saint Quentin
Father Gobaille, and later Fathers Modeste and Eschbach.8 Despite the unique and
invaluable contribution that his mother made in his Christian formation, such maternal
guidance is not what is meant by spiritual direction. The three priests who ministered to
him during his high school and university years engaged in what is called “educative”
spiritual direction in which an authoritative guide imparts theological, moral, and
spiritual information to a neophyte. This is typical of initial formation and is not the type
of spiritual direction an adult Christian needs or wants.9 In Father Gobaille he recognized
a very saintly priest who was completely unsuited for ministry in a large urban parish. He
said of him: “He always edified me but he was not a great help in direction.”10 All the
other priests whom he sought out later were not true spiritual directors but consultants
whose advice he requested periodically and on specific issues.11 That leaves Father
Melchior Freyd as the only person who genuinely functioned as a spiritual director in his
life.
The first thing he says of him in his Memoirs is that his “direction has been one of
the great graces in my life,” and the last thing he says upon learning of his death is,
“Father Freyd died leaving me without a director.” “I was one of those who lost the most.
Father Freyd had a paternal affection for me and even a genuine friendship. I was
completely disheartened.”12 By its very nature spiritual direction is a private one-to-one
conversation that is privileged by an obligation of secrecy that is akin to the seal of
sacramental confession. Father Dehon has left us no detailed account of any of their
discussions. But in one place or another in his Memoirs he has indirectly lifted a corner of
the veil that shrouds their conversations and has given us a brief glimpse of some of their
content.
During Leo’s first year in the seminary Father Freyd gave him a copy of Francis
Libermann’s unpublished writings on prayer.13 Very quickly the young seminarian
recognized that he had a natural affinity for Libermann’s affective method of prayer,
which consists in meditating on Christ in the gospel and allowing oneself to be interiorly
touched and shaped by our Lord’s words, behavior, attitudes or dispositions. Practiced
over a period of time this leads the one who prays to be conformed to Christ, becoming
like him by experiencing his sentiments, thoughts, feelings, and convictions. This
prayerful process unites the believer with and in Christ and it unleashes the “dynamic
influence of Christ on the Christian who is incorporated into him.”14 Union with Christ
will become the overarching theme in Dehonian spirituality and this is borne out by the
fact that in his later writings on almost one hundred occasions he will comment on
Galatians 2: 20: “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I
now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for
me.”15
Looking back over the notes he kept during his first year in the seminary he drew up
an account of his spiritual life, which he referred to as “the story of my heart and my
will.” He notes: “Our Lord very quickly took hold of my interior life and put in place the
dispositions that would become the principal attributes of my life.” He goes on to list
them: devotion to the Sacred Heart, humility, conformity to God’s will, union with him,
and the life of love. Then in the space of a half-dozen handwritten pages the words “with
him,” “in him,” “him in me,” and similar phrases recur over two dozen times.16 He
concludes: “My saintly director, Father Freyd, constantly proposed this union as the goal
I should strive for.”
These comments on the development of his spiritual life and prayer also shed light
on process that Father Freyd employed in spiritual direction and the outcome he hoped to
attain. They clearly indicate that he is not directing the seminarian to decisions or goals
that he has predetermined for him. Instead he is helping him learn how to allow himself
to be open to the presence of the Spirit so that he can hear the call of Christ in his life and
feel the powerful attraction of divine love urging him on to the way of life that conforms
to God’s will and plan for him. In short, he is showing him how to let Christ be his
Spiritual Director. Nowhere is this more evident than in Dehon’s acknowledgment that
“our Lord very quickly took hold of my interior life.”
Two of the most experienced practitioners of spiritual direction, Jesuits William
Barry and William Connolly, are convinced the kind of experience that Father Dehon
recounts from his seminary days is the essential matter of spiritual direction. They write:
“Spiritual direction... is directly concerned with a person’s actual experiences of his
relationship with God... religious experience is to spiritual direction what foodstuff is to
cooking. Without foodstuff there can be no cooking. Without religious experience there
can be no spiritual direction.”17 The ultimate purpose of spiritual direction is to foster a
person’s union with God, so therefore its primary concern is with what happens when
someone consciously puts himself in the presence of God. The director is interested in the
whole person, but the focus of interest is the prayer experience of the one who is seeking
guidance. Another Jesuit, when asked what he did as a spiritual director, replied: “I listen
to people talk about their prayer.”18 It seems quite clear that this was the experience of
Leo Dehon when he placed himself under the guidance of Father Freyd. He wrote: “From
then on, almost every day I began to write down my impressions, which gave me a
reliable way to retrace the course of God’s actions and intentions on my poor soul.”19
In addition to his seminary notes, even greater insight into his experience of spiritual
direction can be gleaned from the Dehon-Freyd correspondence. There are a handful of
letters written during his summer vacations in which the seminarian often expresses his
displeasure with the frivolity and coldness of “the world” and his longing for the
atmosphere of recollection and tranquility in the seminary, and for the “excellent
direction” of his spiritual father. Of more significance are the twenty-two extant letters
they exchanged after Father Dehon moved back to France on August 1, 1871. From that
time until Father Freyd’s death on March 6, 1875, Leo Dehon faced three major
vocational turning points and on each occasion he relied heavily on the counsel of the one
he still considered his spiritual director.20
The three vocational questions he faced were: whether to join the Assumptionists
(1871), whether to accept a position on the faculty of the new Catholic University at Lille
(1874-1875), and whether to return to Rome where he would join the Spiritans and work
at the French Seminary (1874-1875). These questions have been dealt with in great detail
in his biographies and other studies. I propose to treat them schematically to highlight the
role that spiritual direction played in each decision.21 In each instance a resolution was
reached in a similar way. First, there was a plan or a proposal offered to him which he
found attractive; second, he investigated the facts and weighed the “pros” and “cons;”
third, he reached a personal conclusion and then submitted this to his spiritual director or
his bishop for confirmation and approval.
Assumptionists. Proposal. Emmanuel d’Alzon, founder of the Assumptionists,
stayed at the French Seminary in Rome during Vatican I. Father Dehon remarked that his
presence had revived his own interests in the apostolate of higher studies. The two men
spoke often about the urgent need for Catholics to be trained in philosophy and the social
sciences to combat the wide-spread errors in their native France. D’Alzon was forming
plans for his congregation to play an active part in this revival. For ten years Dehon had
felt an attraction to a vocation in higher education and had filled an 84 page notebook
with his ideas on the subject. He wrote that he fully agreed with the older priest’s ideas
and began to consider joining him in this project.22
Discernment. When the Vatican Council was abruptly suspended on July 20, 1870,
he returned to France and was forced to remain there during the winter because of the war
and the subsequent occupation by the Prussian army. During this time Father d’Alzon
launched an intense letter writing campaign to persuade the young priest to join the work
he had begun at Nîmes. He enlisted the aid of Charles Désaire, a friend and fellow
student with Father Dehon, who had already decided to make this commitment. Together
they sent him twenty-two letters between July 1870 and October 1871. For his part Father
Dehon insisted on completing his studies in Rome before he would make a final decision.
He knew he wanted to be a Religious and he also was convinced the time was ripe for the
church to rededicate itself to the apostolate of higher studies. Uniting these two
convictions, it seemed that his vocation was calling him to enter a religious community
devoted to this ministry. He felt an inclination towards the Assumptionists, but
simultaneously experienced doubts and hesitations.23
His uneasiness manifested itself in three ways.24 First, he was concerned about
Father d’Alzon’s temperament. The insistent, even frantic, appeals in his letters seemed
to betray a personality that could be overbearing and obstinate. Dehon wrote of him:
“Father d’Alzon seemed to understand and appreciate my proposals, but basically he
remained a man of action, I should dare to say of agitation, in the best sense of the word,
rather than a man of studies.”25 “The plan for an apostolate of studies filled me with
enthusiasm, Father d’Alzon’s style was worrisome; I was accustomed to more calm and
interior life.”26 Secondly, he was concerned about the spirit of the Assumptionists and the
type of formation he would receive. He wanted to make a full canonical novitiate, but at
one point Father d’Alzon proposed “a simulated novitiate... [of] a few months,” then later
reduced it to two months.27 A few weeks before Dehon’s expected arrival d’Alzon told
him that he wanted to give the classes in the novitiate but he didn’t have the time to write
them out. Instead he suggested they hold private discussions in which he would explain
the essential spirit of the Assumptionists and then Dehon could draw up the lessons for
his own novitiate.28 The third area of his concern was over the prospects for the success
of the Assumptionist project. Father Dehon believed this was possible only if their
commitment to this work was “determined, deeply rooted, generous, and
uncompromising, . . . excluding almost all others.” He was equally convinced that the
training of the teachers should be “complete, specialized, unperturbed, and free of all
other concerns. Half-way measures would probably do more harm than good.”29 And of
course their studies should take place in Rome. Father d’Alzon, however, was in favor of
diversified ministries which would serve as “an escape valve for those who could teach
[only] for a period of time.” And his commitment to Roman studies was not as thorough
as Father Dehon’s.30
Decision. By mid-March 1871 peace had been restored in France and Leo Dehon
returned to Rome by way of Nîmes, where he stayed five days. He was happy to see how
things worked there and he recorded that his impression was “rather favorable,” but he
left with his “hesitations intact.”31 At the French Seminary the acting superior noted that
he was “almost committed” to the Assumptionists but that he thought Father d’Alzon
“was lacking some qualities and was somewhat excitable.”32 Father Freyd, still delayed in
Alsace, wrote to calm Dehon’s anxieties: “You have been to Nîmes and you have seen
for yourself . . . what you say . . . of your impressions makes me believe that you can
prudently commit yourself to this. You know, my dear friend, that I distrust flights of
fancy. Despite your apparent calm, your imagination is flared up . . . Now that you know
the terrain and you still feel the same attraction, I will say to you with confidence: yes, go
to Nîmes.”33 Despite the apparent approval of his spiritual director, the same objections
persisted in troubling Father Dehon. Before his return home he made a “vocation” retreat
with the General Superior of the Redemptionists.34
During his vacation, just two weeks prior to his scheduled departure, he visited the
Catholic University in Louvain to learn how a well-established school is organized. He
had interviews with top administrators and some faculty and was especially impressed
with the quality of the departments of theology and canon law. He also gathered
information about the library, housing, budgets, and salaries.35 The investigation at
Louvain tipped the scales. He wrote: “I was preparing to leave, but I was no longer at
peace. I experienced unspeakable anguish . . . I couldn’t stand it any longer. I was unable
to leave.”36 He sent a letter to Father Freyd explaining that Louvain convinced him that a
Religious congregation would be unable to run a university in France; it would require
the initiative of the bishops and the approval of Rome. He also repeated his usual
hesitations regarding Father d’Alzon, his weak spiritual formation program, and his
preference for action over study. He implored him to answer by telegraph because he was
supposed to leave within a week.37 Days later his reply arrived: “Your hesitations are
legitimate. It would be better to get out of it if you can.”38
Three weeks later he sent a longer letter: “I believe that you have done what, for the
time being, is most in accord with the will of God. The future will show us more clearly
what the Lord is ultimately asking of you.” He goes on to assure him that both he and the
General Superior of the Redemptorists originally gave their consent with regret because
they believed that he had seriously desired to join the Assumptionists. For now he
counseled him: “Keep your heart truly united to God... When our soul is borne on the
wings of prayer and holy abandonment to the will of the divine Master, we sail along in
peace and security.”39
Lille. Proposal. In the early years of the Third Republic the new government was
dominated by conservatives, some of whom were even monarchists. Catholics sensed that
the time was ripe to repeal the law prohibiting Free Universities, that is, those that were
not under state control. In Angers, Poitiers, Lille, and elsewhere plans were being drawn
up to establish Catholic universities. Father Hautcoeur, who was organizing the project in
Lille, knew of Leo Dehon and his interest in higher education. In early 1872 he invited
the young priest to collaborate on a theological journal he edited and held out the
prospect that this might lead to the establishment of a theological school. Two years later
he began a correspondence that was as intense as Father d’Alzon’s had been. Although
Father Dehon believed in the value of the project and was “strongly inclined” to accept
the invitation, his inital reply to Hautcoeur was deliberately evasive while he awaited the
advice his spiritual director would send him.40
Discernment. Father Freyd was rigidly opposed to the creation of Catholic
universities in France. His avowed reason was fear that they would become havens of
Jansenism and Gallicanism as they had been in the past, but he also seems to have
harbored a tacit fear of the competition they would pose to his congregation’s seminary in
Rome. Later in his Memoirs Father Dehon repeatedly disputes his spiritual director’s
opinion and, in one of his last letters to him, asserted that “higher education seems to me
to be one of the great means for remaking a Christian society.”41 Both men agreed,
however, it would be unconscionable for him to abandon his apostolic works without
guaranteeing their future. He would try for two years to find a suitable replacement but
his efforts were without success.
He replied to Father Hautcoeur: “Once again I have weighed the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’
and I have come back to my original decision which is final. For the time being I will
remain here to give all the works I have undertaken a more solid footing and if in a year’s
time you still need me, I do not doubt that I will be able to help you.”42 This is a pattern
that will be repeated several times over the course of the following year: he is willing to
join the university, but he cannot abandon his works, perhaps in the near future the
situation will change. Later Father Dehon would appeal to the bishop and his council to
consider the matter not only from “the interests of the diocese but those of the university,
which is a major work.” Fully expecting their opposition, he tried to soften the blow,
telling Hautcoeur: “We must see it as God’s will manifested through my Superiors. In a
year’s time much can happen to change the situation and lead to a different decision.”43 A
year later, however, the situation had not changed, so he encouraged Hautcoeur to appeal
directly to the bishop to send him to Lille. “His initial response will certainly be a blunt
refusal. Be insistent and try to convince him. I will abide by his decision.”44 But soon
there would be a new bishop of Soissons, Odon Thibaudier, who quickly recognized
Dehon’s value to the diocese and made him an honorary Canon to solidify his place there.
Decision. Although at one point he admits to having “some agonizing days”45 over
the decision whether to go to Lille, throughout the two year ordeal he never experienced
the inner turmoil and profound doubts that persisted during his deliberations about the
Assumptionists. He was thoroughly convinced of the urgent need for Catholic
universities and he had complete confidence in Father Hautcoeur’s ability to successfully
accomplish his goal. The sole obstacle that prevented him from accepting this attractive
proposal was his inability to find someone to continue the social works he had begun at
Saint Quentin. “I have tried a hundred times to find a priest or some Religious for my
apostolate among the workers. I still haven’t found anyone.”46 But the frustration at each
failure to find a replacement was accompanied by a hopeful “for the time being” which
envisioned the possibility of new circumstances that would favor a different decision. In
the meantime Father Dehon was watching and waiting for God’s will to be reveal in the
events of his life. And both his spiritual director and his bishop confirmed him in this
decision “to wait on the Lord.”
Spiritans. Proposal. Towards the end of 1874 his correspondence with Father Freyd
became more frequent and took a surprising turn. In late November he sent him a fairly
typical letter in which he expressed frustration over his inability to find a replacement,
then he confided that he had “a heavy heart” when he read the newspaper account of the
priest who took his place at Lille, and finally he repeated his long-standing desire to
become a Religious. “In particular I regret the thousands of imperfections and faults that I
would have avoided in a strict Religious order.”47 Responding four days later, Father
Freyd mentions the names of some priests who might be able to help him, then, out of the
blue, he adds, “If you are in such a hurry and truly want to live in the Religious life, come
here... Here you will find the two things you are longing for: Religious life and the
opportunity to make use of the special knowledge you have acquired.”48
He even held out the prospect that he would use his personal authority to have him
appointed as his successor at the seminary.
Discernment. Father Dehon answered immediately expressing surprise, delight, and
hesitation. “What you propose would be paradise for me. To be in Rome, to have the
advantages of Religious life, the leisure to study, all these things please me immensely.
But is it God’s will? I risk compromising everything.”49 Then, in typical fashion, he lists
the “pros” and “cons.” On the negative side, he cites the Roman climate which does not
agree with him, he would get a reputation of being fickle if he did not persevere, his
family and the bishop would be opposed, and, above all, his apostolic works would
suffer. Positively, he expressed his esteem for the seminary, the Religious congregation,
and the kind of work he would be doing. “Here I am only a soldier, at Lille I would be an
officer, in Rome I would be like a general in the army responsible for the formation of the
officers who then would come to teach the troops in our universities.” He concludes: “I
am eagerly awaiting your response to all these questions and I hope that you will help me
know the will of God.”
In Father Freyd’s reply, which would be the last letter he would receive from him, he
tells his spiritual son that ever since his days in the seminary he thought that his place
would be there, but he hesitated to mention this because he also thought that he would
make a good bishop and he did not want to jeopardize that opportunity. He then goes on
to repeat the reasons for and against joining him in Rome and he concludes, “I have the
moral certitude, not metaphysical, that you are called to work here.”50 Father Dehon
would write to him in January restating all the usual arguments but emphasizing the great
hardship it would cause if he were to leave Saint Quentin. He closes on a note of
affection and confidence: “All these, my dear Father, are not final decisions but a plea
that you consider them. I am asking you to weigh and examine them carefully. Then you
can tell me what you think of it.”51
Decision. In his Memoirs he notes that he accepted the final advice of his spiritual
director and tried to carry it out. “But divine Providence changed everything. On 6 March
Father Freyd died unexpectedly . . . Father Eschbach succeeded him. It was a complete
change.”52 Later that year he consulted several Jesuits and Father Eschbach about his
vocational discernment. All of them gave him sound advice to seek the will of God
patiently and prayerfully. The following year he made another retreat in the hope of
resolving this question.53 But the same impasse remained: he wanted to live in Religious
life but he could find no one to take responsibility for his social apostolates. He would
make one final attempt to enter a Religious congregation. Accompanying Bishop
Thibaudier on his ad limina visit in February 1877, he asked to remain in Rome to study
but he secretly wanted to use this as the opportunity to join the Spiritans. The bishop
flatly refused.54 It was also on this trip that he visited Loretto where he said he received
the inspiration to found his own congregation.55
Conclusion. From the evidence that is available it seems quite clear that the spiritual
direction that Father Freyd gave to Leo Dehon bore no resemblance to the authoritarian
methods that required unquestioning obedience of a “subject” to his spiritual “master.”
Instead, his direction followed the fundamental principle of Francis Libermann, the
founder of his congregation, who taught that “the director is only an instrument in the
service of the Holy Spirit... A director should refrain from wanting to lead a soul; it is up
to God to lead him.”56 To achieve this he guided the seminarian to a way of prayer in
which he could experience the action of God on his soul. From the beginning Leo began
to write down the impressions he experienced in prayer as a way of tracing the quality of
his union with God and noting what still needed improvement. A half hour to an hour of
interior prayer became a lifelong practice.
His experience in prayer also provided him with a perspective from which he could
gauge the significance of the events that took place in his life. In each of the three
vocational questions he faced in the early 1870s, although he experienced either anguish
or conflicting emotions, the dilemma was resolved in each instance by his interpretation
of an event that took place. His fact-finding visit to Louvain convinced him that Father
d’Alzon’s project could not succeed. After he explained this to Father Freyd and received
his telegram, he wrote, “Everything has changed.”57 The “unspeakable anguish” he felt
and Father Freyd’s telegram merely confirmed and ratified his personal conviction about
the situation, they didn’t cause it. Likewise, his passionate enthusiasm for the revival of
Catholic universities in France was not transformed into a personal commitment to this
work by Hautcoeur’s persistent pleading, nor was Freyd’s equally passionate opposition
to Catholic universities decisive in his refusal. His decision to remain in place was
determined by the undeniable fact that the apostolic works he had begun would collapse
if he or a suitable replacement were not there to guide them. The bishop and his spiritual
director confirmed him in this decision. Neither Father Freyd’s “heavenly proposal” that
he come to the French seminary and join the Spiritans, which would have satisfied his
two greatest longings, nor his spiritual director’s “moral certitude” that his vocation lay
there could dissuade him from his personal conviction that God’s will was being revealed
to him in his responsibility for his works in Saint Quentin. While he was still in the midst
of laying out his case, Father Freyd died and Father Eschbach became rector. Once again
he wrote in his Memoirs: “Divine Providence changed everything.”58
In each of these instances, although he was spiritually motivated to do a good work
for God, instead he abandoned them and resigned himself to do God’s work as it was
revealed in his lived experience. These decisions were acts of self-oblation to the will of
God in which he lovingly gave himself up to the call of divine love. They were acts of
immolation in which he literally sacrificed his heart’s desire on the altar of God’s heart.
The vocational choices he made in the early 1870s schooled him in the spirituality that
led him to found his own congregation. It was a spirituality that was forged in the
crucible of events beyond his control to which he generously submitted his will as he
waited for God’s plan to become more apparent. The key words of Dehonian spirituality - pure love, oblation, abandonment, immolation -- arose out of his experience of the
interplay of God’s movement in his life and his own heart-felt response. A key to
understanding the source of this spirituality lies in the spiritual direction of Melchior
Freyd whose goal was to teach him a method of prayer whereby he would be sensitive to
the movement of God in his soul, which then would enable him to discern God’s
presence in the events of his life and to act in union with Him.59
Paul J. McGuire, S.C.J.
Dehon Study Center
Franklin, WI 53132
October 4, 2004
1 OSP 6, p. 471. ET: Spiritual Directory. Hales Corners, WI: Priests of the Sacred Heart,
1940, p. 130.
2 OSP 7, p. 151. ET: Spiritual Directory, p. 260.
3 Cf., Sandra Schneiders, I.H.M., Finding the Treasure. New York: Paulist Press, 2000,
p. 221. Shaun McCarty, S.T., “On Entering Spiritual Direction,” in The Christian
Ministry of Spiritual Direction. (Ed.) David Fleming, S.J. Saint Louis, MO: Review
For Religious, 1988, pp. 214-216.
4 Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S., The Spiritual Life. Tournai: Desclée & Co., 1930, p. 269. Cf.,
“Direction Spirituelle,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Tome III. Paris: Beauchesne,
1957, cols. 1042-1044, 1087, 1093, 1185-1188.
5 Jean Laplace, The Direction of Conscience. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967, p. 26.
6 Cf., Sandra Schneiders, I.H.M., “The Contemporary Ministry of Spiritual Direction,” in
Spiritual Direction. (Ed.) Kevin Culligan, O.C.D. Locust Valley, NY: Living Flame
Press, 1983, pp. 51-55.
7 For examples of this in the French School and Libermann, which are the traditions
Father Freyd was trained in, see Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. t. III, cols. 1121, 1137.
8 AD: B25/8.1. Inv. 526.01. Marcel Denis, S.C.J., also drew up a list that additionally
included Fathers Dorr, Bertrand, and Reimsbach. Cf., Le Projet du Père Dehon.
Rome: Centro Generale Studi, 1973, p. 62, n. 1.
9 Cf., Schneiders, “The Contemporary Ministry of Spiritual Direction,” p. 49. Also cf.,
DS, III, cols. 1156-1157, 1184-1193.
10 NHV IX, 74.
11 “In practice, good spiritual direction usually involves regular meetings between the
two persons. The rhythm may intensify in times of crisis but the process is
essentially not crisis-dominated but growth-oriented . . . it is not so much the
frequency but the regularity of the meetings and the continuity of their content which
is most important.” Sandra Schneiders, “The Contemporary Ministry of Spiritual
Direction,” p. 46.
12 NHV IV, 139 and NHV XI, 15, 93.
13 Cf., NHV V, 6-11. Libermann was the founder of the Society of the Holy Heart of
Mary whose merger with the Spiritans rejuvenated the older Religious community.
14 Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., “Pauline Theology” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
(Eds.) Raymond Brown, S.S., Joseph Fitzmyer. S.J., Roland Murphy, O. Carm.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990, p. 1409.
15 Cf., André Perroux, S.C.J., “Le Fils de Dieu M’a Aimé,” unpublished paper, 2001, p.
3.
16 Cf., NHV IV, 183-189.
17 William A. Barry and William J. Connolly, The Practice of Spiritual Direction. New
York: The Seabury Press, 1982, pp. 7-8.
18 James Martin, S.J., In Good Company. Franklin, WI: Sheed and Ward, 2000, p. 113.
19 NHV IV, 183.
20 Cf., NHV XI, 11.
21 For extensive treatment of these three questions, cf., Marcel Denis, Dehoniana (1976)
n. 4, pp.177-213, nn. 6-7, pp. 314-337. Also, cf., Albert Bourgeois, Le Père Dehon à
Saint-Quentin (1871-1877). Vocation et Mission. Studia Dehoniana 9. Roma: Centro
Generale Studi, 1978), 10-30, 61-80. Father Bourgeois develops a more elaborate
schema (pp. 66-67).
22 Cf., NHV VI, 115-118.
23 Cf., NHV IX, 3-4.
24 Cf., NHV IX, 69.
25 NHV IX, 12-13.
26 NHV IX, 42.
27 AD B. 21/7a.1, Inv. 433.07, and AD B. 21/7a.1, Inv. 433.10. Also in Léon Dehon,
Correspondance (1846-1871). Rome: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1990, LC 110, LC 121,
pp. 456, 470.
28 AD B. 21/7a.1, Inv. 433.11. Also, Dehon, Correspondance, LC 123, p. 472.
29 AD B. 21/7. B, Inv. 443.02. Also, Dehon, Correspondance, LD 156, p. 260.
30 AD B. 21/7a. 1, Inv. 433.02. Also, Dehon, Correspondance, LC 75, pp. 405-406 (in
this edition the Inventory number is incorrect and the date should be 13 August
1870).
31 NHV IX, 12-13.
32 AD B. 36/2B. 1, Inv. 627.01. The priest, Father Brichet, was the treasurer of the
seminary.
33 AD B. 21/7a. 4. Also, Dehon, Correspondance, LC 105, pp. 448-449.
34 NHV IX, 42-43.
35 NHV IX, 58-62.
36 NHV IX, 65.
37 AD B. 36/2D. 11, Inv. 629.11. Also, Dehon, Correspondance, LD 183, pp. 297-298.
38 AD B. 21/7a. 4, Inv. 436.11. Also, Dehon, Correspondance, LC 129 (the date should
be October 1).
39 AD B. 21/7a. 1, Inv. 436.12. Also, Dehon, Correspondance, LC 135, p. 486.
40 Cf., NHV XI, 7-8.
41 AD: B36/2a.10, Inv. 626.18.
42 AD: B 21/7.2, Inv. 431.10.
43 AD: B 21/7.2, Inv. 431. 11.
44 AD: B 21/7.2, Inv. 431. 12.
45 NHV XI, 8.
46 AD: B 36/2a. 10, Inv. 626. 18.
47 AD: B 36/2a. 10, Inv. 626. 18
48 AD: B 21/7a. 4, Inv. 636. 22.
49 AD: B 36/2a.19, Inv. 626.19.
50 AD: B 21/7a.4, Inv. 436.23.
51 AD: B 36/2a.20, Inv. 626.20.
52 NHV XI, 22.
53 Cf., NHV XI, 177-XII, 3.
54 Cf., NHV XII, 162.
55 Cf., AD: B 20/3.1, Inv. 292.31.
56 Cited in DS, III, col. 1137.
57 NHV IX, 66.
58 NHV XI, 22.
59 Cf., Albert Bourgeois, Le Père Dehon à Saint-Quentin (1871-1877). Vocation et
Mission. Studia Dehoniana 9. Roma: Centro Generale Studi, 1978), pp. 66-67,74-75.