|
On January 15th 1909 Saunière received a letter from the Vicar General of the Diocese of Carcassonne. With it were the official documents telling him that he was appointed to Coustouges, where he was to go on February 1st 1909. After thinking about it, and following the neighbouring priest’s advice, Saunière submitted his resignation on January 28th 1909. Monsignor de Beauséjour accepted it on the condition that Saunière left Rennes-le-Château. The mayor wrote to the bishop to tell him that the people were against his decision, and would reject the new priest and not attend his ceremonies.
Dear Sir, In response to your letter of 31 January last I have the honour of informing you that I regret that I must stand by the decision that has been taken with regard to Abbé Saunière. You and your Council were ill advised in failing to implement in the manner asked the measures that the Town Council of Rennes-le-Château proposed to you. We are not satisfied - a great pity! It is a great pity also that you have seen fit to deprive Monsieur Saunière of his authority. As for the attitude of the local population towards the Curé of Espéraza and the successor to M. Saunière, it is quite a simple one: the Church will be deserted and the religious ceremonies will be replaced by civil ones. So you can see, Your Grace, that there is no need for you to threaten us with excommunication. As for the presbytery, it was leased to Abbé Saunière for a period of five years with effect from 1 January 1907, but I have to inform you that when the present lease expires (and even sooner, should it become vacant through the departure of the present tenant) the Town Council will formally refuse to sign a new lease with the priest-in-charge that you will be sending to us,
Saunière was summoned by the bishopric several times but he never went there, saying his health was bad. At last, he met the bishop on March 31st 1909. On July 2nd 1909 Father Marty, priest of Coustaussa, was appointed to Rennes-le-Château. He moved there on July 4th 1909. On December 18th and 22nd telling him that a superior from the Hôpital Pierre Larousse in Paris had asked the bishopric if Father Saunière could be trusted, because he had asked her to pay for masses. The priest denied this, but later acknowledged he had done it honestly.
Dear Mr Saunière, The Superior of Hôpital St. Joseph, located at 7 rue Pierre-Larousse, Paris, has written to Monsignor the Bishop to ask him if she could, with a clear conscience, send you fees for saying Mass. You will no doubt be able to guess the contents of the reply that he has sent to her: "Take great care that you do not continue to send him such fees; we have no confidence in the manner in which this priest carries out these mass intentions, which he procures wherever he can. " Monsignor the Bishop notes with regret that you are continuing to ask outside the Diocese for fees for Masses, even though you promised and insisted that, henceforward, you would never again ask anyone for such fees except the Bishop alone, personally. So this is how you keep your promise! His Grace is asking himself whether his conscience does not require him to take effective measures to put a stop to such a deplorable course of conduct,
Dear Abbé Saunière, You state that, ever since the promise that you made to Monsignor the Bishop, you have ceased to ask for fees from the Superior of Hôpital St. Joseph in Paris. Here is what she wrote to us on 28 October last... "While he was still the Curé of Rennes-le-Château, Abbé Saunière wrote to me without knowing me (he had obtained my address from somebody or other) asking me to obtain for him some fees for Masses... He wrote to me recently to say that he was now a Priest in Retirement but would be remaining in his former Parish and could still perform the mass intentions that are sent to him. As I do not have the advantage of knowing him I would be very grateful if you would tell me if one could with a clear conscience send him fees for Masses." Here we have two apparently contradictory statements. Monsignor the Bishop would be very grateful if you would kindly inform him which of them is the truth,
Dear Abbé, Here is the text of the reply which Monsignor the Bishop has asked me to send to Madame Gabrielle Camus, of Faubourg des Vosges, Mirecourt, who asked me if she could send fees for Masses with a clear conscience:
His Grace notes with regret that you are not keeping the formal promise which you made, which was to approach him alone when you were short of fees,
On May 27th 1910, Monsignor de Beauséjour began a trial to forbid Saunière to ask for mass fees outside the diocese. On July 7th 1910, Saunière was summoned before the court. He did nothing until July 15th 1910 (one day before he had to face the court); he sent a letter to say he wouldn’t be coming because of his inability to defend himself, and the risks for his health. He added he hadn’t asked for mass fees outside the diocese.
Monsignor, As I had the honour of recently informing Your Grace and the Vicar-General, for the reasons I have explained to you I will not be appearing before the Ecclesiastical Court tomorrow, Saturday the 16th of this month, not because I don't want to, but because I cannot. To appear before my judges with some chance of success, as the summons of 7 July invites me to do, it would be necessary for me first to be given permission to divulge the names of the people who have given me the funds necessary for my various endeavours - something which I certainly do not have permission to do. I would then have to have the necessary courage and energy, the presence of mind, the sang-froid and, above all, the ability to express myself, and I do not have any of those things. I know that you will say to me: Why not get yourself a lawyer to represent you? That’s all very well, but whom do I choose, given that I don’t know anyone suitable among the clergy to defend me? And then this lawyer – supposing that I succeeded in finding someone who would be recognised by the Court – would he be able to tell you anything which you don't know already? No. Finally, as I have said to you, since strong feelings are - given my impressionable nature – excessively adverse and harmful to my state of health, according to the advice and orders of my doctor I must at all costs avoid such feelings if I don't want to run the risk of suffering the worst possible catastrophes. And as for the question of the fees for masses, let me repeat to you, Monsignor, that since your ban I have not asked for any more such fees, even though certain documents in my file seem to prove the contrary, and that my conscience is not as guilty as you seem to think. Before concluding this letter which I have seen fit to send to you, I ask God to pardon my enemies and all those who have sought to harm me and to do me wrong, and I pray at the same time that God may give me the strength necessary to do his will and, in a spirit of penitence, to accept my fate whatever it may be,
P.S. The house that I have built, with all its appurtenances, has not been constructed – as a passage in the summons seems to insinuate - in order to enrich me and to enable me to spend my days living in luxury and comfort. My idea, Monsignor, as I had the honour of telling you some years ago, was to offer it to you as a retirement home for aged and infirm priests – a comfortable place for them to live, with a chapel, library, promenade, garden, terraces, fresh air, a magnificent view – these poor old people would have wanted for nothing, and would even have had a place reserved for them in the Parish Cemetery. I still adhere to my original idea, even though Fate now seems to have set itself against my projects and does not seem to approve of them. Saunière did not go on July 16th 1910. He then received a peremptory summons for July 23rd 1910, which he answered on July 20th, announcing that Father Molinier, the oldest inhabitant of Azilles, and Maître Mis, a lawyer of Limoux, would defend him. He asked for 8 more days to prepare his case. As he received no answer, he sent another letter on July 22nd. On July 25th 1910, he received a letter saying that his previous letters had been sent to the Bishopric, and that, as the Bishop was away and could not read them…, the court had passed sentence: Saunière was suspended from serving as a priest in the diocese of Carcassonne for one month…
Judgement against Bérenger Saunière, who failed to appear. We, the Ecclesiastical Court of the Diocese of Carcassonne, in the name of the Holy Trinity and having in mind only the glory of God and the welfare of the Church; Considering that Abbé Bérenger Saunière, summonsed peremptorily to appear on this day before our Court, has failed to do so and has been declared in contempt of court; Having heard the allegations by the Official Prosecutor accusing Abbé Saunière of trafficking in masses, disobedience to his Bishop and excessive and unjustified expenditure to which the fees for masses which have not been performed seem to have been devoted; Having taken the advice of the Court Assessors, giving judgement by default; Hereby sentence Abbé Bérenger Saunière to a suspension from the performance of the divine office within the Diocese of Carcassonne for a period of one month. I hereby set a period of 15 days for the sentence which has been imposed upon you to be rendered enforceable.
This sentence weighed the priest down. He wrote to the bishop to tell him he had no way of being represented by his lawyers during the trial. On July 31st, the bishop decided another trial would take place on August 23rd. As this was the date of the judges’ holiday, it was postponed to October 15th. This time Saunière chose Father Huguet to be his lawyer, (he was a canon, priest of Espiens par Nérac in the subdivision of Lot et Garonne, and a former teacher at the university of Paris). But he was sentenced to a retreat of 10 months in a monastery (Prouille). |