The presence of Dehon as an ideal founder and the construction of the faithful disciple in NQT 35–45
In our first session, the European Theological Commission presented an analysis of notebooks 35 to 45 of the Notes Quotidiennes, corresponding to the last fifteen years of Father Dehon’s life. The reading was developed from narratological, historical, and theological perspectives.
The central idea is that these texts are not simple personal records. The diary also has a spiritual, formative, and institutional function. In narrating his own life, Father Dehon selects, interprets, and assigns meaning to events. Thus a certain image of the Founder is constructed in the text—the so-called “ideal founder.” This image does not necessarily coincide with the historical person of Father Dehon. At the same time, the text constructs a certain reader, called to recognize this experience as a reference for his or her own life.
To explain this process, the commission drew on Wayne Booth’s distinction between real author, implied author, and reader. The historical Father Dehon is the one who travels, falls ill, administers, and faces the difficulties of his time. The implied author is the figure that emerges from the organization of the texts themselves. He is the founder, the man of prayer, the victim, the spiritual father, and the witness to the action of Providence in history.
This relationship with the reader therefore has a formative character. Father Dehon does not write merely to convey information about his life. He seeks to form a certain kind of disciple—a disciple capable of assuming a spiritual vision of reality and of continuing the mission received.
The commission identified several fundamental axes in this construction. The first is union with God. Apostolic fruitfulness depends on the interior life. The second is the spirituality of the victim. Across the notebooks, it appears to shift from a more expiatory language toward an understanding more closely linked to the offering of love. In this evolution, the influence of St. Thérèse and of Élisabeth of the Trinity also appears.
Another central aspect is the relationship between interiority and social action. Father Dehon appears at once as a man of prayer and as someone attentive to the social and political questions of his time. Reparation is not limited to the personal dimension. It also acquires a social dimension, linked to the reconstruction of society and to care for the little ones and the humble. In this perspective, the Social Reign of the Sacred Heart appears as an expression of the love of Christ at work in history.
The commission also highlighted the way Father Dehon interprets the history of the Congregation. The suppression of 1883, the fires, the losses, and other trials are read in the light of Providence. The approvals of the Church appear as confirmation of the authenticity of the Work. The approval of the Constitutions in 1923 takes on special importance. It represents the consolidation and transmission of the charism beyond the person of the Founder.
History is therefore read as the history of salvation. War, exile, and suffering are interpreted in a providential and reparative key. At the same time, the NQT function as an instrument of spiritual transmission. Father Dehon reads and organizes authors of the spiritual tradition and transforms these readings into references for the formation of those who will succeed him.
For today’s reader, according to the commission, the challenge is no longer the “hard” laicism of the Third Republic. It is rather a “soft” secularism, which tolerates religion in the private sphere and marginalizes it in the public space. In this context, concepts such as the spirit of victimhood and oblation require a hermeneutical translation. Mystical union and reparation can also be reread in terms of the restoration of wounded relationships. The Social Reign can be understood in the key of justice and of a “theology of bridges.” These elements remain fruitful in the face of the ecological crisis, migrations, and new social and institutional fragilities.
The African Theological Commission welcomed the European contribution positively. It recognized the importance of the NQT as a spiritual testimony and a synthesis of Father Dehon’s journey. It also accepted the distinction between real author and implied author.
The commission questioned, however, the risk of an excessively providentialist reading. Such a reading can spiritualize suffering and leave its historical, social, and political dimensions in the background. It also questioned the notion of the “implied reader.” Identifying him simply as a “pious soul” may be insufficient if this category is not demonstrated by the strategies of the text itself.
Questions were also raised about the contemporary relevance of the language of the spirit of victimhood. The distinction between the suffering of the Congregation, interpreted as purification, and the suffering of the nations, interpreted as punishment, was also questioned. Another point was the scope of the concept of “soft secularism.” Finally, the commission asked that the reading of Dehon also take into account the history of mission, of colonization, and of the so-called “civilizing mission.”
The discussion in the linguistic groups and, later, in the plenary confirmed and deepened these perspectives. There was broad convergence on the importance of reading Father Dehon directly in his texts—not only from the biographical or devotional image constructed by tradition. The hermeneutical proposal was welcomed as a fruitful possibility for perceiving the Founder as he reveals himself in his writings.
At the same time, insistence was placed on the need not to separate artificially the historical Father Dehon from the implied author. Questions also remained open about the intentionality of the NQT. Is this a conscious project for the formation of future Dehonians? Or is this pedagogical dimension, in part, a construction of the interpreter?
The groups also highlighted several recurring cores of Dehonian spirituality. Among them are union with God as the foundation of apostolic action; the life of victimhood understood in the key of oblation and mercy; reparation as a response to the wounds of history; and the inseparability of interior life and commitment to the world. Thus emerged the perception that the NQT are not only personal memory. They can constitute a privileged key for understanding the identity and spiritual experience of Father Dehon.
At the same time, the need for a critical and creative relationship with this legacy stood out. To understand Father Dehon today does not mean reproducing his historical categories. It means discerning what remains alive and can be translated in the face of the signs of the times. Fidelity to the charism requires creativity, without losing the core of the Dehonian experience.
In this sense, the spirit of victimhood can be reread in the light of mercy and oblation. Reparation can be understood as the reconstruction of wounded relationships and as commitment to realities of suffering. The union of contemplation and action remains a principle for a Dehonian presence capable of responding to the questions of the contemporary world.
The discussion also showed that this rereading must remain open to the different cultures and experiences of the Congregation. It is necessary to avoid both the idealization of the Founder and a reading captive to his historical context. In the end, the question that ran through the contributions was less “who was Father Dehon?” than “who are we, Dehonians, when we read Dehon today?” And, from his texts, what are we called to live in the face of the challenges of our time?
