Fascinating document reveals crisis at the heart of the Emmanuel Community, a scandal magnet

Emmanuel: A document on the Apostolic Visitation sparks debate

A nearly 200-page document, designed like a PowerPoint presentation, is circulating within the Emmanuel Community in France. Although anonymous, Bishop Hérouard reportedly asked the interim leaders of the community, which is currently undergoing an apostolic visitation at the request of some members, to distribute it to the members. This document could also be of interest to any community or association of the faithful experiencing tensions, or even undergoing a canonical or apostolic visitation, or receiving guidance from external ecclesiastical figures.

“Our community is going through an important stage in its existence, which concerns all of us as members. This stage requires a personal and communal examination of conscience: each member is responsible for the Emmanuel Community, for what it is, what it experiences, the fruit it bears—and its mistakes.” We must reflect on our experiences, both to give thanks for the community and to courageously acknowledge its problems; to analyze, understand, seek solutions, and convert. With a small group of brothers and sisters, this is what we have tried to do in this document, drawing on collected testimonies and the reading of some ecclesiological and sociological analyses. Indeed, if an apostolic visitation has something "classic" about it, it is in that the dysfunctions of Christian communities, like sin itself, are not unique. These works (p. 6) thus shed light on our situation, offering a real opportunity to understand, if we are willing, how to convert and correct ourselves in order to be fully ourselves," state the authors of the document in their introduction, quoting extensively from Pope Francis, Pope Leo XIV, and the two works by the Carthusian superior, Dysmas de Lassus, "Risks and Abuses of Religious Life," Cerf 2022, and its online companion.

From the very first pages, the document highlights the difficulties in accepting the apostolic visitation: “Dom Dysmas studies how communities react to apostolic visits. He identifies a spontaneous tendency in all these communities: to doubt the legitimacy of the testimonies that triggered this visit. In response, he proposes a fundamental principle: the reform of a community depends above all on listening to its people.”

And he makes the observation: “The Emmanuel Community’s visit means that people are hurt by its current functioning. ➢ The (right) questions: What happened? What should be done for these people?” While raising the classic objection, “But we’re not Saint John! Isn’t it an exaggeration to speak of ‘victims’?”, the authors respond that “Speaking of victims is not to legitimize a victimhood narrative in the form of a quest for recognition, but to acknowledge that people have suffered because of unjust community practices.” The apostolic visitation was initiated because a significant number of complaints were deemed admissible and deserving of an investigation, which we cannot refuse a priori.

The following pages address the importance of active listening, acknowledging wrongdoing—to avoid a reversal of blame—and defining and acknowledging responsibilities. Above all, the document concisely lists a number of obstacles that weigh on whistleblowers, but also on those in positions of responsibility—those who cite an inability to speak about or even consider the problems:

“The idea that one is not authorized to speak if one does not possess [complete] knowledge of the issue in question, based on data.” Morel I p. 256. The problem is that in such cases, “one never possesses complete knowledge of a subject” p. 256. With this principle, once someone has spoken authoritatively—but without possessing that knowledge themselves—no one will feel entitled to express another opinion.

The fear is that repetition and insistence will be perceived as a manifestation of aggression and a lack of self-control. (p. 257) There is a demand to be factual, analytical, cold, and dispassionate… So much so that warning messages must be delivered in a way that downplays the urgency, disagreement, seriousness, or absurdity of the situation, which effectively becomes inaudible. This effect interacts strongly with the first.

“Everyone is anxious not to introduce the slightest false note that would break the harmony. People prefer to be wrong in a lasting and radical way as a group rather than isolate themselves in the truth; to go together toward the absurd rather than remain alone.” (Morel I, p. 258) Brothers and sisters expressing disagreements may hear responses like, “You are disturbing unity; you must preserve communion.”

The fear that repetition and insistence will be perceived as a manifestation of aggression and a lack of self-control. (p. 257) There is a demand to be factual, analytical, cold, and dispassionate… So much so that warning messages must be delivered in a way that downplays the urgency, disagreement, seriousness, or absurdity of the situation, which then becomes inaudible. This effect interacts strongly with the first.

“Everyone is anxious not to introduce the slightest false note that would break the harmony. People prefer to be wrong in a lasting and radical way as a group rather than isolate themselves in the truth; to go together toward the absurd rather than remain alone.” (Morel I, p. 258) Brothers and sisters expressing disagreements may hear responses like, “You are disturbing the unity; you must preserve communion.”

The belief that it is enough to send a message once for it to be received. If I have once expressed a concern, even in rather vague terms, a disagreement… there is no point in repeating it, because the message has already been conveyed. The real impact of this information is completely overlooked—amidst the flood of conflicting information.

One characteristic of silence regarding disagreements is that it automatically reinforces itself over time, which gives it great effectiveness. The further one progresses in implementation, the more difficult it is to reverse course. […] Breaking the silence of general acquiescence becomes increasingly costly. Before the decision, anyone who disagrees is an opponent. The further the decision progresses, the more they acquire the status of a traitor. “The receiver himself is blocked for several reasons, and not only the fear of acknowledging to his superiors or the Church the difficulties of his community, due to a distorted view of a certain loyalty.

And to observe – before the second part of the document, which meticulously examines the aspects within the Emmanuel Community's internal culture that can delay or stifle reporting – the following situation is noted:

“Numerous elements indicate a significant deficit in our culture of discernment and reflection. We have become accustomed to little discernment, little reflection, and have even developed inhibiting habits: spiritualization, oligarchic and opaque decisions, lack of transmission… In our view, this culture produces a certain atrophy among the brothers – in the exercise of judgment, freedom, reflection… It is these (them) that we must now take care of, as the introduction explains.” It seems to us that this issue should be a key focus of the visit and reform of our community: a new culture must be developed.

A final table identifies several governance problems:

Source