History project revision - text 4 Nozo

Jean-Baptiste-Rigobert Nozo 1835-1842

The unhappy generalate of Jean-Baptiste Nozo, with its scandalous allegations of personal and financial misbehavior, plunged the Congregation into a major crisis. Further, the way in which his council rose up against him is scandalous in its own right, as is the treatment he received from his successor in office, Jean-Baptiste Etienne. The result has been that Father Nozo’s reputation has been ruined, despite the good that he was able to accomplish during his seven years in office.

Early Life to Election, 1835

He was born on 4 January 1796 at Ablaincourt (now Ablaincourt-Pressoir), a small country town in the diocese of Amiens. It is unknown what drew him to the Congregation, but it must have involved the Vincentians at the major seminary of Amiens, where he began his ecclesiastical studies. He entered the Congregation on 17 May 1820. With him in the novitiate at the time were Jean-Baptiste Etienne, Marc-Antoine Poussou and Jean-Marie Aladel, all of whom would play important roles in his later life. He took his vows either on 6 June 1822 at Saint Flour or on 10 August 1823 after his priestly ordination. He had apparently been teaching at the seminary of Saint Flour, when he was assigned to Cahors, which the Congregation resumed officially in October of 1824. He moved from there to be assistant director of the internal seminary of Paris from 1827 to 1830. Here he participated in the domestic assembly leading to the provincial and then general assembly of 1829, culminating in the election of Dominique Salhorgne as superior general. During the outbreak of cholera in 1830, Nozo remained at his post in Paris and ministered to the sick who found refuge and care in the mother house.

His next assignment was as superior of the seminary at Châlons, where, from 1832 to 1835, he was also the visitor of the Province of France, the name for what was more generally called the Ile de France. In that period, however, there was not much for a visitor to do, since everything was controlled from the mother house, such as the placement of priests and brothers, and the management of finances. His major responsibility a visitor was to preside over the provincial assembly, which he did in 1835, in preparation for the general assembly that would lead to his election.

In the usual run-up to the assembly, some factions developed. The first coalesced around the candidacy of Ferdinand Bailly, visitor of Picardy. Those favoring Bailly, who as visitor had responsibilities for Amiens and the schools at Montdidier and Roye, saw the need to modernize the commitments of the Congregation to include education. The two previous superiors general had been elderly, survivors of the Revolution. Salhorgne, in fact, at seventy-three, was the oldest superior general ever elected, and embodied the memories of his elderly companions. The other candidate was Nozo. Those favoring him hoped that he would restore the Congregation to its old ways, to its “primitive spirit,” to use a hallowed expression. He was, however, only thirty-nine, the second youngest superior general in the history of the Congregation (only Father Watel, elected at thirty-three, was his junior). He probably represented a safer path for the majority of the delegates: a young man with fresh ideas but with a reverence for the past.

As recounted above, Nozo was elected on 20 August 1835 by an absolute plurality of votes on the first ballot. Even though the assembly followed the usual procedure by stating that all supposed defects in its proceedings had been removed, doubts would remain. If Miguel Gros, the Spanish “quasi delegate” had not been validly admitted to the assembly, then would Nozo’s election have been valid? In later years, Etienne would occasionally claim that it might not be.

Barely two weeks after his election, the members of his council expressed concern about their young superior general’s health. The minutes of their meeting of 31 August mention that two physicians had already been called in to examine him. Their only recommendation seemingly dealt with a diet for him to follow. Since the issue of his health arose only twice, at his election and at his leave of absence, it is likely that his illnesses were triggered by his strong emotions.

1835 to 1838, Administration

Nozo’s generalate can be divided into two periods, culminating in two very different visits to Rome. The first runs from his election in 1835 to approximately the end of 1837, after his return from a profitable and celebratory visit to the Eternal City. The second, then, goes from 1838 to his resignation in 1842, which took place also in Rome.

In his first circular directed to the Congregation, 15 October 1835, he protested his surprise and unworthiness for office but was taking consolation in the signs of divine providence toward the Congregation. He sounded an important note that would characterize at least his early efforts as superior general: “My first care, like my first duty, will be to watch over the observance of our rules and our holy vows, to bring to an end the abuses that may have been introduced, and to reestablish the pious usages that have ceased because of the evils of our times.” He likewise called the Congregation to greater fervor and devotion to its traditional works in the spirit of the Founder. Following Saint Vincent, the members of the Congregation, he wrote, should be completely dedicated and submissive to the pope.

His first circular to the Daughters was dated two weeks previously, 1 October. This dating is interesting, since it points to two things: his interest in the Daughters, and the difficulty that he faced in composing his letter to the Vincentians, a longer and more demanding document. To the Daughters he pleaded his inexperience in dealing with them. He concluded by assuring them that Salhorgne’s health was good. For reasons that can easily be understood, none of Nozo’s circulars to the Daughters was ever published in the official collection of such documents.

He wrote to Gregory XVI announcing his election, and the pope responded on 23 December 1835. In his letter, he assured Nozo that he had given proof of his humility in the information submitted about his election. The pope then added this important sentence: “For we love your order because of the outstanding virtue of your founder, an order so noteworthy in the Church for its merits.” In hopes of forging a close relationship with the Holy See, Nozo took the somewhat extraordinary, even non-Vincentian, step of publicizing this papal support by having the letter printed for distribution. He appended a brief letter, handwritten this time, remarking on the pope’s benevolence toward the Vincentians and the Daughters of Charity. A few months later, Nozo reported another sign of papal approval, the grant of a special feast to commemorate the Translation of the Relics of Saint Vincent, a favor Nozo had requested shortly after his election.

Although he had announced his election to the pope, Nozo for some reason never requested, or at least never received, the customary and required approval of the French government for his appointment. No documents exist in Vincentian archives attesting to this, nor is it mentioned in any minutes of Nozo’s council. However, the Council of State continued to regard him as somewhat illegitimate, referring to him in 1841 as a person “who styles himself superior general of the Congregation of Saint Lazare and the community of the Daughters of Charity.” Since he was careful enough to procure papal approval, one might conclude that he was attempting to chart a new and independent, even rash, course. State officials apparently did not pursue the matter, even with the Holy See, and consequently Nozo was left alone. Whether this would have continued for many years is a matter of speculation.

Among the earliest decisions that Nozo took was to erect the American province, the first non-European province. Of the five points of the decree of foundation, only the last actually names a visitor, the American-born John Timon (1797-1867). The more important issues dealt with the mixing of lay and clerical students at the province’s motherhouse, Saint Mary’s of the Barrens. That this had been the French practice, to some extent, did not enter into the discussion, which terminated with the suppression of the lay college at the Barrens. This decision, however, was never implemented and Nozo in fact rescinded it in 1838.

One of the tasks assigned to him as a result of decisions of the general assembly was the publication of a collection of the decrees of past general assemblies. The reason was that the members of the assembly had been unsure which decrees were still in force and which could still be enforced in the conditions of their time. For this reason, Nozo published in 1837 the Collectio Selecta Decretorum conventuum generalium Congregationis Missionis… necnon statutorum per epistolas encyclicas Superiorum generalium per ordinem materiarum redacta. In the introductory letter, composed in Latin, Nozo agreed that some decrees had become obsolete and useless. Since members of the last three general assemblies had petitioned a new edition, he had formed a committee and did the requested work with help of those who had lived among the Italians and Spanish Vincentians, certainly during the Revolution. Their help had been important, since they had experienced the continuing life of the Congregation outside of France. Nozo published the decrees in as brief a form as possible, hoping that his confreres would memorize them, use them, and repair the damages and abuses that had arisen within the Congregation. He and his editorial committee omitted others whose issues had been solved and which would not arise again, they hoped. Other decrees were omitted in order to move them into a revised version of the rules of office. The committee believed that the general assembly had granted them the authority to change some articles on the basis of subsequent legislation. In any case Nozo’s plea was to observe the contents carefully. This entire process forms part of the reforming agenda that he brought to his office.

In attempting to ascertain his major hopes for his generalate, it is clear from the above that he was interested in good order and observance. He probably found his skills in financial dealings to be of help in placing the Congregation on a more stable course. However, he was probably in office too briefly to be able to chart his own course in any productive way.

Foreign Missions, the Miraculous Medal

Since the general oversight of the foreign missions of the Congregation fell to Etienne, as procurator general, many of these mission developments involved him. It is unclear, because of lack of documentation, to what extent Nozo was involved. He did share, however, in the commonly-accepted French sense of evangelization, namely to extend “[French] influence to the most distant lands and among those people most rebellious against civilization.” Nevertheless, growth in the missions took place during his time. In the Middle East, for example, missions abandoned after the Jesuits were forced to leave began to be resumed. Gradually, too, schools began in Constantinople, Antoura and Sgorta.

As for China, native candidates continued to join the Congregation even though it was difficult to station European Vincentians there. Even so, significant funding for the work of the overseas missions came from the Propagation de la Foi, a lay organization founded to support the Church’s efforts in foreign missions. For Vincentians, the most far-reaching event in China was the death of John Gabriel Perboyre. News of his arrest, sentencing as a criminal and strangulation took some time to reach the mother house. It is uncertain how the news first arrived or when, but it probably came through several channels. Bishop François-Alexis Rameaux (1802-1845) of Kiangsi wrote Etienne a month after Perboyre’s death, and his letter must have taken several weeks to arrive in Paris. Brother Louis-Charles Vautrin (1808-1852), a missionary in Macao at the moment of Perboyre’s death, wrote his parents with the news, but it is unlikely that Vautrin’s letter reached Etienne before the bishop’s did. In any case, the news must have conflicted with the preparations in the mother house for the sexennial assembly, and little immediate notice was taken of his death. It was first announced to the Congregation officially in the New Year’s circular of 1842, by which time a campaign had been begun for Perboyre’s eventual canonization.

Following the imposition of French government in Algeria, it quickly became clear that Catholic life there would need to be organized. In the beginning, military chaplains alone were responsible. By 1833, however, it had been decided in principle to confide this work to the Congregation of the Mission. Gregory XVI decided to erect a see in Algeria, initial agreements were drafted, but the main sticking point remained the conflicting responsibilities of the Holy See, the Vincentian superior general and the French government to name or change the vicar apostolic, a Vincentian. The discussions would drag on during Nozo’s generalate, to be resolved only after his resignation. Some speculated that Nozo took the occasion of the possible nomination of a vicar apostolic to propose Etienne, principally to distance him from Paris. Others believed that Etienne sought the position to distance himself from Nozo, or because he was eager to become a bishop. All this is mere speculation.

The important mission of Ethiopia also developed in Nozo’s time. The most significant issue here was conflict between Justin de Jacobis and Etienne. As director of the missions, he refused to assign any funds to Jacobis, since he had, in Etienne’s view, traveled to Rome without Nozo’s permission. This left Jacobis in some embarrassment, particularly since he complained officially against his treatment. This became part of the anti-Etienne atmosphere that developed in Rome during this period.

In significant contrast with the approach of Father Etienne, Nozo had little or nothing to do with the rapidly burgeoning devotion to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal. He never mentioned it in his circulars to either the Sisters or the Vincentians, and it never was discussed in the general council. He was certainly aware of the developments inasmuch as his assistant, Jean-Marie Aladel, had by the beginning of 1836 already published five editions of his Notice historique sur l’origine et les effets d’une nouvelle médaille. Although Aladel was not the director of the Daughters of Charity until 1846, he was the confessor and thus confidant of Catherine Labouré, the visionary, and therefore heavily involved in the development of the devotion. Given Nozo’s interest in the Sisters, this lacuna is intriguing.

First Roman Visit

Possibly continuing his campaign to maintain papal approval of his generalate and of the Congregation in general, it was determined that the superior general travel to Rome between May and August of 1837. The occasion would be the celebration of the centenary of the canonization of Saint Vincent to be held at Montecitorio. He must have used the occasion, the first visit of a superior general to Rome since Cayla arrived nearly forty years previously, to try to repair the many hurt feelings that persisted because of conflicts between French and Italian Vincentians. He announced this trip in circulars to his confreres as well as to the Sisters. He requested donations from them to help the Roman province celebrate the occasion properly, proposing also that each Vincentian priest voluntarily send in to Paris the stipends for one year from five monthly masses that they celebrated. No reports have come to light on the amounts received, but Guarini said that Gregory XVI appreciated Nozo’s liberality with money during his Roman visit.

Just prior to leaving, he issued a special circular directed to the Vincentians of France. Its background can be found in Salhorgne’s circular of 20 October 1833, which decried the low level of religious observance within the Congregation. The purpose of Nozo’s letter was to clarify issues about the observance of the vow of poverty, which he claimed was not being followed in France. Calling his confreres to a generous fulfillment of their obligations, he restated the details of the basic points that everyone should have known. In addition, he revoked all general permissions governing the use of money that had been granted in the past by vicars general or superiors general. Next, he restated the old prohibitions about travel or being outside a community for eight or ten days. For this, individuals would be obliged to obtain permission from the superior general. He included another prohibition of too much contact with the Daughters of Charity, particularly by eating with them in their houses even when the members of the two communities were working together. In hindsight, this circular probably caused more trouble than good for him, since the superior general himself would be accused of the same faults against his vow of poverty, as well as excessive contact with Daughters of Charity. His pattern of living above the law was one of the main factors in his failure and won him few friends among his French confreres.

While in Rome, he asked for and received a rescript from the pope concerning the validity of the vows of certain Vincentians. This matter would play a large role in the conflict between Nozo and Ferdinand Bailly. The validity of vows has to be seen in the context of the haphazard oversight exercised by the vicars general from 1819 (when Bailly took vows) to 1827 (Dewailly’s appointment). The principal question arose about the jurisdiction received by Boujard from the Holy See. Some believed that, in the period between his election, 13 May 1819, and his official approval, 10 August 1820, those who took vows might not have done so validly, since Boujard was vicar general in name only. Nozo took the occasion of an audience with the pontiff to present his doubts. He asked simply that the pope either ratify the vows already taken, or “deign to do something for the aforesaid Congregation, by which the priests of the same could fulfill them, or in some way correct them; so that the same priests might immediately renew their vows after receiving notice that they were invalid, or at least dubious, and might enjoy all the rights and privileges completely which they used to enjoy, had they taken the same vows validly the first time.” Gregory XVI consulted with the prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, Cardinal Pietro Ostini, and took a cautious approach. Instead of simply ratifying any vows taken under whatever conditions, he granted the necessary faculties to renew the vows. Besides the case of Bailly, who took vows 16 September 1819, and whose issues will be treated below, the same doubts touched the vows of only three others, Jean Grappin (27 September 1819), Naamat Falguières (2 February 1820), and Bernard Capelet (19 July 1820). For reasons unknown, but probably to be absolutely certain, at least three others also believed that their vows might have been invalid: Jean-Baptiste Etienne and Barthélémy Touvre (18 October 1822), and Marc-Antoine Poussou (21 November 1822). These three renewed their vows, as their handwritten attestations prove. Grappin’s attestation includes a text several lines long, mentioning “the defect in the authority of the vicar general of the time.” Interestingly, Etienne never referred in his later writings to this supposed defect in his original vows.

A few years later, this question of the vows had been misunderstood to such an extent that it was believed that the reason for Nozo’s first trip to Rome was to clear up the legitimacy of his election. Marcantonio Durando was one of those, but his surmise was incorrect.

Nozo signed another document during his stay in Rome, on 12 July 1837. In this declaration, he officially made Etienne his special representative and general proxy for affairs concerning the Congregation. As procurator general, Etienne could collect debts, pursue lawsuits and arrange for mediation of cases out of court. This document was countersigned by Cardinal Lambruschini, secretary of state, a proof of its importance to the Holy See. A minor matter was a letter Nozo fired off to Marius Barozzi, a Vincentian in Aleppo. He and his confreres had, according to Nozo, drawn down humiliations on him, because of “your supposed zeal, your intemperate justifications and your inconsiderate declamations.” They had lodged some complaints with authorities in Rome about one of their confreres, Nicolas Gaudez (1763-1844), who had heard the confessions of women in his residence, opening himself to possible scandal. Nozo, in summary, had made the rounds of the offices of the papal curia and took such actions as curial officials required of him.

One of the first steps he took after his return, 20 September, was to name his younger brother Constant as his private secretary. Honoré Constant Nozo (1803-1858) entered the Congregation 16 September 1825 and took his vows 23 September 1827. He was a member of the Saint Lazare house in 1835 when his brother was elected and was the treasurer of the local community at that time. It is tempting to see in this strange appointment a way for the superior general to shield himself somewhat from his official secretary, Jean-Baptiste Etienne. It may also point to what would develop into the disastrous rift between the superior general and his council. Another family member also entered the picture, his nephew Alexandre Gérault, who lived not far from the mother house. Nozo seems to have used him to help with his finances while superior general and even after, when he lodged with him. By using this relative, Nozo was able to bypass the controls put in place by Etienne over the Congregation’s accounts, and thus live above the law.

Another decision the superior general made in the autumn of 1837 was to continue his austere reformation agenda by decreeing the restoration of two points of traditional Vincentian life. The first was “separation,” that is, keeping the various categories of Vincentians apart--novices, brothers, students with vows, priests--except for certain activities. This practice had been neglected during the troubled years of reconstruction after the Revolution. The second was the reinstatement of the recitation of the Divine Office in common. This practice often conflicted with the active life of the missioners and was consequently neglected in many houses or observed only sporadically. He had already decided that the novices would no longer be able to study philosophy or theology during their novitiate.

1838-1842, the Bailly Case

On his return to Paris from Rome, Nozo began to confront an issue that would contribute to his downfall, the case of Amable-Ferdinand-Joseph Bailly, superior of the house at Amiens. It is difficult to underestimate the role played by this important seminary, staffed by the Vincentians both before and after the Revolution. It was often the scene of dramatic events involving the participants in far-reaching causes.

Ferdinand Bailly was born 15 September 1785 in Bryas, Pas-de-Calais, and, quite probably for family reasons, came to the Amiens seminary. His father, André-Joseph, had been a loyal supporter of the Congregation, which entrusted him temporarily with a collection of Saint Vincent’s original letters and documents during the Revolution. He returned them at length, and they may be the same as those brought by the small group of Daughters of Charity and Vincentians to Turin in 1792, along with the relic of his heart and items of his clothing. Veneration for the saint was traditional in the family, and it makes sense, therefore, that Bailly would come to Amiens. Besides, Dominique Hanon, a friend of the Bailly family, was at Amiens, and took an interest in Ferdinand’s education. However, since the Congregation did not exist legally at that time in France (suppressed as it was for the second time from 26 September 1809 to 3 February 1816), he was unable to become a Vincentian. He began to teach at the seminary in 1806, at age twenty-one, although he was not ordained a priest until the Saturday of Passion week, 6 April, 1811. He then became the professor of theology.

Bailly appears to have moved to Paris for a time, although this is far from certain. In an enticing letter that became important later on, Hanon invited him to move to Paris. “I am anxious to have you here; we are very well here, and you will be the fifth person. You can help me with my correspondence. Besides, [at Amiens] you would have to teach that class that is harming your health. The Congregation will soon be reestablished. In fact, we have been established by the pope and recognized by the king; I have the right to delegate my place and my powers to whomever I wish among those confreres with me.” Even if he did not come when Hanon called him, he took his vows in Paris, 16 November 1819, in new Saint Lazare. He was the first Vincentian to do so after the Revolution. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, he took vows precisely during the period between the nomination and formal approval of Father Boujard by the Holy See. This state of doubt would be one of the features in Bailly’s eventual removal from the Congregation.

When the Vincentians resumed control of the Amiens seminary in 1820, Bailly served as its procurator (treasurer) for the years 1820 to 1827, to be succeeded by Etienne. In that year, Pierre Dewailly became superior general, and Bailly succeeded him as superior of the seminary. Two years later, he was appointed visitor of Picardy, quite possibly just in time to preside over the provincial assembly of 1829 leading to the general assembly that elected Salhorgne as superior general.

Beginning with Bailly’s appointment as superior in 1827, he no longer submitted financial reports, perhaps relying on the seminary’s treasurer to do so. Why it took until 1838, more than ten years, for Etienne, the procurator general, and the council to deal with this problem is unknown, but Nozo and his council must have wanted to clean up several of the issues facing them, this being the most serious. One of the legal briefs drawn up to support Bailly claimed that the cause was in “a secret dissension [that] arose that inspired new accusations on the part of the superior general of the Lazarists, unfavorable to the petitioner [Bailly].” The members of the council, however, had two other concerns. First, Bailly had been responsible for Amiens and two subsidiary houses, Montdidier and Roye. Perhaps because Dewailly had run Montdidier as almost a personal undertaking, capital expenses in the three places even in Bailly’s time had never been authorized by Paris, and expenses outran income. Further, since the funds always remained in Bailly’s hands, he was able to engage in huge and unsupervised financial transactions, including help for his brother Emmanuel and for nephews and nieces. Second, Bailly refused to give up being superior and visitor, and come to Paris as ordered. Consequently, the council judged it right to send someone to remove him. By the end of January 1838, Bailly wrote Nozo asking him to delay any decision for the sake of his family, but by the middle of the next month the superior general had named Jean Grappin as his “extraordinary commissary” to visit the Amiens house. To accompany him, Nozo appointed Jean-Baptiste Mauriac (1805-1845), who had replaced Nozo’s brother Constant as the house treasurer in Paris as of 1838-1839. Grappin’s charge included bringing order to the house and extended, should this be necessary, to deposing Bailly, the superior and visitor, and substituting someone else in those two offices.

Grappin’s and Mauriac’s work must have taken some time, since the first mention of the results comes in the general council meeting of the following 23 July. Grappin reported that he had worked to decipher Bailly’s accounts and had held good conversations with him. Bailly, undoubtedly sensing the danger to himself, went on the offensive by demanding reimbursement for the expenses he had undertaken for Montdidier. He was unable, however, to furnish Grappin any financial documentation or exact accounting of these expenses. Further, Bailly demanded reimbursement for expenses he had undertaken to begin the parish of Sainte Anne, practically adjacent to the seminary. He had also made questionable loans to his brother, Emmanuel. Since Ferdinand Bailly had little personal wealth, the money he lent his brother probably came from the Vincentian funds that he was managing. This loan amounted to 67,000 fr, plus another 53,200 fr entrusted to the seminary which Bailly designated to produce an annuity for Emmanuel of five percent. As a result of Grappin’s investigations, he removed Bailly and installed Jean Brioude in his place. The council approved his actions and determined that the expenses were to be accounted as coming from the funds of the three institutions, Amiens, Montdidier and Roye, with no expectation that the Congregation would be obliged to meet any or their debts. Precedents existed for acting differently, as in a case from 1829. In that year, the issue was funds that Dewailly had left in his will. He was supposed to have received 10,000 to invest for the hospital at Arras, but no one knew this and no records were found after his death. In that case, the council agreed to guarantee the income due the hospital, at least until it could discover what actually happened. In any case, it never reoccurs in the minutes of the council.

After Bailly’s removal, matters moved quickly. In a meeting of the council of 29 August, the vows of Ferdinand Bailly were “recognized and declared null.” This expression was ambiguous. For Nozo and the council it meant that although Bailly had taken vows, even if of doubtful validity, they were declared henceforth to be null or without effect. This was the tenor of Nozo’s letter to Bailly, written soon after. It accompanied his notice of dismissal, and spoke of a dispensation from his vows. Bailly, however, read the expression as meaning that his vows had always been null and, in that sense, he would later demand a salary for the years he had worked as an employee of the Congregation beginning in 1807, when he claimed he entered. Nozo and his council would counter that he became a member only on 16 September 1819, the day of his vows. Besides, Bailly must have received room and board and probably expenses during those twelve years, 1807-1819. In at least one letter written some months before his vows in 1819, Bailly admitted to Boullangier that, although he was not yet strictly a son of Saint Vincent, the other Vincentians were pleased that he was one by desire. In this matter, Etienne’s view differed, taking the side of Bailly. At least his report of Bailly’s and Nozo’s discussions related that Nozo held that Bailly never had vows. This version is at variance with the facts.

Nozo’s dismissal is direct and unyielding. He accused Bailly of lacking respect for the superior general and of not fulfilling his responsibilities as superior (to say nothing of being visitor). Nozo then listed those points that he found particularly offensive: unauthorized loans, destruction of financial records, poor bookkeeping and inconsistent explanations for various financial transactions. In view of this, the council had lost its trust in Bailly. Nevertheless, Nozo concluded by acknowledging Bailly’s devotion to the Congregation, and hoped to have an occasion to demonstrate his gratitude to his former professor. Bailly, humiliated and confused, then left the seminary at Amiens where he had worked for more than thirty years.

Bailly initiated a campaign to justify his position, one that would end in a public trial. The most significant issue that he brought up involved a deposit in his own name of 62,000 fr by Hanon with a certain François-Hippolyte-Constant Corne de Brillemont. This investment, which took place in 1814 was undertaken to assure a steady income for the Congregation. After Hanon’s death in 1816, the title to the funds passed to his “residuary legatee” (légataire universelle) Sr. Anne Déboutin, D.C., who lent her name to the transaction to guarantee that the Congregation would receive the income. She then grew ill and, to protect the investment, passed the role of legatee to three Vincentians. In 1829 Boujard asked Corne to transfer the payment of the income to the account of just one person, Bailly, instead of to the three named priests. In Bailly’s mind, therefore, Hanon had invested the money for Bailly personally and not for the Congregation. He cited as proof an 1816 letter from Hanon which concluded: “For you alone: I have a considerable fortune in my hands; this will reassure you about the future for you and your brother, and it can make you independent. It is time for you to move [to Paris].” Nozo and the council naturally contested Bailly’s claim to the money, responding that Bailly was never the owner of the income but acted only as a figurehead (prête-nom) for the Congregation, which could not legally receive this income in its own name. The situation grew tenser after Le Go, Nozo’s first assistant, visited Bailly to negotiate a solution. Bailly threatened that if the Congregation would not give him what he demanded, he would indemnify himself from the Corne income which he still controlled. These funds, however, had appeared on the Congregation’s books from 1831.

Another irritant in the relation between Bailly and the Congregation was that he was also a vicar general of the diocese of Amiens. He held this office from 1831 despite the common prohibition in the Congregation against accepting such responsibilities. The bishop undoubtedly needed his help and more or less forced it on him. Salhorgne, in fact, permitted him to retain it. Nevertheless, Nozo wanted him to give it up, but the bishop would not agree. After Bailly’s expulsion from the Congregation, he then demanded his back salary as a vicar general of Amiens, which he claimed had been paid to the Congregation and not to him. If he had not been a member, as he now claimed, he would have a right to the salary. But Nozo’s position was that Bailly had been a member. Besides, Nozo and the council contested this claim on factual grounds, since they held that Bailly had destroyed the account books and thus could not offer any proof that he did not receive the salary.

A smaller issue, though probably no less irritating, was the presence of a woman living at the seminary. Mademoiselle Havequez had been an Augustinian of the Hotel Dieu in Paris before the Revolution. When her community was disbanded, she came to the seminary in Amiens in 1806, thanks to the charity of Father Hanon. She lodged in the buildings, taking charge of the laundry, the infirmary and the kitchen. She clearly enjoyed the confidence of Fathers Bailly, Dewailly and Salhorgne, so much so that she began to help Bailly with his accounts, even taking a leading role in managing them. Since she had moved into the seminary before the Congregation had full control of the institution, her presence was at least tolerated. Afterwards, however, she fell under the prohibition in the Common Rules against women living in Vincentian houses. For this reason, Nozo, in his drive to restore proper order to Vincentian life, at least wanted her out of the building. Bailly acquiesced by building a little house for her, but on the seminary property.

Sometime in 1839, Bailly attempted to have these various issues submitted to binding arbitration. Nozo mistakenly refused the offer, against the advice of the archbishop of Paris. Failing that, Bailly saw no other option than to go to court. The first trial, for which Bailly enlisted the help of several attorneys, was held in early January 1840, with the court finding in Bailly’s favor. He had argued for various sums, principally the salary supposedly owed him as an employee of the Congregation, amounting to 39,000 fr, and the ownership of the Corne investment. The court commented on Nozo’s personality, characterizing him as a model of austerity and virtue overwhelmed by the pressures of reform. They concluded that, although Nozo had wanted to do good, he had done evil instead. The superior general was then ordered to pay 50,728.57 fr, the remainder of what Bailly had on account as of 20 February 1839, plus 39,150 fr for his years at Amiens, 1807 to 1838. Nozo shared the bad news of the court’s ruling with the superiors of France and possibly with others. He likewise informed the archbishop of Paris, giving the Congregation’s side of the story. He also asked the archbishop’s help in view of a possible appeal.

Nozo’s council met several times to decide what to do next. They determined in the first place that the affair was a major one that affected the entire Congregation, not just the superior general personally. But when in another meeting the members discussed the draft of Nozo’s brief against Bailly, Grappin and Nozo engaged in an angry confrontation, since Grappin believed that an appeal would not be in the spirit of Saint Vincent nor in the interest of the Congregation. A further session clarified their thinking, and they decided that an appeal would be launched not to exact vengeance on Bailly but to preserve the honor of the Congregation. Aladel and Etienne drafted the brief, but Nozo must have felt it necessary to defend the Congregation publicly, so he had 3000 copies printed and distributed in the dioceses of France.

The appeal moved forward in mid-1840 through the gathering of information and the publication of several briefs. One of the underlying issues that needed clarification concerned Bailly’s vows. In the practice of those days, a person became a member of the Congregation of the Mission only with his vows. Because of the doubts about those who took vows during the first months of Boujard’s office as vicar general, it was uncertain whether Boujard could have legitimately admitted someone to vows. Armed with the papal rescript, Nozo was able to remove the doubt, and the confreres in question apparently requested permission to renew their vows. It appears that Bailly did not make this request, but in any case, he would have been refused. Possibly he understood his situation and decided not to pursue the matter. One of the many briefs stated that Bailly was not permitted to renew his vows, but no evidence for this assertion exists. For the reasons mentioned above, the council had decided to expel him, whether his vows were valid or not, and did not pronounce on the question of their validity. The distinction about departing from the Congregation by leaving or dismissal is an important one, having been decided by the general assembly of 1670 in the time of Alméras and subsequently approved by the state. The solution was that those who left through dismissal were not entitled to any salaries for the time they had spent in the Congregation. Charity, of course, dictated some help to those who left, but nothing was due them in justice. Yet Nozo’s position was weak, since he had doubts about Bailly’s vows and had received the papal rescript precisely for cases like his.

Although exact information is lacking, it is known that the council under Salhorgne, 20 June 1829, dealt with a similar case, that of Jean-François Trippier, who had taken vows in 1820. This priest thought that his vows were null, based on the decision of the general assembly of 1829, and he asked permission to renew them. The council did not wish to allow this, “since they do not see in him the spirit of his state.” In his case, since he had been with the Congregation for nine years, the council agreed to allow him to remain at Amiens, “supported and fed as a confrere,” but without receiving any stipend apart from his masses. Since Bailly was superior of Amiens at this time, this decision must have had some impact on his later thinking about his own case.

The Congregation’s attorneys prepared their briefs, but these did not contain much new information, apart from legal reasoning against Bailly’s and the court’s positions. Nozo enlisted the help of the bishop of Amiens, Jean-Marie Miolland (1837-1849) and submitted the draft of the brief to him for comment. In concluding his presentation to the bishop, Nozo held out the possibility of arbitration, probably by ecclesiastical authorities. Unfortunately for the Congregation, the legal appeal was rejected at some point in June 1840.

No sooner was this matter concluded, at least for the moment, than another lawsuit arose. At the end of July, Emmanuel-Joseph Bailly, a printer, living at Place Sorbonne 2, Paris, cited Nozo and the council for issuing a document that defamed his family, “Exposé des faits relatifs…”, one of the legal briefs. This Bailly, known as Bailly de Surcy (1793-1861) was the younger brother of Ferdinand Bailly, and a one-time student at the seminary of Amiens. He apparently left the seminary at the end of 1817, but seems to have returned briefly in 1819. He found work in Paris as a publisher and began several journals: Le Correspondant (1829); Revue Européenne (1831), and La Tribune Catholique (1833), which soon merged with L’Univers religieux (1836). The Congregation invested in this latter publication and employed Bailly as its publisher, at least until 1839. He also was a fervent supporter, and the first president, of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, from 1833. In his complaint against Nozo’s brief, he objected to the story of how he allegedly got the money to purchase a house and a business, etc. Further, Nozo had this brief printed in multiple copies and distributed to magistrates and made public in Paris and in the departments, particularly in the Pas de Calais, where the Bailly family originated. Nozo lost this defamation case and was condemned to pay damages and to withdraw the brief within five days. He was forced to sign a document in the presence of the archbishop in which he wrote: “I declare that I sincerely regret the insertion of the passage in question in the brief of 1 May of this year, and I will henceforth regard the passage as suppressed.” With this decision, the court appearances in the Bailly matter were terminated.

However, the case itself was not over. Nozo and his council agreed to legal arbitration, as did Bailly. Unfortunately for him, after winning two judgments, he would lose the arbitration on nearly all points. By this time, clearly, the matter was quite public.

The figure of Sister Rosalie Rendu, D.C., now arrives on the scene, whether to her credit or not. This famous Sister, known for her many charitable endeavors, had heard from her sources that the newly-installed archbishop, Denis-Auguste Affre, was about to issue an interdict against the members of the council, specifically against Fathers Etienne, Aladel, Le Go and Grappin (but not Fiorillo, the Italian assistant.) The reason was that these councilors had opposed Nozo in the Bailly conflict as well as in other matters. In writing to Affre she acknowledged that she knew only part of the question but was begging him to reconsider. Other documents show that she continued her efforts. She tried to get a priest, possibly a Sulpician, who would play some role in the negotiations, to consider Nozo’s character in any dealings with the archbishop. She also urged her correspondent to research Bailly’s dispositions before the arbitration session took place. In her opinion, Bailly’s position was weak since his credit with the banks was ruined, and consequently the archbishop should approach the discussions from that point. She wrote twice more to the archbishop, 13 and 17 August, begging him to intervene in the matter, since in her opinion most of Bailly’s allegations were false. Besides, she had often spoken with Bailly. She then went to see the archbishop in person and, in a dramatic scene, fell to her knees and refused to rise until he changed his mind about issuing his decree of interdict. According to Rosalie’s secretary, Sister Costalin, the archbishop at first refused but finally relented. His only condition was that Sister Rosalie herself take the responsibility before the judgment seat of God of burning the document in his fireplace. Unfortunately for her, these interventions earned her the undying enmity of Jean-Baptiste Etienne, although she had saved him and the council from the penalty. Indeed, Etienne, whose desire was to control people and events, realized that he could not control this powerful woman who was answerable to him as her superior general.

The arbitration panel began its work in late August by examining witnesses and evidence. Another flurry of documents ensued, restating the opinions of the parties. During this phase, Etienne took a more prominent role through his researches into documents from the time of Fathers Boujard, Dewailly and Salhorgne. Nozo became nervous at the panel’s approach and signed a document appealing to their conscience. The council too went on record by restating its position. They added a point that had not been specified previously, namely that if Bailly’s vows had been invalid, since he had attended the general assemblies of 1829 and 1835 as visitor, the decisions of those assemblies could well have been rendered null, including, of course, the elections of Dominique Salhorgne and Jean-Baptiste Nozo. It was undoubtedly for this reason that Nozo had requested a special document from the Holy See to ratify the decisions of the assemblies. Since he had not previously consulted the council about this, he managed to alienate them further and to contribute to their sense of being useless.

On 23 September 1840, the day after this last document, the arbitrators rendered their decision. They overturned the previous judgment as badly made and determined that Bailly was not due the sum determined in that decision. Consequently, Bailly would have to pay back to the Congregation 395,827.80 fr. Further, he would have to restore the title of the Corne investment to Nozo, withdraw his brief and, as a final punishment, pay the costs of the arbitration. Several other points received action in the next several months. For one, Bailly had to sign various declarations clearing up financial transactions. Lastly , the council agreed, undoubtedly out of charity, to pay Bailly an income for the rest of his life.

Bailly remained in Amiens where he had been named an honorary canon and then dean of the chapter. His business affairs and those of his brother involved him in various problems, and Bailly left Amiens in 1849 for Paris. While there, he received support both from the Congregation and the diocese of Amiens. Nevertheless, according to Etienne, Bailly’s possessions had to be put up for auction, probably from bankruptcy, and he lived, at least for a time, in “humiliation and misery.” Details about his later life are lacking, although it is known that at the end of his life, he was living in the parish of the Parisian suburb of Neuilly, nearly blind. He died there 15 April 1864.

Although Nozo and the Congregation were finally vindicated, great damage had been done to his reputation, so much so that many believed that he had finally lost the case. What he might have regarded as a victory of good supervision over lax administration turned out to be a disaster. It is also surprising to notice the similarities between the Bailly case and Nozo’s: highhanded financial dealings, personalized administration, rejection and isolation.

1838-1842, The Denis-Hennecart case, other financial matters

At the same time that Nozo and his council were dealing with Bailly, another case arose. It was equally as bitter and public, and the outcome would be the same: the Congregation and Nozo as its representative would be judged innocent on appeal. Nevertheless, the nature of the case was such as to contribute equally forcefully to Nozo’s downfall.

The case involved a family of four: Marie-Adrien Denis-Hennecart (called Adrien Denis); his wife: Marie-Catherine-Sophie Mercier; their son, Jules Denis-Hennecart, and a daughter, known as Mme. Lavende. Nozo was a distant cousin of Sophie Mercier, Denis-Hennecart’s wife. Adrien would later claim that he had favored Nozo’s attempt to marry one of his sisters-in-law in his young life, but this did not work out. Nozo then, according to Adrien, went to study pharmacy, but that did not work out either. Finally, after Nozo entered the seminary, he always remained on good terms with his cousin and family. It is unknown whether this assertion is true, but Nozo did not challenge it in court. Adrien characterized Nozo’s personality as “dominating under the guise of humility, restless, demanding, underhanded, bothersome.” He concluded that Nozo’s personality had led to his recall from the houses where he was stationed: St. Flour, Cahors, Paris, Amiens (for reasons of health), and Châlons (regarded as the poorest of the Vincentian seminaries). There is no evidence for the reasons behind this constant shifting of assignment but, since Nozo was appointed visitor, with residence at Châlons, he must have had a good reputation with Salhorgne. Nonetheless, Adrien’s description may have some basis in fact, in the light of subsequent events.

The facts of the relationship between Nozo and Adrien Denis are complex. In 1835, Nozo lent 4500 fr to his cousin. Then, when one or more creditors sought to recover 5000 fr from Denis, he declared bankruptcy. Nozo stepped in with his own money, assumed the debt, paid the principal creditor, and thereby became a creditor for 9500 fr. Nozo’s attorney, Maître Louis Etienne, a brother of Jean-Baptiste, was also an acquaintance of the Denis-Hennecart family. He proposed to Nozo a mortgage to pay off the family’s creditors and to make some money for himself. By means of the mortgage, Nozo was then able to satisfy the other creditors, and his cousin’s debt to him increased to nearly 57,000 fr. The collateral for the mortgage was a meadow valued at 50,000 fr. Since Denis eventually was unable to make regular payments to Nozo, he sold the property for 50,000 fr, instead of for the 80,000 fr that Denis believed his meadow was worth. Since he felt cheated, he claimed that the land was still his and threatened a lawsuit to recover title.

In the meantime, Jules, Adrien’s son, moved to Paris, to lodge with Maître Etienne. Jules concocted many financial schemes, mostly useless, and in his frequent financial difficulties he would approach Nozo for money. As one example, Jules got the idea of establishing a business to produce waterproof cloth for which he invented a process. Nozo loaned cousin Jules 10,000 fr to get him started, but Jules would later assert that since these funds came from his family’s funds held by Nozo on deposit they were not a loan. Jules found himself unable to repay the money and asked Nozo for more. He agreed to this, but only on condition of the assent of Jules’ mother, which she gave, as supposed owner of the business notes. In a legally risky move, Nozo added these conditions in his own hand to the original agreement. All did not go well, and Jules then claimed that Nozo wanted to take over Jules’s business in favor of Nozo’s nephews. Adrien Denis himself came to Paris to ask Nozo to forget his son’s misdeeds and to loan him more money to keep him out of jail (as appeared possible). At this point, the father signed over the notes to Nozo, making him the owner of the Denis-Hennecart funds. Nozo then calculated that Adrien now owed him a total of 66,000 fr. In addition, Adrien had several other creditors and mortgage holders.

Predictably, Denis went to court to secure what he believed to be his rights. As part of the preliminaries, he published a notorious brief, “Exposé pour Mr. Denis Hennecart … contre M. Nozo,” in 104 pages. In his statement of facts, he added the following bitter denunciation: “Others have been able to meet faithless depositors who, after deceiving their confidence, have attempted to complete their ruin and that of their family. But it has never happened that they have met in the author of a similar initiative a relative, a priest, the head of a truly esteemed religious order, and, which is truly incredible, a person who, in his ecclesiastical position, occupies the place of Saint Vincent de Paul.” It was this document that the deputies to the 1841 assembly found on the tables in their rooms when they arrived.

Despite the libelous nature of the Denis brief, it contains important details about other financial dealings undertaken by Nozo, which he never denied. According to Denis, Nozo was known as an able speculator, with investments in the Bank of Belgium, in a company established to clear the Landes of Bordeaux from the threatening sand dunes, and in other schemes. He claimed that Nozo acted through third parties so that in this way he could claim to be poor and still receive money from Propagation de la Foi. It is doubtful that Nozo’s motives were that underhanded, however. Further, Denis knew, somehow—perhaps through Jean-Baptiste Etienne to his brother, attorney Louis Etienne, a friend of Denis—that Nozo had funds invested in the United States, in railroads, and elsewhere, including a fund to hire military replacements for those called up in a draft. Denis even quoted his cousin as calling himself “the Rothschild of religious orders,” and writing: “I could lose one million and be no less rich for it.” Of course, these are unsupported citations, but it is tempting to believe Denis since, as will be seen, these expressions are in keeping with Nozo’s character.

The attorneys set to work and produced the usual panoply of statements and counter statements. Denis’s team drew up a formidable spread-sheet claiming that even though their client owed something to Nozo, he in turn owed Denis père et fils more than 300,000 fr. At a preliminary hearing, the court determined that the members of the superior general’s council were not involved, meaning thereby that the whole case was a personal matter involving Nozo alone. Denis and his attorneys then opted for arbitration, with each side choosing one arbitrator, with the court adding a third.

The arbitrators rendered their decision 7 December 1841, and found for Nozo. Denis lodged an appeal, but lost again, 10 August 1842, with the court finding that the Congregation had acted in accordance with its internal laws and with civil law. This decision was not widely known in the Congregation, leading to the conclusion that Nozo had unwisely speculated in the financial markets and had thus brought about huge losses to the Congregation and to Denis. Evidently, this conclusion is erroneous.

Denis and his lawyers were not ones to give up without a fight. They lodged other appeals on fine points of civil and canon law, but by the middle of 1843 the case seems to have run its course, with the original decisions confirmed. The advocate general concluded his statement by questioning whether the Congregation or Nozo had acted fraudulently. He answered that they had not, but that Nozo had a blind and misplaced confidence in Denis. By this time, of course, Nozo had resigned. A biting statement, which must have summarized the opinion of some of his confreres, was added by an unknown hand, written entirely in capital letters at the end of one of the documents involving the Denis-Hennecart matter: “M. NOZO IS NOT A TRUE PRIEST.”

Before concluding this material, it is worthwhile presenting some of the details alluded to above concerning Nozo’s, and Etienne’s, financial investments in the United States, since they shine light on the complexity of the finances. In early 1837, Nozo wrote to John Timon, the first American visitor, that he had decided to send funds to Philadelphia for fear of another revolution in France. Timon then went to work and, through a contact made on a sea voyage, entered into correspondence with Ramsey Crooks, president of the powerful American Fur Company of New York. Crooks counseled against investing in the Bank of the United States (New York) and proposed the recently-founded Bank of the State of Missouri instead. Investments were made, however, in both banks in the name of Jean-Baptiste Nozo. As it happened, Crooks was well informed. The Bank of the State of Missouri survived the depression of 1837, but the Bank of the United States, while giving better interest, ultimately failed. A regular correspondence ensued among Timon, Nozo and Etienne, and the surviving letters show that more than 100,000 fr were invested in the period 1838-1840, with a return rate of approximately five percent.

Despite the impending chaos in Nozo’s administration, the financial records of the time show a steady series of other investments. They included municipal bonds from Naples, a Roman bank and Austrian mines. In all of these, Nozo and Etienne acted prudently.

The Daughters of Charity and other ministries

Not everything that happened under the generalate of Nozo resulted in scandal. On the official level, Nozo’s relationship with the Daughters of Charity was correct. He wrote five circulars addressed to them in his first two years of office, but only two in his last years. As mentioned above, none of these was ever published, although the individual letters were printed and distributed to the houses at the time they were written.

His message to the Sisters was generally in keeping with his initial hopes for restoration of the observance of their rules and the extirpation of abuses. Given his subsequent problems with certain Sisters, however, it is clear that he did not follow his own advice.

One major element concerning his attention to the Sisters was that of a possible union of the Sisters of Charity of America, founded by Elizabeth Ann Seton, with the Daughters of Charity of Paris. Nozo favored this union, seeing in it the greater glory of God, the spiritual good of the Sisters, and spiritual and temporal advantages for the poor.

Several other important initiatives began or developed during his administration. The first was the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. This organization began as a student initiative to make the Gospel living through care for the poor. The first six members were young Catholic students interested in deepening their faith. Their leader was Frédéric Ozanam, who, together with his companions, met under the presidency of Emmanuel- Joseph Bailly (1794-1861). The society came slowly into being, meeting first in 1833 as the “Conference of Charity,” and then in 1835 with its traditional name. The founding members were supported and formed, as well, by the energetic Sister Rosalie Rendu.

All the members had careers of their own—Ozanam was a lawyer but also taught literature at the Sorbonne. As the society took shape, the members decided to divide into parish groupings to better serve the poor of their local parishes. Ozanam, however, died at age forty. Despite Emmanuel-Joseph Bailly’s personal dealings with the Congregation, the first members of the Society enjoyed good relationships with the Vincentians, mainly at the mother house in Paris. They came there at the beginning of their work, in the time of Salhorgne, to pray before the relics of Saint Vincent, and the problems that assailed the Congregation under Nozo did not seem to have touched them. As a lay organization, the Society and the Congregation followed separate paths but came together at various points in prayer and collaboration in the service of the poor.

The second great work stemming from this time was the refoundation of the Ladies of Charity. This work stemmed from the Confraternities of Charity began by Saint Vincent in Châtillon-les-Dombes in 1617. This initiative spread widely in his time, but it never developed a national organization. The Ladies of Charity, by contrast, began in Paris a few years later under Vincent’s guidance, and he continued to collaborate with its aristocratic presidents during his entire life. At the Revolution, the organization was suppressed, although the spirit of charity continued.

In 1839, while the vicomtesse Le Vavasseur was at the Berceau, she had the inspiration to do something about re-creating the same works that existed in Vincent’s time. In Paris, this would mean working for the poor. For reasons unknown, she approached Jean-Baptiste Etienne about it and he agreed to work with them, even later becoming their director. His typical attention to detail led him to base their rule on that drawn up by Vincent himself. Discussion led the twelve original members to devote themselves to the poor district of Saint Marceau. The archbishop gave his approval, and put them into contact with the pastor of Saint Medard parish and with his most famous parishioner, Sister Rosalie. The work spread quickly to other parishes, and collections were taken up in affluent parishes to aid the poor of other parishes. Although Nozo did not take an active part in the work of the Ladies of Charity, he did nothing to diminish Etienne’s role in their work.

Another work was the Oeuvre du Prêtre, an organization that ran homes for priests. This charity began in 1837 under the presidency of Charles-Auguste-Marie-Joseph Forbin-Janson (1785-1844), bishop of Nancy. Throughout his life, he had began numerous charitable causes, some of which had a long life, such as the Holy Childhood Association. He was an organizational genius in the mode of Vincent de Paul and, like Vincent, was an indefatigable fundraiser among the French aristocracy. In the case of the Oeuvre du Prêtre, however, after he left the work for other things, it began to fall apart without his charismatic presence. At this point, Jean-Baptiste Etienne became involved with the work. The probable connection was a Daughter of Charity, “good Sister Geray,” regarded as the “soul and promoter” of the operation. Its minutes from early 1840 show that the officers, including Etienne, decided to offer the work to Nozo, but always under the presidency of a board of interested bishops. In addition to Sister Geray, Rosalie Rendu also participated. Her role was to pass along requests for help from needy priests. Despite all the good will and sacrifices, the work did not continue, and documents cease in 1840. Nozo was not personally involved in this organization, although he was its titular head.

As the growth of these works shows, France in the 1830s and 1840s was undergoing a brilliant religious revival. The vocational picture was, therefore, very encouraging. A study of those who entered the Congregation during the years of Nozo’s generalate, shows a total of 138, about fifteen every year. A large group of seventeen were Irish, from the newly united Irish Vincentians, who came to make their initial formation in Paris. A sizable number of all the entrants were either priests (twenty-one in all) or deacons or subdeacons (twenty-five), many of whom had been already formed by Vincentians. The Nozo scandals seems to have affected the Congregation’s ability to attract new members, since a drastic fall-off occurred in 1843, from fifteen French entrants in 1842 to only two in 1843 and five the following year. The true cause is unknown, but the correlations are striking.

External Threats

In the midst of these good works, other issues threatened the future of the Congregation. One was the continuing conflict concerning the role of religious congregations in France. François-André Isambert, who had threatened the existence of the Congregation nearly a decade before, rose again in the National Assembly to denounce teaching congregations. He was particularly concerned about minor seminaries, which, in his opinion, were simply boarding schools supported by rich families, and about provincial girls’ schools run by nuns. All these, he argued, damaged the public schools of France.

A similar anti-clerical stance was evident in the attempt by someone on the Council of State to separate the governance of the Daughters of Charity from Nozo, as superior general of the Congregation of the Mission. The Council went back to certain decrees from previous decades to show that Nozo was legally incapable of presiding over the council of the Sisters. Were this true, then contracts signed by them under his presidency would be invalid, entailing a possible loss of property. Although nothing came of this attempt, it shows that the position of the two congregations continued to be under threat.

1840-1842, the Council

Although the Nozo and the Congregation won the cases brought by Bailly and Denis-Hennecart, these public affairs plus Nozo’s private way of acting and his troublesome personality were driving a wedge between him and his council. They would ultimately lead them to mutiny.

A stormy session took place “during the vacation of 1840,” as narrated by Jean Grappin, his appointed admonitor and his principal antagonist on the council. During this session, various issues were discussed, such as a problem at the seminary of Châlons, where Nozo had been the superior before his election. Rather than follow his council’s advice, he brusquely said that he would handle the matter himself. The Council turned next to two of the Congregation’s schools in France, Montdidier and Montolieu. For some time, these two secondary schools had been a financial drain on the Congregation, and major loans had been made to rescue them. This was reflected in the annual financial reports drawn up by Etienne in his capacity as general treasurer of the Congregation, in 1838 and 1839. The council believed it would be wise to give up these two schools, but no decision was taken. Indeed, the matter was not resolved in Nozo’s time.

Since Etienne was the general treasurer as well as secretary of the general council, he must have had a lot to say in this meeting, particularly since he or someone else brought up the issue of Nozo’s loans to Adrien Denis. The members also objected to the fact that the superior general had made a large loan to the Province of Naples of 10,000 fr without saying anything to the council. Although the Constitutions of 1668 obliged the superior general to seek the permission of his assistants for important loans, the exact meaning of “important” was not defined in real terms. In any case, his cavalier procedure concerned them greatly.

The council turned next to the issue of the normal sexennial assembly to be held in 1841, six years after the previous one. Their discussion was lengthy and controverted, with the council opting for a sexennial assembly but Nozo holding for a general assembly. According to Grappin, Nozo refused to discuss his reasons, and thus Grappin concluded, “he has a great lack of compatibility with his council.” The members, who should have been his helpers, became his adversaries. The decision, however, was to convoke a sexennial assembly.

Nozo then surprised the members by communicating a brief that he had personally sought from Rome, requesting decisions about supposed errors committed during the last assembly, the nullity of vows and the validity of his election as superior general. He had been concerned about the effect of the presence of the unelected Spanish delegate at the 1835 assembly. The members were understandably upset since he had said nothing to any of them, who should have known what was happening. Consequently, they regarded the request for the brief as sneaky. As it happened, the pope did not do anything specific about validating Nozo’s election, regarding it as without error.

As if to ease his strained relations with the council, Nozo did not often meet with them in the period 1839-1840. This was not the first time, however. No council minutes exist for more than a year, from 2 May 1836, to 19 September 1837. He had been absent for a while during that time, first in the south of France in 1836 and then in Italy, from May through August 1837, but his absences do not explain the lack of minutes. There may have been informal meetings, however, since he wrote, as he was obliged to do, to the visitors of Europe about the nomination of Grappin, his second assistant, to the role of admonitor after the death of Salhorgne, the previous admonitor. In his letter to the visitors, dated 21 September 1836, Nozo mentions that he had received the consent of his council, but the official minutes do not reflect any meeting. In the period 1839-1840, there was a space of four months, from 22 October 1839 to 2 March 1840, when he did not hold council meetings. He was not often absent, since at the same time he regularly presided at the meetings of the general council of the Daughters of Charity (23 October, 29 November 1839 and then nearly weekly from 15 January to 4 March 1840).

In neglecting his council, Nozo was acting against the intention and spirit, if not the exact letter, of the Constitutions of 1668. The text of chapter 1, article 4 begins with a general statement: “… he [the superior general] cannot govern the entire Congregation by himself.” Given this, the superior general is to use the officials of the Congregation, namely visitors, local superiors and, more importantly for this discussion, the secretary and procurator of the Congregation. His specific obligation to treat of major matters with his council is also stated in chapter 2, article 2.

Against this constitutional background, therefore, Nozo’s refusal to sign the annual financial reports for 1840 and 1841 as submitted by Etienne appears all the more problematic. Since these reports are not found in the archives of the procurator general, one can only speculate on the reason for Nozo’s action. It appears quite likely, however, that Etienne’s reports pointed to some of the questionable dealings in which Nozo was involved. Further, it is quite likely that he mingled funds of the Congregation with his own private money, and amounts entrusted to him for investments, particularly by at least twenty-two Daughters of Charity. The result was a financial tangle that would take years to straighten out.

In retrospect, however, it must be admitted that under Nozo’s administration, the Congregation went from an operating deficit of 87,000 fr at the end of 1838, to a surplus of 11,000 fr the following year. It can be concluded that he was managing to bring some order and development into the finances, but probably at the cost of unregulated or unaccountable transactions. His dealings with Timon show that he understood financial administration; what he lacked, clearly, was a good framework to hold everything together, both financial and personal.

It must have become common knowledge to Vincentians in France that dissension existed between Nozo and his council, although probably not the reasons for it. This is reflected in the decisions of the provincial assemblies of Paris and Lyons in particular. Contrary to the preference of the superior general’s council, the delegates to the Paris assembly, of which Etienne was a member, opted for holding a general assembly in 1841. The first reason for this decision was “dissension between the superior general and the assistants of the Congregation, which is extremely harmful to the good of the Congregation and to its wise governance.” The Lyons assembly focused on the injury done by members of the council who had not been keeping inviolable the secret doings of the council, especially by writing about them to their friends in the Congregation. Clearly there was wrong on both sides. The Province of Picardy, meeting in assembly at Amiens, restricted its comments to the “restoration of good government in the Congregation.” This concern had not been disseminated in the Italian provinces, as far as can be determined. The minutes of the provincial assembly of Lombardy, held in Genoa, show that the delegates unanimously voted against holding a general assembly and did not mention the growing problem of Nozo’s relationship to his council.

Perhaps as a way of overcoming some of this dissension, the Paris provincial assembly also went on record petitioning the redaction of rules for both the procurator general and the secretary general. It appears that the lack of proper boundaries and expectations for these two offices must have contributed to Nozo’s problems with his council and Etienne. Since Etienne was both procurator and secretary general, and a member of this provincial assembly as well as its secretary, his being secretary would offer him a way to get his point across without engaging in a more overt challenge to Nozo. Evidently nothing happened, since the province repeated its request for revised rules in the subsequent assembly, 15 June 1843, after Nozo’s resignation.

At all events, Nozo and his council approached the coming assembly seriously conflicted and brimming with mistrust. Repeating an earlier pattern, the council held no meetings between 8 March and 2 November 1841. When they resumed, Nozo had more surprises in store.

The Sexennial Assembly, 1841

On 28 March 1841, Nozo again wrote on his own to Gregory XVI. This time, he laid out his request for the faculty to “name, in case of absence or illness, a vicar general on whom he [Nozo] could confer his powers, limited and revocable as he may judge expedient in the Lord.” The pope replied in the usual fashion of a rescript, but without taking a stand: “We freely agree with what has been requested.” Nozo must have kept this information confidential while attempting to circumvent the mounting pressures facing him from his council and his various lawsuits. Then, on Monday, 26 July, the day before the assembly, Nozo took the fateful step of appointing Marc-Antoine Poussou as vicar general. In the Constitutions of 1668, a vicar general could take office only on the death of a superior general and on the basis of previous appointment by him. The Constitutiones selectae of 1670 recognized the possibility of a vicar general substituting for a superior general also in the case of incapacity or “some very grave external sin” (article 11). In this instance, it was the general assembly that would appoint the vicar. For these reasons, the appointment of Poussou to substitute for Nozo was canonically dubious, but Etienne, as secretary, signed the document nevertheless. It seems that Poussou had not been consulted in advance.

Similarly unaware, the assembly opened on the twenty-seventh at 5:00 p.m. It numbered a mere thirteen participants: Nozo, his four assistants, Etienne as secretary and procurator general, and seven delegates. As the first act of business, Nozo notified the members of his decision to chose and appoint Poussou, who was not present. Etienne, the secretary of the assembly, did not record in the minutes the reaction of the members, but their astonishment can be easily imagined. They must have spent that evening and the next morning in consultations, since the second session did not commence until 3:00 p.m. the next day. Nozo then read his decree appointing Poussou: “...seeing that I can no longer sustain the weight of office because of frequent illnesses and, since I have the faculty from the pope of naming a vicar general, ... I hereby give him all faculties that a vicar general exercises,” a responsibility lasting until the next general assembly. Nozo added that he had renounced the right granted him of ever withdrawing the nomination, and that the delegates should devote the next session to working out and limiting the faculties.

Before that session, the council held an informal meeting, without Nozo. They apparently believed that they had to pronounce “on certain temporal affairs.” The assistants and Etienne declared their gratitude to Nozo for his act of devotion to the interests of the Congregation (namely, stepping down, at least for the moment); their affliction at Nozo’s troubles caused by Denis-Hennecart’s libelous brief, and that Nozo had not only treated Denis well, but that he deserved thanks for it. In addition, they agreed to pay off the debt owed to Denis. This extraordinary statement has to be read, first, against the background of the mysterious appearance of the Denis-Hennecart brief that the delegates found on their table when they arrived for the assembly. Who else but the council or one of its staff, probably Etienne, could have acquired fifteen or twenty copies and distributed them? Secondly, the signers of the statement went to the trouble to have it printed and distributed. The reason is not hard to fathom. In other words, they clearly did not want to implicate themselves in Nozo’s moment of disgrace, although they were as much to blame for it as he was.

When the delegates met the following afternoon, Nozo read out his Italian-language letter to the pope and the reply. Then, in addition to the issue of his personal health, the superior general also took a swipe at his council, saying that they were of no help to him. He said that his first assistant, Le Go, at age seventy-four was sick and useless (once even calling him an imbecile.) Two others, Aladel and Grappin, were taken up with other matters. Of course, it was Nozo who gave the work to the other assistants, but this did not figure in his address to the delegates.

The secretary, Etienne, then recorded that the deputies were moved with deep edification of such an example of humility on Nozo’s part, and they requested that at least some faculties be withheld from the vicar general to maintain the honor and dignity of the generalate. They also agreed, with Nozo’s approval, that this appointment would commence the following first of November, unless the superior general decided otherwise for a grave reason and with the assent of his assistants. In this situation the superior general alone retained the right to convoke a general assembly, except in the case foreseen in the Constitutions, when the assistants could do so. Another limitation on the authority of the vicar general was that he could not dispense from vows, unless the superior general were permanently living or traveling outside France. In addition, only the superior general could name visitors; in case of need, the vicar general could name a vice-visitor until the issue was resolved. Finally, the assembly stipulated that the superior general should receive news of the Congregation from the vicar general every three months. In this last matter, there is no documentary evidence that this ever happened, and it seems unlikely.

The minutes record that that assembly agreed to this, but without giving the vote count, thus leaving the impression that the vote was unanimous. Etienne’s account of this entire procedure is highly colored. He adds details that he omitted in the laconic official record, such as Nozo’s emotional appeal for relief, on his knees and in tears. What the secretary omitted, however, was that besides the regular sessions of the assembly, other private sessions were being held in the library during which the Etienne and the council laid out their complaints against the superior general. Le Go, the first assistant, had once favored Nozo and supported his drive to return the Congregation to the strict observance of the past, but now had turned against him. Etienne, however, attributes to others the opinion that, since Nozo was unfit to govern, he should be stripped of his office. He thus protected himself from a charge of disloyalty. Nozo himself, however, in another context, admitted that he himself, or rather, his sins, had caused his disgrace. Nozo’s version, naturally, makes himself the instigator of his leave of absence. In this telling, he was protecting himself from the accusations of his council. There must be truth in both versions. Another concern was fear that Nozo might at some point resume the reins of office, another detail not mentioned in the assembly minutes. This uncertainty manifested their feelings of shock and helplessness over the events surrounding them.

Nozo’s was not the only withdrawal. Fiorillo, his fourth assistant, presented his resignation too. He cited, among other reasons, the cloudy and rainy weather of Paris, which gave him headaches and chest pains. Interestingly, he said that there was no other reason, and that he had good friends in Paris. Fiorillo agreed to leave on 1 November, the same day that Poussou would take over as vicar general. In Fiorillo’s place, Pierre-Paul Sturchi, a deputy from the Province of Lombardy, was elected.

The assembly then concluded its work on Saturday, 31 July, with the usual formalities, including the approval and signing of the minutes. They wished Nozo well as they concluded this bizarre week.

What had happened was that both sides, through careful calculation and planning, set up their own procedures to bring order out of chaos. Nozo had become increasingly involved in matters too complex for him to solve, but he tried to exercise his office on his own terms. Because of his troubled psychological state, he isolated himself from those very persons, his assistants, who should have been his natural allies. The council and its secretary, Etienne, for their part, had schemed to remove him for reasons cloaked in religious language. Unsuccessful at guiding and correcting him, they turned instead to ruin him, thereby saving themselves.

1841, Nozo on leave

It took the superior general nearly three months to send circulars concerning the outcome of the assembly to his confreres and the Daughters of Charity. Why he took so long is uncertain, but it most likely stemmed from his ambivalence about what he had initiated. He dated both letters the same day, 28 October, just prior to Poussou’s installation. As another sign of his need to avoid unpleasantness, the circular he sent to the Vincentians began, not with the main news, but with the appointment of the Spaniard José Escarra (1777-1855) as his admonitor, and of Sturchi (spelled here Stucco) as the Italian assistant replacing Fiorillo. Escarra, a refugee and professor of theology in the mother house, was twenty-one years Nozo’s elder and might have been able to give him good advice had Nozo remained. He took the pains in his circular to note that Fiorillo had resigned because of his health, had “no other motive for making this decision,” and that he respected the French. Only then did he turn to the issue of the appointment of Poussou, repeating the same details presented to the pope and the delegates. He concluded by promising to convoke a general assembly after consulting his council and the wishes of his confreres. As will be seen, his further consultation with the council was infrequent and hostile. The circular addressed to the Sisters emphasized that they should not worry or listen to rumors, of which there must have been many since he had postponed any official communication with them for so long. He was not present for their general council meetings during August and September, and joined them only twice more in October. He would therefore have had a chance to explain himself on those occasions, but the minutes of their meetings do not reflect this.

In keeping with his practice, Nozo must have left Paris quickly after the assembly. Durando blamed him for stirring up conflicts in the communities of Vincentians and Daughters that he visited. There is little evidence of Nozo’s personal sentiments apart from individual letters. In a very frank one written from Dieppe, 15 September, addressed to his friend Vito Guarini (1805-1871), the Italian procurator in Rome, he confides: “After you left, I had to undergo some very strange treatment by my assistants, at the instigation of and according to the treacherous maneuvers of that attorney whom you have seen, and who played such a strange role at the time of the assembly.” He is probably speaking of Maître Mandaroux, who would have an important hand in Nozo’s later treatment. He concluded that he had been deceived about this attorney, who had favored his dear friend Etienne, who had managed to secure for the attorney a rich wife. “My career is finished” is Nozo’s conclusion. Other letters to his friend Guarini are equally personal and revealing. “I will tell you, however, that certain maneuvers that caused our problems are slowly coming to light, especially the spirit that moved the people on the council—I mean some of them.”

Marc-Antoine Poussou

One can have nothing but the deepest respect and appreciation for the life and ministry of Marc-Antoine Poussou (1794-1860). His paternal uncle, a priest, had fled to Spain during the Terror but returned to France to minister in hiding. It was he who inspired Antoine’s vocation. After nearly completing his studies in the diocesan seminary at Cahors, he sensed a missionary vocation and sought to accompany Bishop William Dubourg to the United States. Instead, this vivacious young man entered the Congregation, 26 March 1819. He was ordained a priest a little more than a year later, 27 May 1820, and pronounced his vows, 21 November 1822 at the seminary of Sarlat where he was stationed. His ministry brought him next to the parish missions. After six years, Boujard fulfilled Poussou’s desire for foreign missions, assigning him to Syria.

In the Middle East, he proved to be an energetic worker in preaching and catechizing, as well as in restoring neglected or abandoned missions. While in Damascus, he met the poet Alphonse de Lamartine, who found him “excellent, pious, educated, and friendly.” The writer admired Poussou’s steadfastness in the face of great indifference among the Christians of that city. Poussou became the first prefect apostolic of the mission of Syria in 1833, and then the first provincial of the new Province of Syria in 1839, an office he exercised only briefly. Nozo assigned him back in France, where he was quickly appointed superior of the important seminary at Cahors and, in January 1841, visitor of Aquitaine. By the end of the year, however, Nozo had named him vicar general. He must have felt a great deal of stress because of these rapid changes in his life. Despite his general experience, he was also less than well informed about the events developing in Paris when Nozo and the Congregation called on him as vicar general. This made him a good choice.

Poussou entered upon his new responsibilities 1 November 1841, and began by joining his council members in signing the 1840 accounts that Nozo refused to certify. The next day they held the first council meeting since the previous August. Also, John Timon, the visitor of the American province, arrived on Paris on 1 November and found Poussou exteriorly very calm. Nozo was still in the house and Timon found him in improved health, hopeful about the future, and about to leave for a trip around France. After his departure, Nozo wrote to Poussou with his intended itinerary, namely to stop at Vincentian houses in the south of France. He shared with the vicar that he believed that he had not been “condemned to perpetual exile,” a remark that likely reflected a sentiment within the Congregation.

By the end of the month, Poussou addressed his first circular to the Sisters. He acknowledged their surprise and hurt but urged them not to worry about Nozo’s recent letter to them. The vicar general also admitted that some badly-intentioned persons had been spreading gossip about the whole case. In his council, it became evident that some Sisters had become fearful of another division in their community.

During Poussou’s administration, several major issues arose, some concerning the Congregation itself, and others concerning Nozo’s affairs. One long-time issue concerned the responsibilities of visitors. Up to that time, the office of visitor existed in name only, being restricted to presiding over provincial assemblies. Although the visitors of France had recently requested full implementation of their rules of office and the superior general agreed, this did not happen because of Nozo’s resignation. Poussou wrote to the French provinces stating that he would do his best, but that the next general assembly should handle the issues. He wished in the meantime to reserve to himself and his council all assignments of Vincentians throughout the country, admission to the novitiate and vows, and control over funds. It is difficult to see what else was left, apart from occasional visits to houses, contacts with bishops, and the encouragement of the members.

A more serious matter was Etienne’s work as procurator general. Since Nozo had refused to sign the annual reports of 1840 and 1841, even with Etienne’s written explanations, the question arose of how to handle them. The house accounts had errors that could not be corrected, and Nozo was not available to explain. Consequently, all the council members took on the responsibility of signing the accounts themselves.

Shortly thereafter, Poussou presided over a council meeting to discuss various matters left in suspension after Nozo’s departure. The Denis-Hennecart case was still in court and the archbishop urged the Congregation to conclude it as soon as possible. They agreed that it was Nozo’s personal problem since he had never consulted the council about it. Still, the members of the council were implicated since Denis had cited them in his suit. To resolve this, they formed a committee of lawyers to help them, Maîtres Pardessus, Mandaroux, Masson and de Villers. Of these, Mandaroux had already dealt with Nozo’s issues and would continue to be the council’s chief liaison with him. A week later, the council turned to some remaining Bailly issues, mainly questions about property in Amiens that he claimed as well as the Dewailly inheritance that he had managed. These matters would continue for several months, with the council continuing to rely on its four lawyers. Payments to Bailly were finally agreed on, with Nozo being informed but not consulted. On a less critical note, the council agreed to purchase a “daguerreotype instrument” for the seminary’s physics laboratory. The modern world was slowly gaining admittance to the new Saint Lazare.

At some point during this period, Etienne prepared a bill of particulars for the councilors to examine. In this document coming after Nozo’s leave of absence in 1841, he accused the superior general of not following the Constitutions. In bypassing the procurator general, who served at Nozo’s pleasure, Nozo had personalized the Bailly case by handling it himself. In the Denis-Hennecart matter, Etienne made the same charge: Nozo did not consult his council as he was required to do. Further, he had engaged in some secret financial dealings with the Daughters of Charity. In one case, he had managed to get 50,000 fr from the treasurer of the Sisters but forbade her to mention the matter to the superioress general. He later did so but claimed that the money was a loan. This secrecy was his style of acting, if one can extrapolate from a letter to a Sister Lautard who had written him for advice about some funds she received as the local superior. He told her not to tell the Sisters about the money nor give any financial accounting of it, provided she give him the information. This would give her more liberty in her financial administration.

Graver than the money or his personalized approach to administration was his personal life. Etienne listed several charges concerning Nozo’s relationship with individual Daughters of Charity, particularly those who “were young and highly favored by nature.” He cited instances of excessive and imprudent familiarity, such as hugging and kissing the Sisters, and hearing their confessions when they felt they had overstepped the bounds of propriety as well as their vows. While there is no accusation of any overt sexual activity in these relationships, the innuendos were certainly present. How Etienne came to know all this, and whether he verified it, is unknown. What is lacking in this matter is any response from Nozo to these charges. He must have been aware of them but never went on record rebutting them, probably preferring, as he states at several points, to remain silent. Neither is there any record of Poussou and the council explicitly dealing with this document. Whether it therefore arose from Etienne’s need to put everything on paper, or to lash out against Nozo, likewise remains unknown.

Another of the many unknowns in this case is how widely these charges were circulated. It appears that they were restricted to a limited group of individuals. They were probably known to members of the French government and to the archbishop of Paris. At least that is the clear inference from a letter of François Guizot, minister of foreign affairs, to the Comte de Latour-Maubourg, French ambassador to the Holy See. Although he wrote it in the context of Nozo’s summons to Rome, Guizot held that Nozo had been “an instrument of scandal,” against whom charges existed that he could be convicted of in civil court.

The charges also became known to the Holy See. Joseph Rosati, who was to play an increasingly important role in the whole case, confided this to his friend John Timon: “It is the wish of the Pope & of the Cardinals that he should give his demission of his own accord, & that no examination should be made of the charges brought against him by his assistants.”

Marcantonio Durando, the visitor of Lombardy, gives no hint that he was aware of these charges. He, however, was of the opinion that Nozo should resign and then leave it to the general assembly to decide to accept it or not.

Travels

By the end of 1841, as all this was developing Nozo moved on to the south of France, after visiting several houses of the Congregation and the Daughters of Charity along the way. While in their house in Nantes, he read Poussou’s circular to the Daughters of Charity. His reaction was to “groan and pray,” and to offer his silence, prayer and penance. He wrote these reflections and several others to his friend Armand-Thomas Baudrez (1800-1854), one of the assistant secretaries of the generalate in Paris.

In one very revealing letter to Baudrez, he rebuts certain charges against him. He agreed that his sins, “which God alone knows, and which others do not know,” were one of the causes of the evils afflicting the Congregation. But he pointed at the same time to the sins of several missioners, their lack of submission and respect for authority, who were blinded by self-interest, mutual jealousy and calumnies. Some claimed he had a carriage with five horses. He admitted to only two, sometimes a third if needed. Others claimed he ordered special food from restaurants, but this was an invention, he said. Another charge was that he complained about the council and said that they should be expelled, but he denied using any such language (although that may have been his sentiment). He feared that the clergy of France and Italy would learn that the Congregation had chased away its superior general, whom, he said, certain persons claimed to be a man without religion, a thief, or crazy, or both. It is unclear whether this was simply his paranoid reaction to stress, or it reflected general sentiment.

In a third letter to Baudrez, Nozo asks him to consult the council, and he promises to do what it tells him. This extraordinary expression did not, unfortunately, form part of any continuing commitment.

He penned a similar letter to another friend, Antonio Cremisini (1792-1875), visitor of Rome, in which he repeated the charge about calumnies and his doubts about the wisdom of resignation. He believed, too, that his enemies favored this, because otherwise they would unveil grave charges against him. In this atmosphere of suspicion and innuendo, it is not surprising that Nozo asked Cremisini’s advice. Unfortunately, Cremisini’s answer is not extant, but, as will be seen, his recourse to the Holy See would deepen the crisis.

Nozo returned to the mother house by the middle of May, but, in Etienne’s version, his conduct would oblige Poussou to instruct the Congregation about what really happened at the sexennial assembly by means of a circular. Etienne confided in his correspondent, John Timon, that the council was assembling the documents to “save the Congregation from the crisis….” This letter came on the heels of a violent reaction on Nozo’s part to the decision that a domestic assembly of the mother house community, to which he belonged, would be held shortly. He felt that as superior general, at least in name, he had not been consulted. The council agreed to postpone the meeting out of convenience, but not because Nozo had any rights in this matter. This behavior was another indication of his character which appears to have been at the root of his problems.

Convoking a General Assembly; the Cremisini recourse

One of the principal decisions to be taken to end the anomalous state of the Congregation, with its two heads, was to convoke a general assembly. Poussou and the council proposed having one as soon as possible, and Nozo signaled his agreement, choosing the date of the following 25 August. “May this assembly remedy the present evils of the Company” was Nozo’s wish. As simple as this sounds, the decision to hold an assembly would involve the Congregation and the Holy See in complex negotiations for several months.

At first, the decision was well accepted. Some provinces quickly began to hold assemblies. Lyons, for example, expressed the hope that the assembly would “promote unity, … confirm charity,” which clearly had been lacking. If a letter from Joseph-Désiré Warnier (1804-1861), the superior at Châlons, can be taken as representative, many French Vincentians looked to an assembly as their salvation. Etienne, repeating the same information, noted that certain Romans did not share the enthusiasm of the others.

Nozo, it appears, approached the assembly with trepidation. He had written again to Poussou few days after his decision to convoke it in order to express his concerns and he asked Poussou’s and the council’s advice, particularly about the subject of the resignation so often urged on him. He understood that if he resigned, the charges against him would remain unresolved. In his opinion, he was already suffering from ill treatment on the part of certain Vincentians and feared that the assembly would be tumultuous if he resigned during an assembly or it tried to force him out. He was correct in this, and this opinion would finally carry important weight with the Holy See.

Holding a general assembly was even less acceptable to Nozo’s friend, Antonio Cremisini. At the beginning of 1842 he submitted a petition to the Holy See detailing the anomaly of having both a superior and vicar general, with resulting doubts and discontent. His legal point was that, when it came for an assembly to vote, the inequality among the number of provinces would greatly damage it. As a result, he petitioned the pope to suspend the assembly, induce Nozo to resign and name, for this time only, a superior general and four assistants to reside in Rome.

Etienne’s perspective on this matter was that Nozo took part in Cremisini’s plot and sought to have the pope declare null the sexennial assembly of 1841. In this way, Nozo would be able to regain the power that Etienne held had wrenched from his hands by means of the council, whose goal was to save the Congregation on the brink of collapse, as they believed. Nozo, naturally, would deny any participation, citing a clear conscience in this regard.

The official document of the Holy See, prepared for a cardinalatial commission, named the four chief proponents of this so-called plot. They were Cardinal Ostini, Bishop Rosati, and Fathers Cremisini and Guarini. Rosati was the Vincentian bishop of Saint Louis. He had been in Rome to consult with the Holy See about his diplomatic mission in Haiti. The members discussed Nozo’s situation, and concluded that there were parties for and against Nozo. They worried especially about the matter reaching the newspapers with consequent damage for religion. As a result, they decided that Ostini would invite Nozo to come to Rome and suspend the general assembly, and that Rosati would write Nozo’s assistants and confidentially explain that Nozo would be asked to resign of his own accord. The two main reasons they would allege for Nozo’s resignation would be his incapacity to govern, and his having compromised the honor of the Congregation in public lawsuits.

Marcantonio Durando, the saintly visitor of Lombardy, wrote up his notes about the entire crisis, giving a relatively unbiased view of his Roman colleague’s actions. In this matter, he adds that Guarini, as procurator general in Rome, was also involved with Cremisini, but that he did not sign the petition. The news of the suspension of the assembly, dated 9 May 1842, was conveyed through Rosati. He must have seemed a good candidate as an intermediary among all the parties. Although Italian born, he had lived outside of Italy for many years and spoke French and English regularly. Besides, he was a bishop and enjoyed the confidence of Holy See, particularly Gregory XVI. Rosati wrote to Sturchi, the Italian assistant in Paris, that the Roman authorities had charged him to explain to Poussou a decision that had been taken there, namely, that the assembly planned for the coming August would be suspended. It was the opinion of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, Rosati continued, that Nozo should resign and that, should he fail to do so during the proposed assembly, a huge crisis would result. The bishop personally would find his involvement extremely onerous; he said later that it had “embittered” his time in Rome. Indeed, it may have hastened his death, which occurred 25 September 1843, when he was only fifty-four.

Returning to Nozo, still superior general, he wrote a circular to his confreres officially delaying the assembly. He began by defensively stating that his circular of the previous 28 October had been shown to his assistants and emended after receiving their observations. He then moved to discuss the postponement of the assembly, which he says was also his personal hope. Although the pope did not postpone the assembly on his own authority, it was clear that it was his decision, and that he had summoned Nozo to discuss the matter with him in person. Nozo concluded his letter by admitting his anxiety in the face of much contradictory advice. He wrote a similar circular to the Daughters of Charity, dated the same day, asking them to pay no attention to rumors. In this case, however, he said that the pope, not he, had ordered the postponement of the assembly.

Nozo in Rome, 1842

Just prior to his departure, the superior general asked Poussou for a loan of 10,000 fr. The council met in extraordinary session, 4 June, to consider his request. The central point for the members was that the council did not wish to be mixed up in any way in Nozo’s financial issues. Besides, they claimed they did not have the cash, and so the answer was no. At the same meeting, Nozo asked to have his friend Baudrez accompany him to Rome. The council was outraged, particularly since Nozo had not consulted them in advance. They believed that if this confrere accompanied Nozo without their permission it would amount to a formal act of disobedience, “since M. Nozo no longer holds the administration of the Congregation and thus has no power to grant any legitimate authority [to Baudrez] in this matter.”

Nozo accepted their decision, proposed three names, and received Alexandre Hénin instead, his confessor. He then asked for 3000 fr to cover their journey to Rome. The council agreed to give him only half that amount, with the remainder to be received from the house procurator in Rome. Nozo would later be embarrassed to discover that they had never contacted the procurator in Rome, who consequently refused to provide him the money. This shabby incident forms another part of the broken relations between Nozo and his council. He would be, however, reimbursed for the expenses of his return.

Two other matters involving the Congregation had been swirling for months through the offices of the Holy See when Nozo arrived. The first concerned Etienne’s stewardship of the finances of the Congregation, particularly funds given for the missions; and the second was the continuing conflict between Italian and French Vincentians over the unequal exercise of power by the French. These two became linked with Nozo’s resignation, making a resolution that much more difficult and rendering Nozo’s status that much weaker.

The first hint of anti-Etienne sentiment comes from a letter from Etienne to Guarini, 3 January 1842. He was surprised at being denounced for his administration, since “all our missions are French.” This remarkable affirmation implied that Vincentian confreres sent to the missions should not be complaining to Propaganda Fide. He singled out John Timon and Justin de Jacobis for criticism. Then he turned around and wrote to Timon, 10 May 1842 to criticize Guarini. Etienne believed that it was Guarini who had formulated accusations against his administration. Guarini proposed, Etienne continued, that the Holy See remove him as procurator and director of foreign missions and transfer these duties to Guarini. At practically the same time, Sturchi, the Italian assistant in Paris communicated similar information to Timon but specified that the complaints came from the prefect of Propaganda and were directed to the ambassador of France in Rome. The basis for the charges seems to have been Timon’s unhappiness at the method of distributing the mission funds. Guarini countered that Propaganda Fide was saying that it had more problems with Etienne than with all the other religious procurators.

The second issue, the question about the unequal exercise of power, had many manifestations. At this point in its long history it dealt with the admission of foreign provinces to the coming general assembly. The Constitutions of 1668 specified that “the other provinces outside Europe will not have the right of sending anyone to the general assembly, nor to the sexennial assembly because of the distance and especially because of the difficulty of navigation or dangers.” Although intended to safeguard individuals, this prohibition began to be applied only in 1835 with the foundation of the American province, the first non-European province of the Congregation. This was followed by two more, the provinces of Constantinople and Syria, founded in 1838. These three provinces did not take part in the sexennial assembly of 1841, but representations had been made to admit them to the following general assembly.

The Italians regarded this question as one of justice and hoped that other provinces would be admitted. As to comparative numbers, they pointed to the large number of French delegates, sixteen, representing 130 Vincentians, compared to the Italians with fewer delegates, ten, representing nearly twice the French total. The overall Italian agenda, however, was to break the power of the French over the government of the Congregation. Etienne, the chief spokesman of the French position, chose to view the question under the aspect of the immutability of the Constitutions. For him, they had come from Saint Vincent himself and, after their publication in 1668, received papal approval. Consequently, the Congregation could not change the text. The suspicious Nozo believed that this discussion was part of a conspiracy to gain more votes for the opposing party, but it is unclear who he presumed was in his camp.

In Etienne’s opinion, “We view [the Constitutions] as a deposit that we must pass on in its integrity from age to age and by each generation to posterity. … [W]e believe that the community must obey the Constitutions with the greatest and most scrupulous exactitude.” He chose, however, to ignore the changes in interpretation of the Constitutions that had been made to allow him to vote in the general assembly of 1835 even though he was not a delegate.

Resignation, 1842

The chronology of what Nozo did when he arrived in Rome is preserved by Vito Guarini, the Italian procurator. He was at the port to welcome Nozo and Hénin, his companion, and remarked that unlike his earlier visit when he was feted and behaved grandly to others, this time he arrived a beaten man. He would leave having resigned his office, humiliated but ostensibly at peace.

Nozo seemingly believed he was in Rome to discuss the traditional question of the inequality between the French and Italian Vincentians. Others knew better. Rosati, for example, confided to Timon that the election of a successor would be the most delicate point. Both Rosati and Nozo understood that the role of the French government was key to the entire discussion. Rosati echoed Italian opinion by remarking that the “residence of the Supr. Genl. in Paris will ever be the cause of the separation of the two provinces of Poland from the main body of the Congregation, as also of that of Bresil [sic]” since the Brazilian government forbade correspondence with a French superior. From the French side, the issue had been determined by the issuance of a new decree acknowledging the legal existence of the Congregation. Rosati repeated the opinion he had heard that the French Vincentians had managed to have their special conditions inserted into a recent decree that the superior general had to be a French citizen and his election approved by the French government. If this were to stand, the Italians believed that this condition would invalidate the traditional electoral oath specified in the Constitutions of 1668, chapter 6, article 12: “I call as witness Jesus Christ who will be my judge, that I, N., elect and nominate the person as superior general of the Congregation of the Mission whom I believe to be the most proper to bear this burden.” Their explanation was that, if their choice were limited in any way, they could not be free to elect the best person and thus would not fulfill their oath.

When, on 24 June 1842, Nozo arrived in the Eternal City, he was certainly unprepared for the storm that was about to break over his head. He and Bishop Rosati went the next day to visit Cardinal Ostini, since he was the prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which dealt with matters pertaining to the Congregation of the Mission, and had summoned Nozo. In the midst of their discussions, Ostini told him that the pope expected to receive his resignation. Although Nozo might have suspected this, he did not immediately give his assent. Instead, he responded that it was not worth his trip just for this, and so asked for and received an appointment to speak with Gregory XVI in person. The date was set for 3 July. To Nozo’s clear embarrassment, the pope confined their conversation to small talk, telling him to speak with the cardinal prefect about his other issues.

Ferdinando Girardi (1788-1866), a newly-designated bishop, was a member of the Province of Naples. Nozo had wanted to accompany him to Naples after his episcopal ordination in Rome, but discovered that the pope wanted him to resign before leaving Rome, probably thinking that once Nozo was out of his grasp, he might change his mind. He had no one to turn to in his moment of decision except Rosati and, even if he had had his consultors with him, he did not trust them. Since Rosati failed to convince him to resign, Girardi stepped in after three weeks of Nozo’s indecision. Girardi and Nozo then discussed the matter of his resignation at length, and Nozo finally agreed to resign. According to Guarini, one of Girardi’s issues had been that he would lose the coach fare that he had already spent should the superior general be unable to travel. Nozo lost his position, but at least Girardi saved his money. The superior general then, in his own hand, wrote a one-page letter resigning his office. It was dated 26 July 1842, two days after Girardi’s episcopal ordination.

Two days later, Nozo wrote to someone, probably Baudrez, announcing his resignation and his resulting peace of mind. He blamed others for his problems: “When these people want to cover me with ignominy they became covered themselves. In throwing mud onto the head of the Congregation, they got caught in it themselves…. See how glorious and beautiful the Congregation of the Mission is!” He asked his correspondent to inform his brother, but otherwise to keep his resignation secret. He concluded by saying that he resigned to save the Congregation and himself from further problems. As if to lessen the blow, he said that the Holy See then offered the Congregation several new missions, such as Algiers and Alexandria. Nozo was not impressed by such vague and seemingly insincere promises. An acute comment appended by a secretary or archivist summed up what was probably a general impression: “Poor M. Nozo was always living an illusion.”

Cardinal Ostini wrote to Nozo a few days confirming that Gregory XVI had accepted his resignation. He related that the pope’s spiritual perspective was that, in resigning, Nozo had put aside all self-interest and personal consideration, thereby demonstrating his attachment to the Congregation and the Church. If Nozo’s confreres had accepted his resignation in the same elevated spirit, the former superior general would have been spared decades of heartache and mistreatment at their hands.

Now free to leave Rome, Nozo accompanied Girardi in the Naples coach and for about a month followed the usual tourist circuit, including visits to the beaches. He never told anyone of his new status, however, but vented his silent fury in letters to his friend Baudrez. Because of what he called the “July revolution,” he believed that his adversaries had used means that were “unworthy, fraudulent, foreign to the laws that govern us.” In the face of “barbarous and malevolent behavior” he had kept silence in Naples. His usual suspicious streak became evident as he dealt with his traveling companion, Hénin, whom he described as neutral and insignificant, offering strange advice. He even called him a spy. Poussou, too, he regarded as his enemy.

The news reached Paris in a letter from Cardinal Ostini, who also reported that the pope had confirmed Poussou in his office of vicar general. Poussou then informed the Congregation in a printed but unpublished circular, dated 20 August. His message to his confreres was to stifle all the seeds of division and come together for the glory of God. Although charity had been somewhat harmed, hearts closed, and mutual confidence lessened, he urged his confreres to put this aside, and pray for the future superior general, paraphrasing a passage from Acts 1:24: “Ostende, Domine, quem elegeris,” “Make known to us, O Lord, whom you choose.” A circular to the Sisters conveyed the same message. Shortly after, the news of his resignation appeared in L’Univers, Emmanuel Bailly’s newspaper.

Meanwhile, in Rome, Nozo was considering his options. Some believed that he had been sent to Rome or had decided to live there. Fiorillo, who still did not know that Nozo had resigned, wanted to keep him in Naples for a few months, thinking that his problems were mainly about the Denis-Hennecart case. At length, Nozo decided that he had to return to Paris to deal with various issues still awaiting resolution.

After Hénin left to return to Paris, an unnamed brother accompanied Nozo from Naples. He was ashamed to see Nozo, whom he still presumed to be superior general, selling or perhaps pawning objects of value, including a watch, to obtain enough cash for his needs. Guarini later reported that he had received no order to reimburse Nozo for expenses, but that he finally lent him the money, all later repaid. A sad document in the Roman provincial archives confirms this: an IOU for 500 fr for travel expenses, signed by Nozo, “ex. supr. gnle.” Guarini marked it paid.

Searching for a superior general

At this point in the history of the Nozo affair, the stakes grew higher and power plays consequently became more evident. Although the maneuverings and negotiations took place under the guise of the greater glory of God and the benefit of the Congregation of the Mission, the issue was the exercise of power: who had it and who did not.

The minutes of the general council for 30 August record two pieces of shocking news: that the Holy See was supposed to have the intention of proposing that the pope name a successor to Nozo directly instead of relying on a general assembly, and that their candidate was John Timon. Guizot, the minister of foreign affairs, had heard the same news from the French chargé d’affaires in Rome. The Holy See’s internuncio in Paris relayed this fact to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Etienne then went to work to block these developments and wrote a self-exculpatory letter to Timon, without revealing the information he had. He blamed Guarini and a cabal of Roman Vincentians for Nozo’s resignation and claimed that he and the council had been kept in the dark about the Holy See’s machinations. Without revealing his real purpose, Etienne insinuated that since the American and Roman provinces had written to Rome to complain about the French, they were in over their heads. He counseled Timon to weigh his words to the Holy See carefully, since they were already planning to have a superior general in Rome and a vicar general in France.

In a similar vein, Sturchi, the Italian assistant in Paris, wrote Timon with the same generic information. “Imagine how the French government will react to this! Mention this to no one in either the New World or the Old.” Like Etienne, Sturchi never let on that he knew that Timon was the preferred candidate.

From the Italian side, we have Guarini’s reflections. He believed that Rosati had pushed Timon’s candidacy, a likely scenario. Guarini also held that Timon did not know French, a falsehood repeated by Etienne, although the latter did not specify Timon by name. After all, Etienne knew Timon personally and had carried on a voluminous correspondence with him, in French, for several years. Guarini also repeated the Italian wonderment as to whether the only good candidates for superior general were French. This must have bruised their pride.

The opinion of the Holy See, however, shifted against Timon probably because appointing him would have been too intrusive and contrary to the will of the French government. Guizot called a papal appointment “highly unusual, extra-legal, contrary to the Constitutions, a violation of the king’s rights.” This latter point meant that the king would be deprived of his right to confirm the election made in a general assembly should the pope directly name a superior general. This did not seem to be a problem in the papal appointment of Dewailly, however. Nevertheless, the Holy See became increasingly interested in changing the Constitutions to allow another means of holding a general assembly. The pope suggested holding the general assembly in Rome to allow for greater freedom of discussion, but this proposal went nowhere, since the French government’s response was that the assembly could not be free because of undue Italian influence. Much worrying and posturing took place on all sides, as for example this from Guizot: “I believe that I can affirm, without any purely nationalistic sentiment, that it has been its French spirit that primarily has accounted for the success of the work that Vincent de Paul gave to his disciples.” By the end of this pivotal year of 1842, however, the next phase had been outlined: a summit conference to be held in Rome. The stakes were supremely high on all sides.

The Franco-Italian summit, 1843

It was probably Durando’s idea. He suggested it to Guarini who possibly passed it on to Ostini. The cardinal accepted it, the pope agreed, and then Ostini informed Poussou through Garibaldi, the internuncio in Paris, that at least two French and two Italian representatives should meet in Rome to work through their differences. Rather than going himself, Poussou decided to send the inevitable Jean-Baptiste Etienne.

Vincentians who knew about the entire affair greatly feared a schism in the Congregation. In his conversations with Guizot, the minister of foreign affairs, Etienne felt that the separation of the Congregation into two was inevitable. This was a looming possibility, therefore, with both Italians and French insisting they were right in planning to exclude the other.

The general council in Paris pondered the issues carefully and drew up a set of instructions for the two delegates at the conference, Jean-Marie Aladel and Etienne. The council went on record trying to forestall a schism by denying that any problem existed between French and Italian Vincentians. The purpose here was to isolate Cremisini and others whom they believed to be the only ones who had problems with French leadership. Aladel and Etienne were named “commissaries,” a title taken from the Constitutions (1668), and referring to lesser officials appointed by the superior (or vicar) general for some specific purpose. The council granted them “full and free faculty and power” to act in Poussou’s name, but they were specifically forbidden to change the Constitutions or to do anything that the vicar general and his council could not do on their own. These instructions would be very helpful in framing the decisions of their meeting. Etienne, in addition, drew up the formal French position paper and passed it on to the Holy See.

At first, it appeared that two French and two Italian Vincentians would attend. Rosati would be the facilitator, and they would meet, at least at times, with Cardinal Ostini. The two Italians were to be Cremisini and Fiorillo, but then Durando was also invited. Neither visitor, however, had been privy to Cremisini’s maneuvering, but at least Durando had the forethought to consult superiors in his province and sought to maintain his neutrality. Ostini did not favor Fiorillo for some reason, possibly because of the latter’s ignorance of the issues.

The first meeting took place on Saturday, 11 February 1843. The odds were evidently against the French, given that five Italians were facing two French. Etienne’s notes on the meeting help to reconstruct what actually happened. The first issue was to determine the real authorship of and support for Cremisini’s recourse. Etienne and Aladel were prepared for this, since they presented a letter from Timon stating that he would not have favored the Cremisini recourse. Cardinal Lambruschini, secretary of state, supposedly believed that the recourse had had the support, if not the signatures, of the Americans and Italians. As a result, he and Ostini felt misinformed, even deceived, when it became clear that Cremisini alone was the author, although others had read and signed it, and Guarini had actually written it. Timon may not have supported the papal recourse, but he would have been a good candidate for election, being neither Italian nor French and willing to move the headquarters of the Congregation to Rome, while leaving a vicar general in Paris for the French. At least, this was Durando’s opinion concerning Timon.

A second major issue was the question of the freedom of the deputies to vote for whomever they would choose as superior general. The solution was simple enough to enunciate but fraught with complications. The French Vincentian position was that all the delegates were free to elect as they chose, following the uproar over the disputed election of 1703 and subsequent declarations. At the same time, the French Vincentians knew that the French government would never allow a non-French citizen to govern the Congregation of the Mission and the Daughters of Charity. The government’s reasoning was that the approval of the Congregation had been predicated on French nationality and residence in Paris, and that therefore the state’s hands were tied as well. Further, the threat had been clearly enunciated that if the pope appointed or a general assembly elected a non-French citizen as superior general, then the government was within its rights to suppress the Congregation in France. This could also entail the suppression of the Daughters of Charity, or at least their separation from the Vincentian superior general as their superior general.

Etienne outdid himself rhetorically in his rejection of this threatened papal initiative: “If [the pope] wanted to change Saint Vincent’s work, we felt that we could speak for all our confreres in demanding that he instead suppress the Little Company so that we would perish gloriously defending the deposit that had been confided to us. If we were to accept such a decision [to change the Constitutions], we believed that we would later perish miserably because we had allowed the introduction within us of the source of our destruction and death.”

The Holy See’s position, enunciated by Lambruschini, was that the French Vincentians were not respecting the Constitutions since the other delegates were consulted, that is, able to vote, but only pro forma. As a result, the cardinal was ready to propose dividing the Congregation between the French and all the others. The only remaining question for him then would be to designate a vicar general for the French. Durando demurred, in hopes of having the upcoming general assembly elect someone; otherwise, the delegates would not have the freedom to vote.

In Durando’s account, the next major issue dealt with the relative size of the provinces. It had been clear for some time that a lack of proportion existed concerning the number of provinces. The French position was that it was legal to found provinces and that, consequently, the four French provinces then existing (Paris, Aquitaine, Lyons, Picardy) were properly founded and did not need the reduction that some Italians had been seeking to reach an equitable proportion of members per province. The Italian side said that, although there were three Italian provinces (Lombardy, Rome, Naples), these provinces were larger than the French ones in personnel and houses. Further, they urged that the non-European provinces (USA, Constantinople, Syria) be able to attend the coming general assembly, since the reason for their exclusion had been overcome. The French might have been expected to object to this, since it would mean changing the Constitutions, something that Etienne in particular had vigorously opposed. However, the French side did not, possibly thinking that it could gain delegates for their position at the assembly, inasmuch as the provincials of Constantinople and Syria were both French.

A related question, one omitted in the reports of both Etienne and Durando, touched the sore point of the admission of non-elected delegates to assemblies. This was reported in the official record of the meetings kept by the Holy See. This matter appears to be a reaction to the admission of the unelected Spanish delegate, Miguel Gros, to the 1835 assembly. The issue here was the admission of the superiors of seminaries to provincial assemblies. Only those could be admitted who were superiors and, since some French seminaries were not canonical houses, the rectors of the seminaries were not superiors and could not therefore attend. This was said to be contrary to an obscure decree of 1711. The French reply was that the decree was unknown and unavailable, and that, anyway, seminaries had always taken part in assemblies without complaints ever being registered. Since the exclusion of the seminary rectors would be an innovation, the French opposed it. In light of all this, the French delegates suggested that the only thing to be done was to separate the Italian houses from the rest of the Congregation, having two superiors general, one for Italy with residence in Rome, and a second in Paris for the rest of the Congregation and the Daughters of Charity. This astonishing proposal was, of course, just the opposite of the Italian one, which proposed cutting off the French from the others. A note in the official record prepared for the cardinalatial commission examining the matter was that the Holy See already effected this separation for the Doctrinaires of France and Italy, and for the Brothers of the Christian Schools.

The final question for this extraordinary gathering was that of a procurator general in Rome. Having a representative of the Congregation in Rome to treat of matters concerning it and the Holy See reaches back to Saint Vincent’s own time. This practice continued before the Revolution but often caused conflicts since the procurators were generally French but took a role in Italian houses. Vito Guarini later recounted that Etienne had shared his office of procurator with him, calling him a procurator general beginning in 1836. Nozo confirmed that title and office, and drew up for Guarini a small statement of principles governing his responsibilities and behavior in relation to the Roman houses. Perhaps the title was used loosely, since Guarini is styled the “Procurator of France and Poland in Rome” in the minutes of the 1841 general assembly. Guarini’s proposal was to have two procurators, both elected by a general assembly, one to live in Paris, the other in Rome. His original proposal was set aside in the disarray surrounding Nozo’s retirement. The final agreement on this subject, therefore, was easy to arrive at and apparently was adopted without rancor.

This entire meeting was probably conducted on a single Saturday. Over the weekend, then, Etienne wrote up the results and read them at the second meeting in the presence of Rosati and the others. He was, after all, secretary general of the Congregation, and his secretarial skills gave him the opportunity to shape the discussion as he wished. As proof of this, his draft of the final communiqué overstated the case, claiming that the delegates had unanimously agreed to the points. It quickly became clear, however, that both Cremisini and Fiorillo had not agreed.

Cremisini objected that the written words did not agree with the substance of the argument, that is, that the electors would still not be free. The other Italians seemingly agreed and looked for ways to rewrite the text. Aladel and Etienne, however, fell back on the instructions given them by Poussou and were thus unable to do anything against the Constitutions.

Fiorillo made two further points. The first was that he wanted more assistants for the superior general, each one representing a different nation. Durando, in response, proposed secretaries from different nations instead, probably meaning France, Spain and Portugal, Italy, Poland and the United States. The French government would not accept Fiorillo’s proposal since, in their view, to insist on assistants from specified nations would take away the liberty of the electors to choose whomever they wished. Fiorillo’s second point was that the American province receive the right to attend the next assembly. He added this condition in his own hand and, in fact, John Timon and two American delegates did attend the assembly of 1843. These new objections caused the document to have two parts. Everyone signed the first part except Cremisini. The second part, however, did not bear Etienne’s signature, nor presumably Aladel’s either.

Cremisini, unlike his Italian colleague, refused to sign either part of the document. Instead, he made his own proposal to Ostini, repeating the arguments that the others had rejected. Cremisini regarded their final proposals as a sham. His new proposal, contained in a brief to the Holy See, dealt with the formation of new provinces and the recalculation of the number of delegates for each province depending on the number of members of each one. Further, he proposed that the four assistants to the superior general come from four different nations. If the French would not agree, he concluded, then they should be divided from the rest of the Congregation, and its headquarters moved from Paris to Rome. His mistake was to think that the issue could be resolved at the level of the Holy See, which had already indicated that it would not intervene. Further, the idea of changing the Constitutions was anathema, certainly to those in power in Paris.

Cremisini presented his new petition during a meeting with the two visitors, Rosati, Ostini and his staff, but not with the French. Ostini accepted the document but said that the cardinals would decide. For this purpose, a new commission of cardinals was formed, consisting of Lambruschini, Fransoni, and Ostini, along with Costantino Patrizi, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars; Paolo Polidori, prefect of the Congregation of the Council; and Castruccio Castracane, who held various offices in the Roman curia. Fransoni diplomatically begged off, however, since political implications involving the French government loomed prominently. The others met on 2 March 1843 and, the next day, Lambruschini summoned all the participants in the summit to hear the decisions of the cardinalatial commission. Durando reported that everyone was satisfied except Cremisini. After this, Lambruschini came with his carriage to get Rosati for an audience with Gregory XVI. The pope listened to the final document and gave his assent. After this Aladel and Etienne were admitted, and later Durando who, after the ceremony of the foot kissing, pronounced himself happy with the outcome. The pope, he said, let it be known to the Roman Vincentians: “After the pope has spoken, you should not return to these complaints [lamenti] any more.”

An official letter to Poussou followed, the reviewing the history and giving him the decisions of the Holy See. The main points of the decision were: 1) that freedom of election existed, and anyone from any nation could be elected; the French side would recognize this even if it meant their suppression in France, and they would recognize the person elected as the legitimate superior general; 2) the four French provinces were legitimate, in the sense that they had enough members to constitute a province, and so should not be reduced in number; 3) the constant practice was that directors of seminaries could take part as delegates to provincial assemblies; 4) the general assembly could decide whether to allow non-European provinces to attend; and 5) a general representative could be appointed for the Holy See, following the norms governing the procurators general of other congregations, but he would not have any preeminence in Italy.

Ostini then discussed two supplementary points. First, Poussou was authorized to invite the visitor and the deputies of the American province to attend the coming general assembly. Second, the assistants to be elected could be not just from France, but from all the provinces of the Congregation. The background was that the French had traditionally read the constitutional provision of electing assistants from different provinces as meaning from different French provinces alone, something that the others objected to. (Despite this decision, no non-French or non-Italian assistant would be elected until the twentieth century.)

Reactions, predictably, were swift. On 3 March, the day after the cardinals’ meeting, Pier Paolo Trucchi (1806-1887) wrote to his countryman Sturchi in Paris that the storm was over. He added—whether it was gossip or not is unclear—that the cardinals had been ready to divide the Congregation as of the previous day. Trucchi, who referred to his provincial Cremisini as “the traitor,” was delighted that Etienne had come to Rome, since he had won over the parties to his position. Trucchi’s letter to Poussou was no less jubilant, congratulating him over the “victory over hell,” and over the “evil spirit” who was about to plunge the Congregation into the abyss. Whether Trucchi was being self-serving is not clear, since he was one of those who signed Cremisini’s recourse in the first place. He excused his action by saying that he had signed in a moment of weakness. As for Cremisini, Fiorillo reported that he was in good dispositions of submission and silence. This did not last very long, however, since Trucchi, acting as Etienne’s eyes and ears in Rome, reported that Cremisini was still trying to win people over to his side.

Nozo in early retirement

What became of the former superior general immediately after his resignation? His exact whereabouts remain unknown, but one can imagine the cold reception he received on his return to the mother house. Nevertheless, he remained for a short while to clear up some personal matters, chiefly financial. The council met to discuss what to do with him and decided that he should receive no special honors in the house and, more interestingly, have no relations of any sort with the Daughters of Charity. The Sisters were also to be told never to go to visit him. He asked the council at one point for some loan guarantees but was refused. To straighten out his finances, he would also need access to his room and desk, but Poussou had taken his room and allowed documents to be removed for examination by the council. Nozo’s bitter comment was: “All this under the pretext of my resignation; they should consider me as dead.”

His plan was to leave Paris, visit his family in Ablaincourt, and then look for a Vincentian house as a suitable residence. The entire question of his travels and residence would consume him for the next twenty-six years of his life. The council acknowledged that he had received permission from the Holy See to live with his family, but they took an extraordinarily severe decision: if Nozo did not inform Poussou and the council of this officially, then Nozo would be regarded as no longer a member of the Congregation. One of his confreres, possibly from the house at Cahors, wrote him a warm but firm letter, offering him hospitality with that community whenever he wished. This hospitality, however, was contingent on explanations for his behavior. His correspondent believed that the council had done wrong, but that Nozo was no less guilty in compromising himself and the Congregation. Besides, he urged his friend to reconcile with the council, since there was no point in fighting any longer. Had Nozo succeeded in following this wise advice, his life would have been inestimably easier in the years remaining to him.

Guarini also wrote. Nozo, currently in Ablaincourt, answered, and mentioned his feeling of alienation from the community at the mother house. Given his violent behavior, it is no wonder that he was afraid to return, since “all the procedures of these gentlemen have afflicted me so much and seemed so revolting that I could not live with them without exploding into violent expressions, offensive to God.” His suspicious, even paranoid, character was also evident in the same letter, in which he blames himself for his sins but blames others for his problems. Despite his misgivings, he later had to return briefly to the mother house, “but this stay is so painful for me.”

He returned again in March of the next year to settle with Poussou on certain legal and financial matters that were left in suspension. The occasion was that the council had discussed a bequest of 4000 fr from a Daughter of Charity to the Congregation for masses to be said for her intention. Nozo had received the funds and said that he would handle the obligations. The council was uncertain whether he had done so, and consequently Nozo and Poussou agreed on several points concerning several financial matters. Among the details was the admission that Nozo had received 110,050 fr from various Daughters of Charity that he promised to reimburse. For his part, Poussou gave Nozo a one-time interest payment of 5783 fr. At the foot of the page of this important document, Etienne noted after his election that Nozo had, in fact, received more than 500,000 fr from various Sisters and that this sum would have to be reimbursed as well. Another document specified that Nozo also owed nearly 30,000 fr to the Congregation.

With all these burdens weighing him down, he planned to spend the summer at Cahors--news greeted with alarm or joy, depending on the viewpoint of his confreres. His travels up to that point had shown him, not surprisingly, to be “troubled, humiliated and badly disposed.”

Preparing for the General Assembly, 1843

Meanwhile, Poussou and his council swung into action to prepare for the general assembly. Besides reflecting about the election of a new superior general, Poussou’s circular to the visitors instructed them to deliberate about the rules of office in use in the Congregation. Many complaints had arisen about them over the years, and the general assembly would provide the occasion to revisit the rules. It would be hard to deny that the rules of the superior general would also be reviewed, given Nozo’s negligence in observing them.

As instructed, houses and provinces held their assemblies. The members of the mother house community met at some time in May 1843, but the minutes of their assembly are silent about what had befallen the Congregation. Nozo, of course, did not participate, although he probably could have.

The records of the assembly of the Province of Cahors, meeting in Châlons, were very pointed. The members proposed several matters, many of which had to do with the rules of office of the superior general. For example, he should follow the rules of the vow of poverty like the others; he should not accept financial obligations on his own, but only after consultation; he should not leave the house without a companion. At the same time, the same assembly had some harsh words about Etienne. For example, the procurator general should observe his rules ad litteram, to the letter; major decisions should not be left solely to his judgment; he is too busy to also be secretary general. The assistants, too, came in for their share of criticism, mainly for being overly involved with the Daughters of Charity (clearly Aladel was the target here). Many other points in their propositions showed that they were unhappy with the administration of the Congregation at all levels. The secretary of this assembly, it should be remarked, was Buenaventura Codina (1788-1857), future bishop of the Canary Islands, one of the Vincentians who earned Etienne’s antipathy.

The Province of Picardy met for three days in June at Amiens. Their recommendations were surprisingly similar to those submitted by Cahors, directed against both Nozo and Etienne. In the same meeting, they also took a swipe at the assistants of the Congregation, particularly Aladel, who, in their opinion, spent too much time on the business of the Daughters of Charity. Lastly, they proposed that the assistants answer publicly three questions concerning Nozo: 1) who was responsible for starting the lawsuit that nearly brought about the ruin of the Congregation? 2) What were the reasons that moved Nozo to choose a vicar general, since nothing in mind or body prevented him from exercising his office? 3) At whose advice, and by what means, was Nozo induced to abdicate his generalate before the Supreme Pontiff, and not before the general assembly, according to our usage? Although these questions were not posed to the assistants at the assembly, they point to a large measure of suspicion against Nozo’s council and probably against Etienne in the provinces. By contrast, the deliberations of the Province of Lyons concentrated on the revision of the rules of office, as Poussou had asked.

Nozo in Retirement, to 1849

The former superior general did not take part in the general assembly that elected Jean-Baptiste Etienne, wisely absenting himself from Paris, probably staying in Cahors. Once he had dispensed with basic obligations, Etienne must have summoned Nozo for an interview. It is uncertain what occasioned this, but a remarkable statement from Nozo is found in his personal files. “I the undersigned, after having reflected in the presence of God, and being better informed, admit that the assistants acted in my regard with legitimate motives.” The council minutes make no reference to this document, so it must be presumed that it arose from a conversation between Etienne and his predecessor. It is unclear also for whom it was intended, but it may have simply been intended for the record in case any uncomfortable questions arose.

Shortly after, he was again in Picardy, according to his brother Constant. Nozo claimed he did not want to retire to Cahors but to remain in Paris, so that he could offer service to the Congregation. A manuscript catalogue, however, lists him as being in Cahors as of November 1843. From this point, Constant acts as an intermediary between Etienne and his brother.

Permission for him to live outside of a community house came from the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. In addition, the permission specified that Nozo should live a retired life so as not to give rise to any complaints. He felt the need to explain his situation to one of his confreres, José Cerda (d. 1846), saying that he was willing to forego this permission to put an end to his legal problems and live thereafter in a Vincentian house according to the Community’s rules. He added in an underlined passage: “I sincerely ask pardon for the scandal that my recent trip might have given, and the position in which I find myself.” He concludes with an offer of respects to Etienne.

Unfortunately for Nozo, Etienne did not believe it necessary to respond, and thus began the extraordinary one-way correspondence still remaining in Etienne’s files. Among the earliest pieces is a letter dated 4 May 1845. In it, Nozo explained that he had received no answer from Etienne about his request for a house. With an answer, he concluded, he could make a respectful response. Another letter, dated 17 May, Etienne found to be “so improper in its basis and its form” that he judged it to be merely a pretext to force Etienne to refuse his request. Nozo received no answer, therefore, and felt he then had to appeal to Ostini in Rome. He explained to the cardinal that he was unable to live in the mother house because of the terrible treatment he received, and so he asked to live elsewhere. Without a response and homeless, he made this recourse to the Holy See, and concluded ominously, and characteristically, that he would be “forced to have recourse to other judges to obtain a means to live.”

In an account of his treatment at the mother house written many years later, he wrote that he had made a retreat there after Etienne’s election. On the morning after his arrival, “when I wanted to say mass, a confrere came to tell me that the sacristan received orders from the superior general not to give me vestments for mass, and so I was excommunicated, so to say, in the presence of the entire Community.” Etienne, during what was to be their last meeting for several years, demanded to know, in the presence of two others, what Nozo believed that he and the council had done against him. For this purpose, he wrote up his side of the story so as to be able to celebrate mass. He was then informed that he could certainly do so, but not in the mother house.

Since Ostini had forwarded Nozo’s letter to Paris, Etienne had to respond. His letter to the cardinal is a classic of obfuscation. He accused Nozo of a duplicity unbelievable in a priest. Then, he accused his predecessor of living outside a Vincentian house, but when he returned to the mother house, “I had for him all the attentions that the tenderest charity could have.” Who was telling the truth?

More debilitating to Nozo’s case was Etienne’s accusation that he had stopped living as a priest, without clerical dress and never celebrating mass. This may refer to a trip to Algiers lasting several months that Nozo took at some point early in his retirement. Etienne qualified this as “very equivocal,” and which could have severely compromised Nozo. Just exactly what happened to bring Nozo to Algeria is a mystery, but one may be allowed to conclude that he traveled in civilian dress into this Moslem country under French government. The whole story was enough to convince Etienne that Nozo no longer wished to live as a Vincentian and was trying instead to raise enough money to live on. Further, Nozo’s appeal to Ostini was a further proof for Etienne, if he needed one, of Nozo’s ill-will against his successor.

A year later, his situation had not changed. His brother Constant still offered to be an intermediary. With no answer from either Etienne or Ostini, Nozo wrote the cardinal again but took the precaution of sending a copy to the nuncio in Paris—a procedure typical of him. This time he renewed his threat that if he did not receive a suitable answer, he would be forced to go to the civil courts: “my duty to protest before the world.”

He explained his side to his business agent, M. de Bellomayre, who had visited Etienne on his behalf. Nozo claimed that Poussou had granted him an unlimited, probably oral, permission to stay with his family. Further, he felt an “extreme repugnance” in living at the mother house, and so he used the permission he had received from the Holy See to absent himself. The Congregation had in the meantime urged him to find some religious community that would take him in as a boarder, but “my temperament does not allow me to be restricted to the regime of communities.”

Nozo’s agent must have delivered this letter to Etienne, since the council dealt with it at length during the session of 27 December 1847. Their answer reflects their continuing mistrust of Nozo: we cannot count on him, we fear he has unfavorable thoughts about the Congregation, he refuses “positively to place himself purely and simply, as he should, under the disposition of the superior general.” For this reason, the members agreed not to give Nozo any written answer, hoping instead that Providence would correct him. Further, they would rely on M. de Bellomayre to relay their observations. This utter lack of contact or written response would characterize the stance of Etienne and the council for the rest of Nozo’s life. Given his unstable personality, it is a wonder that it did not make him completely lose his mind or resort to violent confrontations.

Although there was never any direct communication between the one superior general and the other, Nozo did receive directives from Etienne and his council. At one point, he hoped to spend some considerable time in a retreat house run by the Brothers of Saint John of God, “to repair the bad example given by his previous behavior.” It appeared that the Council would pay his room and board. It took most of the year to decide this, but the Brothers eventually were unable to receive him. In the meantime, he lived with his nephew in Paris. At the same time, Nozo kept asking to return. The council’s comment concerning one such letter was that “although less difficult than the previous ones, his letter is still not fully reassuring.” One wonders why they simply did not talk with him directly. Since they believed they could not, they decided to operate through Joseph Boury, assistant superior of the mother house, to inform Nozo that he “cannot be received in the Congregation until he has spent some time in a retreat house.” This answer was in keeping with Nozo’s earlier request to learn what Etienne’s intentions were. It will appear, however, that Etienne would resort to every possible stratagem to keep his predecessor out of any Vincentian house.

Years of Solitude, 1849 to 1862

The general assembly of 1849 would significantly change Nozo’s status in the Congregation. It was convoked for 30 July as a general assembly, although it should have been a sexennial assembly. The decision to change it to a general assembly was made by Etienne and his council to handle several major issues.

To prepare for it, they had to know what to do with Nozo. Since he was a member of the Congregation, although not living in a Vincentian house--his Paris address was rue d’Enfer, 67--he still had active and passive voice in elections. He voluntarily sent in, however, an act by which he renounced his rights concerning the assembly. In addition, he promised to adhere fully to all the decrees coming from the assembly. Whether he was urged to do this indirectly by Etienne is unknown, but his declaration, whether legally binding or not, went some way to decrease tension in his regard. He might have wished to participate, however, given the decrees that would touch his condition.

In its fourth session, the assembly took up two points, the source of which is not known. The delegates were asked: “Whether those who leave the bosom of the Congregation on their own and without the permission of the superior should be deemed to have renounced, ipso facto and without any dismissal, all the rights of missioners?” Their answer was yes. A second question followed: “Whether those who stubbornly refuse to return to the bosom of the Congregation after the time granted them has passed, are also to be deemed as having left, and hence to be deprived of all the rights of missioners?” Again, yes was the answer. The intent of these decisions was generic, but they appear to have been directed specifically against Nozo. They did not take effect, in his case, for some years.

Nozo anxiously awaited the outcome of the assembly, since Etienne had communicated to him that he wanted the delegates to decide about him. The council took up his request for information, but found, as before, the tenor of his letter unsatisfactory. Finding no reason to answer him directly, they determined to send Nicolas Martin (1803-1867), a council member, to see him. He was to bring Nozo the amazing news that Etienne wanted to send him to America, and that he should therefore make contact with Mariano Maller, the American provincial, still in Paris following the assembly.

This was too much, even for Archbishop Affre. He begged Etienne to show “a benevolent and serious interest” in Nozo. He had heard that Etienne wanted to exile him to America, but pleaded Nozo’s age and health as reasons for mercy. He urged Etienne to join a wise discipline to charity in arriving at his decision. The council deputed Etienne to speak to the archbishop in person to explain their side, and nothing more came of it. For some reason it took Nozo more than a year to react, negatively, particularly since he felt he was not bound to the impossible. The council’s response followed its regular pattern: no answer, so as not to create more problems and, besides, Nozo’s letter did not seem frank enough.

Nozo’s next communication, several months later, continued in the same vein, but with greater urgency. “I cannot bring myself to believe that you would have irrevocably allowed the person who preceded you in the place you now occupy to perish in misery.” After reviewing his unsuccessful attempts to stay with a religious community, he was still fending for himself. At that point, therefore, he was in great financial need, but he believed that he was living out his vow of Vincentian poverty. Part of his financial need, it soon came to light, was a debt of 7500 fr that he owed to a certain Mademoiselle Vial. His family had come up with 6000 fr, but he could not raise the rest. He stated that he had no other debts. The council, surprisingly, took pity on him and decided to work through an attorney to pay him at least his pension, from which, supposedly, he would be able to pay Mlle. Vial himself.

After this news, Nozo wrote again to ask for a place among the confreres. The attorney, Maître Mandaroux, suggested various possibilities, such as living apart but eating with the Vincentians, but this did not seem feasible. Nozo wanted to put everything behind him and resume a regular Vincentian life, waiting only on an answer from Etienne. “I should not have to [live this way], and you can put an end to it.” The council reviewed his case once again but wanted to keep him away from any community house, proposing various religious houses in Paris instead.

Nozo then reported then he had at last found a community of Sisters to take him in, for 1500 fr a year. The council agreed, but the details still had to be worked out. Among those details was the exact amount Nozo could count on. The Sisters wanted 1500 fr, and he figured he needed an additional 1000 for heat, light, laundry, clothing and personal expenses. At this point, another tug-of-war developed between Nozo and the council. The council members, refusing to deal with him directly, as usual, deputed Mandaroux to handle the case. Further, the council’s response was that, if they gave him all that he asked for now, he could possibly ask for more in the future. For this purpose, they wanted him to go somewhere else to live, chiefly the infirmary and retirement home for the archdiocese of Paris, Marie-Thérèse, where the cost was only two-thirds. For a man of fifty-six, this solution would have surely been intolerable, and he became alarmed.

Nevertheless, he was able to move in to some quarters on the grounds of the Sisters of Adoration réparatrice in Paris. Quickly, however, it became evident that the council would not pay, or would do so only grudgingly. The mother foundress herself was also forced to beg for the money from Etienne, a humiliating undertaking. Since she did not receive any, she personally undertook to support Nozo with food, lodging, clothing and pocket money.

All this finally brought matters to a head. Nozo thereupon began a public campaign, what he called a “legitimate defense,” to force Etienne and his council to act with justice and charity. It is unclear who received copies, but Nozo had his entire defense printed and distributed, probably to the bishops of France. In it, he reviewed the history of his humiliation at Etienne’s hands, including his unfulfilled promises and changes of opinion. “Please do not prolong any longer the double agony I have endured for the past ten years of humiliations and cruel pains, and the more than eight years of fruitless requests.” He repeated that his resignation was done honorably into the hands of the pope, and that, as a member of the Congregation, he had a right to support, especially since he had always promised to obey Etienne and to live according to the Constitutions. Remarkably, no documents exist to show that any one among his confreres seems to have raised money to help him, take pity on him, or arrange for him some sort of lodging with friends or family. One is led to wonder whether they were forbidden to have any contact with him. Perhaps Etienne’s character was so dominant as to preclude any thought of charity.

Given the gravity of Nozo’s publicity, the council held an extraordinary Sunday session dealing with this one topic. It was made more extraordinary by the presence of the vicar general of Paris, representing the archbishop, who asked for funds for Nozo’s pension. After what must have been a difficult meeting, the council agreed to the 1500 fr pension plus 500 for expenses, half of that requested. They added a nearly impossible condition, however: namely that Nozo should declare in writing that the sums were not due him in justice but only in charity because of his role in the Congregation, and that he would agree never to ask them for money again. Nozo refused out of hand since the conditions were so humiliating. Because he rejected their conditions, the council then feared that he would continually dun them for money. Whatever hope for a reconciliation, if any ever existed, was completely destroyed. As a result, no further meeting was held on the Nozo case for two years.

That silence did not stop the desperate Nozo from continuing to besiege Etienne with letters. It appears from one of them that the council, despite its promises to the vicar general to pay Nozo’s living expenses, had not done so for more than two years. Nozo even agreed, despite his repugnance, to move back to the mother house just so he could live a respectable life. Still, no answer arrived after twelve years of “unhappiness, humiliations and pains of all types.” As if to underscore his petition, he signed his name as “unworthy priest, former superior general of the Congregation of the Mission.” In response, the council concluded that “his dispositions and pretensions are still the same” and, for this reason, would make no answer, as Maître Mandaroux had recommended, and behind whose name they were conveniently hiding.

The next act in this drama entailed an inevitable escalation of activity. In an eighteen-page letter dated 1 May 1856, Nozo reviewed his entire case, beginning with the statement that he had begun writing twelve years before but had never received an answer. This lengthy review climaxed with his observations concerning the decrees of the general assembly of 1849. He knew that some Vincentians thought that he no longer belonged to the Congregation on the basis of those decrees. He therefore asked whether he truly belonged. He suggested that the decrees of the assembly were irregular, since he had not been invited to take part, even though he had voluntarily renounced his right of participation, at least on the level of a house. He had suffered, he said, “years of moral and physical tortures, cruel deceptions and inexpressible torment.” Consequently, he concluded by requesting judges competent to hear his case and judge him. Ironically, he found himself in a similar situation to that experienced by Bailly under his own administration.

Almost a year and a half later, Nozo repeated his request, but this time specified that he would request the archbishop of Paris to hear his case. He would at least be less biased than Etienne’s attorney. He then sought to increase the pressure: “If this letter remains still without effect, I will regard myself as forced, to my great regret, to send shortly to the Holy See the new request that I have almost completed.” The council concluded: “his pretensions are always the same, and so we are of the opinion to let him do so.”

He must have requested permission to live briefly in the Vincentian community house in Valfleury, in the hills south of Lyons, to be with his dying brother, Constant. He died 30 March 1858 and is buried there. He had been Nozo’s personal secretary and later a go-between with the council. Nozo thanked the council for this permission, but he complained in the same letter about “this wicked decision, in my opinion, that you have taken never to answer me a single word, and never to let me know in any certain way your intentions concerning me.”

By this time, the archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Morlot (1857-1862), volunteered to mediate the dispute, as Nozo had requested. The council decided to ask him to admit Nozo to the diocesan retirement home, for which the Congregation would pay. Some discussion must have taken place since the vicar general of the diocese reported that Nozo was willing to return without any conditions, something that the cardinal wished, but which he also left to Etienne’s wisdom and charity. In this case, Etienne now said that he had information about Nozo’s disedifying behavior with his niece, that the police were investigating and that the cardinal would be informed. Whether this accusation was true or not, and what it referred to, is unknown. Etienne may simply have been repeating hearsay. Their decision was to reject the cardinal’s envoy on the pretext of avoiding dishonor and embarrassment to the Congregation. The members then repeated their earlier position: send Nozo to the retirement home and the Congregation will pay. In fact, from this point on, the Nozo case never again entered into the discussions of the general council.

Final years, 1862-1868

Nozo was true to his threat to appeal to the pope. He wrote a version of his complaints and even had it printed, probably for wide distribution among bishops should the need arise. He apparently had complained to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, and the cardinals of this body urged him to ask for a dispensation from his vows. This would allow him to get out of the sort of life he was living, with its anxieties, increasing poverty and dangers. He, however, said that he never wanted to leave the Congregation he had led, but which Etienne had now led into error.

Pius IX, an admirer of Etienne, did not reply. After six months, Nozo wrote to Flavio Chigi, the papal nuncio in Paris, requesting his help to obtain some judgment from the pope. He enclosed his earlier printed letter and also took the step of having his new appeal to the nuncio printed. Several fruitless interviews with the nuncio followed. In the depths of despair Nozo wrote once again to Etienne, and likewise had this letter printed, a measure he deemed to be extreme. He was asking again, in his older years, to finish his days within the Congregation. “I beg you, therefore, Monsieur, in the name of religion and for the good of our Congregation, and for the salvation of our souls, to please finally speak while there is still time, but to speak openly and seriously.”

Months passed without an answer, and Nozo returned to the nuncio, again with a printed letter. With only about four years to live, Nozo could sense that his time was running out. He berated Etienne for giving him only vague and sterile promises and for acting against the Vincentian rules, probably by denying him any financial support and a community in which to live. He feared dying in a poor room abandoned by the Congregation and defamed by its leaders, who, in his judgment, had engineered his removal by irregular means. He referred to an opinion he had heard years before from an unnamed bishop, who relayed it from Gregory XVI, that Nozo should have been free to do what he judged appropriate. In this new appeal, he related that he had once come across a letter in a well-known handwriting (likely Etienne’s, whose hand was distinctive), that defamed him. Further, he admitted his errors, but they should have been kept quiet and not broadcast by the Congregation. In a prescient sentence, he concluded that he had been “defamed through the whole world until death and even beyond.” For this reason, he once again begged Pius IX to intervene in his case.

This appeal too, not surprisingly, was fruitless. Nonetheless, he penned another to nuncio Chigi almost two years later and followed his past practice by having it printed. In it, he related some explosive news that, if true, puts Etienne into the worst possible light. He had gone around Christmas to a Vincentian house for a few days but, on Etienne’s orders, was expelled, as he said, like a criminal. He then managed to see Etienne in person, who told him finally that he was not a member of the Congregation, this on the basis of the decrees of the 1849 general assembly. Nozo was justly outraged and asked why Etienne had left him hanging for sixteen or seventeen years in the mistaken assumption that he was still a Vincentian. Had he known, he said, he could have worked for his living as a priest. He was also angry that, after more than ten appeals to the pope, his case had not been heard. Because of this, he explained that he had again taken the public and extreme step of printing his appeal and distributing it to the bishops of France. He concluded his appeal to the nuncio by asking to return to the Congregation, which he believed he had never left, and to die there in penance for his sins.

During all this period, records are lacking to inform us about Nozo’s daily life. He never wrote an autobiography apart from his extensive published memoranda. He left the Sisters of Adoration réparatrice at some point and rented an apartment on rue des Ursulines. But how did he occupy his time? Was he able to celebrate mass regularly? If so, where? How did he support himself? Who were his friends? How was his health? Nearly the only way to contact this side of him is through a remarkable portrait of him, painted by Anna Clément in 1867. Her father was a painter and instructed her in his craft. She concentrated on water colors, engravings and book illustrations, but also did occasional portraits. Her depiction of a slender Nozo shows him in his cassock and skull cap, with fluffy grey hair, gazing directly at the viewer and clasping a rosary. It appears to be part of his general propaganda campaign to defend himself against Etienne, since it shows him as a devout but intense priest. It is unknown who commissioned the work, who paid for it, or where it was displayed. Somehow it has migrated to the mother house to which he so often had tried to return.

It did little good in the long run since the next notice about Nozo is that of his death, which occurred on 24 June 1868, at age seventy-two. The circumstances of his illness and death are unknown. His funeral, of course, could not have been celebrated at the mother house, and so took place at Saint Sulpice. Who knew about it? Did any Vincentians attend? Even his burial place is unknown. It seems likely that he was buried in his family plot in the cemetery at Ablaincourt, but no records exist to prove it one way or another. One reason is that the cemetery was the site of fierce fighting during the First World War, and no graves exist there from the nineteenth century, although the family name Nozo does occur on one monument. The members of the council did not record anything about his death, nor was it mentioned anywhere in Vincentian sources, not least in the annual necrology sent at year’s end by the superior general. Neither was he listed, except as an afterthought, in the official register of the deceased kept in the archives of the Congregation he once led. This insulting omission of his name could not have been accidental.

Another omission was that his official portrait was not hung for some years alongside those of his predecessors in the sacristy of the mother house. After Etienne’s death, his portrait was prepared and placed next to Salhorgne’s, Nozo’s predecessor. The general council under Eugene Boré, Etienne’s successor, wondered whether Nozo’s portrait should also be present. It was proposed either to leave a blank space, or simply to do nothing for the moment. The reason for deciding on the latter course was that “to make any change might arouse some observations that would be better to avoid.” When Nozo’s portrait was finally hung a few years later, it was of a manifestly ugly man with gross features. A comparison with another contemporary portrait, hanging in the central house of the Dutch province, Panningen, undoubtedly presents a truer picture of the man.

A final omission is his complete absence in histories of the Congregation after his resignation. The approach has been that he simply disappeared from sight once he left office. Undoubtedly for this reason, many Vincentians and others have believed either that he voluntarily left the Congregation, or that Etienne expelled him. Some have thought that he died in August 1842. As has been seen above, none of these versions is correct. As it is, we might know even less about him than we do but for the care that Jules Mailly took to preserve Nozo’s papers. They had been placed in the attic of the mother house for safekeeping during the Commune of 1871. They were then thought to have been destroyed, but Ernest Hertault discovered them in early 1909 and asked Mailly whether they should be destroyed. Thanks to Mailly we can reconstruct much of the life of this flawed but very human Vincentian.

Assessment

To appreciate Nozo more completely, it is important to attempt to analyze his personality. His behavior perplexed his contemporaries and collaborators. They saw two sides of him, one attractive, the other repellent. On the positive side, he was seen as austere, dedicated and energetic. He exhibited skill in financial administration. He was also attractive to women. On the negative side, he was volatile, changeable and distrustful of others. He even feared his own violent temper.

His collaborators on the council, whose duty it was to support him, found it nearly impossible to do so since he distrusted them, did not call on their advice, and worked outside the official structures imposed on him by the Congregation’s own law. Noteworthy here were his confused relationships with Daughters of Charity. He appears to have used them for his own gratification. It is not known to what extent the assistants and Etienne may have believed that Nozo had personally (sexually) compromised himself. If they did believe it, whether it was true or not, this was something they were not likely to put in writing, but it may have explained their extreme behavior towards Nozo.

He reacted to the stress of his many conflicts by fleeing from his problems, either by absenting himself from Paris or by neglecting to hold meetings with his council. He relied instead on his brother Constant and on his nephew, Alexandre Gérault. This led him to mingle his personal affairs with those of the Congregation.

As a result, the council, if not others, were frustrated in their responsibilities. They filled their time with other duties and grew increasingly angry at the superior general, whom they regarded as more and more manipulative, suspicious and secretive. Adrien Denis, his public antagonist, also found him unstable and underhanded.

Added to this, Nozo had spells of grandiose behavior. It is unclear how this actually manifested itself, but he reported that his confreres thought he had taken great liberties with the norms of traditional Vincentian simplicity. He also lived above the law, making exceptions for himself. According to Denis, he is supposed to have claimed that he was “the Rothschild of religious orders.” One result of all this is that his presence brought about serious divisions in the houses of both the Sisters and the Vincentians. On the other side of these moments of grandiosity, he had spells of ill health that appear to be related to the stress of his life. In later life, he also mentioned his sins, some secret, as the cause of his misfortunes. In saying this, he demonstrated that he understood, at least in part, what had happened to him. His sense of self, in other words, was disturbed.

Etienne could not handle these contradictions and worked strenuously to eliminate their cause first by ridding himself of Nozo, and then by systematically expunging him from Vincentian life by neglecting him and by falsifying facts. Durando, whose sanctity the Church has recognized, judged simply that Nozo was a limited and immature person who did not take counsel easily.

In modern psychological terms, he would possibly be diagnosed as having a borderline personality disorder with narcissistic and paranoid traits.