This was sent from Marseille:
“One of the most honorable businessmen of our city, Mr. X… that is admired by all, has just wounded the Vicar of Saint-Barnabé with a gun shot. Last Monday Mr. X… learned via an anonymous letter that his wife was having an affair with that priest. He was given the most intimate details that left no doubt about his misery. He got home and questioned his servers: the housemaid, the servant, the gardener, the coachman, etc. and all confessed what they knew. The affair was happening for fifteen months already. Mr. X… was a cause of mockery in the whole neighborhood and he was the only one that knew nothing. It was after that inquiry that he shot the priest (Siècle, June 7th, 1864).”
Who is more to blame in this sad case? Is it the woman, the husband or the priest? Was it the woman that deluded by devout sophisms probably considered herself forgiven by the quality of the accomplice, appeased by the hopes of an easy acquittal? Was it the husband that yielding to a moment of outrage could not control his rage? Or was it the vicar that in cold blood and premeditation violated his own vows, abused his character and deceived trust to cast disorder, despair and disunion upon an honorable family? Public consciousness issued their verdict. But beyond the material fact there are considerations of the highest importance.
A philosophy of elastic conscience could perhaps find an excuse in the fever of passions and just criticize the imprudent vows. Let us admit, if you will, not an excuse but an attenuating circumstance to the material eyes and it will not become less of an abuse of trust and of the ascendant that the guilty one had out of his position; the fascination that he exerted on his victim, under the cover of his sacred cloak. That is the fault, and that is the crime that if not punished by men’s justice it would be by that of God.
Now, fifteen months were more than enough to give him time for reflection and for him to go back to his senses and duties. What did he do in the meantime? Taught the youngsters the truths of religion; preached the virtues of Christ, the chastity of Mary, the eternity of penalties to the sinners; absolved or maintained other people’s faults according to his own judgment. And him, the refractory to God’s commandments that condemn what he did, he was the infallible provider of God’s mercy or punishment! Is it an isolated case? Ah history of all times is here unfortunately to demonstrate otherwise. We here make abstraction of the individual to only see the principle that gives rise to disbelief and quietly undermines the religious element.
The absolute power of the priest, they say, is independent of his moral behavior. Be it! We will not discuss this point although it seems strange that a man that deserves the flames of hell for his actions may open or close the door of paradise to whoever he decides when many times the excesses subtract from him the complete clarity. If the fear of the eternal penalties doesn’t stop those that teach God’s commandments from entering the path of evil and violation it means that they do not believe in them. The first condition to inspire trust is to preach by example.
