|
Lectures |
|
Contact: info@philipcoppens.com |
Two priests, two estates, one cult? The trials, tribulations and building frenzy of Fathers Bérenger Saunière and Louis de Coma Delivered at the Sauniere Society Conference, Newbattle Abbey, March 31-April 1, 2007 Priest one: Bérenger Saunière
The mystery of Saunière circles around a simple question: what is the source of Saunière’s fortune? Where did his money come from? As Saunière was a small village priest, many jumped to the conclusion that the source had to be local, and linked with the village. Hence, “the mystery of Rennes-le-Château”, rather than “of Berenger Saunière”, was born. Still, we need to return the mystery from the village to the priest. His
life is generally divided into two stages: The trial: prelims The
problem with his bishop probably dates back to November 19, 1906,
when de Beauséjour visited Rennes-le-Château and
found that Saunière’s parishioners complained about
their priest. A priest who is not liked by his parishioners is
a serious problem; but that was not all. De Beauséjour
reported that an underage girl was present in the presbytery.
She had no place there. He also found that Saunière was
the object of suspicion by his colleagues, because of the presence
of “suspect people” in the presbytery, possibly referring
to the same or other underage women’s presence. The accusation The
situation lingered, until early 1909, when de Beauséjour
and/or his team decided that the easiest solution would be to
reassign Saunière to a different parish. Though this was
not uncommon, it was somewhat out of the ordinary for a man, like
Saunière, who had been the shepherd of his flock for more
than twenty years. On
further analysis, it is remarkable that de Beauséjour does
not seem to act for many years, but as soon as Gaudissard dies,
on January 9, within the week, there is an order by de Beauséjour
that Saunière needs to move. And he is hardly given any
time – a week, a pathetically small amount of time for a
man who has lived in a village for more than twenty years. Could
anyone really move that quickly, after such a long time? Yet,
de Beauséjour seems intent on forcing the issue. You would think that for de Beauséjour, that would be the end of the matter: Saunière had resigned and the issue was resolved. Good riddance. But the bishop did not feel that way. The sequence of events would take up the latter years of Saunière’s life, and would be brought to the attention of the Vatican. The file of the case, both at the Vatican and with the bishop, commences with a letter from the Bishop’s office, dated January 19, 1909, that re-affirms the Bishop’s instruction that Saunière must take up his new appointment at Coustouges. The next letter is dated January 29, in which Saunière is informed that the bishop does not accept his resignation. He urges Saunière to meet him in Carcassonne, to provide further detail as to why he does not want Saunière to remain in Rennes-le-Château. Even though his resignation is not accepted, the bishop says the resignation will be accepted if Saunière refused to go to Coustouges. It is a bizarre twist of reasoning, not uncommon in such dire situations. Round two
Saunière
was asked to appear on August 23, 1910. He had retained Maitre
Mis of Limoux as his defence. The date was then changed to October
15, and Saunière had a new council, Dr. Huguet. Though
Saunière did not attend the hearing, Huguet did defend
his client. The verdict The
court heard the defence and deferred judgment to November 5; Saunière
was asked to appear for the verdict. It was the only time he would
actually attend. The sentence was not particularly harsh. The
court felt it strange that faced with the large numbers of masses
that Saunière received, that Saunière should give
so many fees to other priests and still plead poverty when making
requests. What the court was saying was that Saunière did,
in their opinion, nothing wrong by soliciting masses. He asked
for masses, pleading he needed the money, but he received so many
requests, that he was unable to officiate these masses properly,
and hence enlisted the help of other priests, to whom he gave
the money he had received. What the court was saying was that
if he did solicit these masses because he was poor, he should
have said a few more masses than the 280 masses he did per year,
so that he was less poor. But instead, the court was suggesting,
Saunière preferred to remain poor, and thus gave the commission
to his colleagues. Of course, the court knew that Saunière
was not poor at all, but a legal sentence has got nothing to do
with a search for truth… Not on this count at least. In
short, on count 1 and 3, though Saunière was not convicted
of trafficking, the court had found him guilty of culpable negligence
in his accounting procedures and disobedient for continuing to
solicit masses in spite of the bishop’s ban. He was sentenced
to withdraw to a house of retreat, to undertake spiritual exercises,
this for a ten day period, to occur during the following two months.
The sentence was less harsh than the original one month suspension,
which must have pleased Saunière. 2.9 million dollars
The
ball was back in the court of de Beauséjour. On November
17, Saunière was advised of the sentence in writing by
S. Bonnades, the dean of Couiza, indicating that he had ten days
to appeal. He did appeal, on November 30. Why he waited is another
small mystery, but perhaps once again he was not at home, or tried
to show his defiance. In short, he was informed that his appeal
was too late and that the sentence had gone into force on November
28. On
March 9, 1911, G. Cantegril of the court of Carcassonne, noted
that Saunière had a certificate from D. Roche, declaring
that Saunière’s health did not permit him to undertake
the retreat he had been instructed to perform as sentence for
his culpability on count 1 and 3. But it seems he was well enough
to write a letter on March 13, 1911, to argue about count two.
Saunière stated that the only documents he could offer
were the breakdown of receipts, already accepted by the court
during the proceedings, and the certificate from the mortgage
registry. As to invoices that would show that the total expense
was close to 200,000 francs, he would try to support what expenses
he could, but he had not bothered to keep invoices that were more
than two years old. In total, he sent 61 documents and asked for
their return as they were essential to his personal security.
It is a most enigmatic statement and it almost suggests as if
at any moment, someone could come along and demand to see those
invoices! He stated that he hoped to carry out his retreat ten
days before Easter at the Grand Seminary in Carcassonne. Saunière
explained that problem in a letter on March 25, to Cantegril.
He argued that the money originated from diverse incomes, including: It
did not take the court long to reach the same conclusion. On April
4, 1911, canon Charpentier stated that Saunière’s
reply was very incomplete. He wanted to know what documents he
had used to calculate the annual income of 1200 francs from the
collecting box (this meant that Saunière stated that he
roughly got 23 francs per week in this manner). Charpentier also
wanted to know the dates of his brother’s largest donations.
On April 8, 1911, Saunière expressed his disappointment about the court’s disappointment relating to the information he had provided. He had not kept ledgers from the income from the collecting boxes. He stated that his brother’s donations came between 1895 and 1903. It was a good answer – whether true or not – for if Saunière had said that the donations came in eg. 1905, they would postdate the building works and the court would continue to fish even harder. Finally, he asks why he, as a priest, needed to submit such detailed demands, which were normally only required when there was a commercial bankruptcy. A change of tactics
The
commission asked Saunière to justify the 52,000 francs
that Saunière said he had been paid by his lodgers. They
wanted to know how many, from when and how could they have earned
so much. Earning almost 800,000 Euros from people staying in your
house was indeed a lot of money. Another attempt for further detail was sent off on June 14. Saunière replied on June 20 and repeated his previous assurances about his financial soundness as confirmed by the certificate of the mortgage registry, which is all they need to know. Yet another request for details occured on July 7, and Saunière providesdsome of these on July 14. He declared the total cost of the building of the Villa Bethania to be 90,000 francs. He argued that the work began in 1901, completed 1903, but that the entire estate was in the name of Denarnaud. This, finally, it seems, was a stick the commission could use to beat Saunière with. There were no further requests for more detail; the commission began to write its report. The final verdict On October 4, the report of the commission went to the bishop. It stated that they have been unable to obtain the information Saunière was asked to provide. Only 36,000 out of 193,000 francs was accounted for. The remaining 150,000 francs was accounted for only by a list of 7 items, with the corresponding figures unsupported by any documents. They feel this was inadequate – if not a sham, though of course the commission would not say such a thing. They did argue that Saunière seemed to think that he had only to establish that he was not in debt, not understanding that it was his method of accounting that was being examined. Finally, the commission stated that it did not go to Rennes-le-Château, to confront Saunière, as they felt this would be a waste of time. With
the commission’s report finalised, a new summons was prepared
on October 30, 1911. Saunière was asked to appear in front
of the bishop on November 21, to finalise the avoided sentence
of November 5, 1910, count 2, i.e. further information on his
accounts. On
December 5, the court held its session, with neither Saunière
or his representative showing up. Saunière was declared
contumacious (stubbornly disobedient; persistently, wilfully,
or overtly defiant of authority) and judged as such. The bishop’s sentence was only valid for six months. Then Saunière made an appeal to Rome via Huguet. The Congregation at Rome delivered their judgment in October 1915; the bishop then lifted his suspension, but Saunière was never reinstated. He died 15 months later, on January 22, the day in 1909 he was supposed to become the new parish priest of Coustouges. A new perspective In
conclusion, Saunière was found guilty of negligence and
contempt, but cleared of the latter by the intervention of Rome.
For the first, he did do his retreat, as ordered by the bishop.
He was not, as some argue, found guilty of trafficking in masses
and no-one at the time believed that the majority of his income
came from trafficking in masses. What everyone did want to know
and Saunière no-one wanted to tell was where the money
had come from. Was it merely because our priest was so obstinate
and hated de Beauséjour so much that he wished to defy
him at all cost? Perhaps and it should not ruled out. Still, it
is clear, as we now know, that Saunière had detailed accounts,
both of his income and his expenses. His so-called “carnets”
have been the subject of detailed analysis since they were discovered
some decades ago. Though they do not list every single item of
his income and expenses, they were exactly the type of information
the commission was interested in. So why did Saunière not
want to hand over these documents to the commission? Was it obstinacy,
or was there something in the booklets that he did not want to
reveal? Or did he realise that if he was to show the booklets,
the commission would only take it one step further, and begin
to question why those people gave him money? It is a question that no-one has been able to satisfactorily answer. However, if you make comparisons to religious networks today, the best comparison is actually that of followers of religious cults, who give massive amounts of money for the creation and maintenance of their domains and leaders. Though Saunière was apparently not surrounded by such a cult, he did build the Villa Bethania as a future retreat for retired priests. And whereas cult leaders are notorious for their womanizing, so, it seems, the one “secret” that everyone in the village knew, was that Saunière “liked women”. A far older mystery Several promoters of the mystery of Saunière have identified 1891 and the fortuitous discovery of some parchments somewhere in his church as the start of Saunière’s building programs. But that is not true. In truth, he began his campaign in 1886, ending it with the completion of the Villa Bethania. On
July 1, 1886, Saunière was reinstated as priest of Rennes-le-Château,
arriving in the village with a donation of 3000 francs (45,000
Euro) in his pocket by the countess of Chambord, the widow of
the legitimate claimant to the throne. His salary was reinstated,
at 900 francs per annum. A final spending spree
The
Villa Bethania’s building works ended in 1907 and in the
following years, Saunière, for the first time in his life,
did not have anything built – confirmation that he had to
carefully manage his money – and seemed to have lost part
of his income. It introduced a novel episode into the life of
a man who seemed to have constantly builders on the premises. A problem The
money required to do even parts of this building work is staggering
– and the most stupendous question of all is how Saunière
even thought he would see it all accomplished. So
what relined Saunière’s purse? And what was it that
seemingly guaranteed he would have income in early 1917, when
he placed the orders for the works? A model answer
Priest number two: Louis de Coma Saunière
is not the only priest who went on a building spree in the South
of France. Louis de Coma was a very wealthy person. Like Saunière,
he wanted to channel this into building works, to convert an estate
he had bought somewhat outside of the town of Foix, an estate
known as Carol, into a religious centre. His elder brother, Ferdinand,
was a well-known architect and thus the ideal candidate to draw
the plans for the new centre.
To
make the area in the South of France resemble Palestine, de Coma
ordered that trees and other plants were planted that could be
found in Palestine. Unfortunately, they were ill-equipped for
the hard winters of the French climate and soon died a premature
death. Perhaps it was the first ill omen of the tough times that
would come. De Coma completed his building works in 1885, to plan; he even found certain monks from the Holy Ghost Community that agreed to settle in his monastery. In 1885, their leader, Antoine Decressol, signed the contract with de Coma regards the ownership of Carol. The deeds stated that de Coma was allowed to live and take care of the buildings, but that he would not have any other powers over the life of the community. It should therefore come as no surprise to see that de Coma would never sign certain parts of the contract, a resilience which greatly angered Decressol. When de Coma had left on a pilgrimage to Lourdes in 1886, Decressol and his men vacated their rooms and abandoned the premises. For de Coma, it signalled the decline of his standing, though in 1890 he nevertheless still succeeded to become the priest of the Magdalene church at nearby Baulou. Louis de Coma was now an old man (68 in 1890), a curiosity surrounded by a creation of his own making… a lone man, in a very large building, in a very small place. It is said that the controversy affected his mind: that he was seen walking around in the clothes of his dead mother. Still, his domain became the refuge of several priests on the run, when the Church and State were officially separated in 1904. By 1907, the 85-year old de Coma was no longer the priest of Baulou; on November 14, 1911, his dead, 89-year old body, was found in his bed. Saunière never saw his dream realised: to see the Villa open as a retirement home for priests. De Coma never saw his dream for Gethsemane realised either. Saunière had signed over his estate to Marie Denarnaud during his lifetime. De Coma died without a will, which meant that the entire estate became the possession of the bishop. Nothing happened to the estate, until one of his successors sold the entire estate to the Baures family in 1956. The conditions of sale, however, detailed that the entire infrastructure had to be levelled with the ground. Why? The bishop gave the reason “so that no religious sect would settle there.” It is, to say the least, bizarre.
Despite the strange request, Henri Baures decided to grant the bishop his will. However, the first attempt at destruction with dynamite only rocked the statues. At the second attempt, with much more dynamite installed, when the entire village was covered in snow, the church was demolished; the Stations of the Cross leading up the hill were also destroyed. Though
little remains, the total scope of the work is still easily visible.
It should not come as a surprise that rumours have been aired
that there must be a relationship between de Coma and Saunière.
It must be said that their careers are similar, though de Coma
would never become the subject of such controversy or interest
as his colleague. Saunière became village priest in 1885,
at a time when De Coma was winding his building works down. Faced with such parallels, the question needs to be asked whether both priests were part of a “movement”. If they were, what kind of movement? One cult? The
bishop of Pamiers was obviously afraid that a cult would settle
in De Coma’s estate. It occurred at a time when the estate
of Saunière became the focus of a series of articles and
the mystery of the village priest began to generate first local,
than national and eventually global interest. Is it a coincidence that in 1952, the Sovereign Order of the Solar Temple, the predecessor of the Order of the Solar Temple, was created? Is it a coincidence that one of the principle investigators of the Rennes-le-Château mystery, Jean-Luc Chaumeil, became an expert for the judge tasked with the investigation of the cult’s suicide in France? Remarkably, one aspect neither the Swiss, Canadian or French enquiry ever addressed was the alleged transfer of 600 million dollar to Australian bank accounts, shortly before the collective suicide of some members of this cult. Members of the investigative teams have tried to claim that in truth, it was only 6 million dollar, but they have been unable to back up this statement. But several commentators, including the French journalist Maurice Fusier, have convincingly argued that this cannot be the case… and even for such a “smaller amount”, the investigators should have carried out the required. In
his manuscript on the investigation into the Order of the Solar
Temple, Chaumeil calls such “cults” and their wealthy
supporters the “Financiers of the Grail”. Indeed,
the question needs to be asked whether it is not so much the quest
for the Holy Grail, but perhaps the sale or acquisition of the
Grail. Or perhaps it is not so much the acquisition of the Grail
itself that these people are hoping for, but instead buying certain
knowledge, such as the location of where the Grail is. If that
is the case, then all of sudden, we have a logical framework in
which Saunière’s model, which has the name of Joseph
of Arimathea, a figure popularly identified with the Holy Grail,
written on it. 600 million dollars equals roughly 300 million
Euros. Compared to Saunière’s expectation to receive
at least 120 million Euros, it is clear that we are talking about
the same league of money… |
The
“mystery of Rennes-le-Château” began as the
mystery of Berenger Saunière. Saunière was a small-time
village priest, in 1885 appointed to shepherd the souls of the
remote hill-top village of Rennes-le-Château. When he died
on January 22, 1917, he had already become a local enigma; in
2003, the entire story formed the inspiration for Dan Brown’s
The Da Vinci Code, who named the murdered curator of the Louvre
after our village priest: Saunière. 
That
de Beauséjour would not let this one go became clear, even
though it took him more than 18 months to have Saunière
officially answer for what de Beauséjour saw as being transgressions.
The
court had deferred count two: the source of Saunière’s
income. Largely cleared of trafficking in masses – with
a slap on the wrist for not keeping proper records when involving
colleague priests in assisting him – Saunière now
faced the formidable task of explaining his income… his
income of roughly – and at least – 200,000 francs,
or almost three million Euros in today’s money. 
The
bishop must have realised that he had to change tack. Therefore,
the following day, April 9, a Commission of Enquiry was created
to resolve the tricky “count two”: Saunière’s
source of income. 
From
ca. 1905 to 1915, Saunière seems to have had no access
to funds. His bank account was overdrawn. It is even stated that
he tried to sell the Villa Bethania, but could not find a buyer.
Though in the 21st century we would immediately suspect that his
lawyer was so expensive that he ran into financial problems, this
was not the situation at that time. Some have argued that Saunière’s
problems arose because of the ill-health and then the death of
his brother Alfred, who had, in the past, been a major channel
through which “charitable donations” arrived at Saunière’s
doorstep. However, the most likely explanation is the most obvious
one: the presence of de Beauséjour. From the commencement
of the enquiry and ensuing trial, Saunière was not only
carefully monitored, he had also promised to stop any trafficking
in masses that was going on. Even though the masses did not –
and could not – explain the total origin of his wealth,
the eyes of Big Bishop watching him must have scared him. This
mixture of loss of income (trial & the death of Alfred) plus
the knowledge that prying eyes were – or could be –
watching his every move seemed to spell ill tidings for the Saunière
household.
A
clue – and in our opinion the answer – what it was
that would make him so wealthy was thrown in André Douzet’s
lap in the 1990s: a landscape executed in plaster, to be executed
in bronze, found in a foundry, an order placed by Saunière
in 1916, but never finalised as after what appears to have been
a final round of modifications, the foundry learned that Saunière
had died; the plaster model was placed on a shelf – from
where it eventually got sold, and then sold again to Douzet. 
The
Stations of the Cross began right next to the grotto, gently up
the slope of the hill. This was a major deviation from standard
practice. Whereas most stations of the cross in churches are simple
wooden depictions of the perils of Jesus, de Coma built massive
stone structures, the remains of many of which can still be seen
standing along the path that climbs towards the top of the hill.
Next to the church, there was room for a monastery or a nunnery,
with the hope that soon, a religious community would occupy the
buildings. 
Whereas
so far the mystery of de Coma would be of extravaganza but nothing
more, the first question needs to be why any sect would want to
settle there. Nothing at first sight would suggest a prime reason
why “religious nutcases” would settle in the domain.