Complimentary copies of the book

On 22 May, Delarge sent to Marguerite Fiévez a list of persons and organisations to whom a complimentary copy of the book would be sent as well as a list of publications to which copies would be sent for review purposes.


Archives 1778

Imprimatur finally granted

On 9 April 1963, a day after Cardijn had met with Suenens, the imprimatur was granted for his book.

Stefan Gigacz explains:

While there appears to be no written record of the meeting between the two men (Suenens and Cardijn), the outcome was swift. The next day, 9 April 1963, the vicar general, Msgr P. Theeuws, gave his imprimatur, accepting the modifications that Cardijn had made to his text.

Did Suenens blink? Fiévez and Meert certainly thought so, writing in their biography of Cardijn that he ‘stood firm’ despite the pressures that were placed on him ‘to change his emphasis.’ Moreover, while remaining rigidly faithful to his vow of obedience, Cardijn had forced Suenens to face up to his own responsibilities.

The whole episode left a bitter taste in the mouths of Fiévez and other close collaborators of Cardijn who were familiar with what had occurred.

Cardijn was deeply affected, even though he sought to avoid embarrassing Suenens, going as far as asking Fiévez to recover the initial proofs from the typesetter to ensure that these were not circulated.All things considered, Cardijn’s attitude demonstrated almost heroic forbearance.


Stefan Gigacz, The Leaven in the Council, Chapter 8, Suenens vs Cardijn, Lay people in the frontlines (Australian Cardijn Institute)

Corrections added to the manuscript

Taking account of Suenens’ observations, Cardijn prepared a series of revised footnotes and paragraphs to be added to the original text.

These included a footnote making clear that Cardijn was using the expression “Catholic Action” in the sense that it had been used prior to Vatican II and that its future use would be subject to the decisions of the Council.

He also added several paragraphs making clear that the lay apostolate was not limited to temporal action but was “evangelising action in life” and that it must be under the direction of the hierarchy, as Suenens insisted:

It is not a matter of temporal action but of spiritual evangelising action in life, the milieux of life and the issues that it raises. This action requires union with the Hierarchy and the priesthood whose action it extends. This concern for the apostolate in the life of lay people does not exclude other concerns, quite the contrary. A concrete book on the JOC would show it very clearly. The number of priestly, religious (even contemplative) and missionary vocations is an eloquent testimony to this.

He added a footnote adding that the expression “lay apostolate” also had a broader meaning than the meaning that Cardijn had given it in his book as “the lay apostolate proper to lay people.”

And he also added a footnote making explicit that the specifically lay apostolate of lay people was integrated into the apostolate of the whole Church.

These footnotes appear to have been drafted by Marguerite Fiévez.

Fievez’s confidential remarks

Deeply upset by Suenens’ modus operandi (as well as his “notorious” views on Catholic Action and lay apostolate, Marguerite Fiévez wrote a confidential note recording the way in which Suenens’ opposition to Cardijn’s text was made known to him, not directly but through intermediaries, including Cardijn’s adjunct as international chaplain of the YCW, Marcel Uylenbroeck.


These handwritten notes date from March 1963. They refer to the differences of opinion between Cardinal Suenens and Mgr Cardijn, on the occasion of the publication of the latter’s book “Laics en Premières Lignes”.

As is customary, Mgr Cardijn had submitted the proof of his book to the archdiocese in order to obtain the Imprimatur. As it turned out, Cardinal Suenens didn’t share Mgr Cardijn’s views on the laity, Catholic Action, etc. (it was common knowledge), so the Cardinal saw fit to ask Mgr Cardijn indirectly for changes to the text submitted for ecclesiastical censorship.

It happened as follows:

The censor, Mgr Ceuppens, called Abbé Uylenbroeck, Mgr Cardijn’s assistant, to Mechelen to inform him of the points to be changed, inviting him to obtain these changes from Mgr Cardijn. Cardijn would no doubt accept them better in a conversation with his deputy, and above all, the Cardinal would not be implicated.

Cardijn was very surprised and saddened, both by the Cardinal’s desire to obtain changes which affected his own conception of Catholic Action, and by the procedure employed, which in a way deflected responsibility.

Leaving the same day for a tour of Germany, he refused to act without thinking.

The first two points of the handwritten notes are nothing compared to the disarray that had seized him:

  1. Suffering: first time (that he had disagreed with hierarchical authority on the essentials of his thinking)
  2. Apostolate of my whole life (he couldn’t see the possibility of changing anything essential in his text, without denying what he had always affirmed and for which he had been unconditionally supported by the Popes and numerous bishops and theologians).

Please consult the files relating to the edition of the work, for the precise points in dispute.

On his return from Germany, Cardijn went to Mechelen on April 8, where he was once again shocked by the apparently cordial and fraternal welcome he received from the Cardinal, who embraced him, denying that there was “anything” between them.



Archives Cardijn 1777

1963 03 15 – Fiévez – Confidential note

Suenens transmits to Cardijn his “divergences” on the manuscript

On 15 March 1963 – having received a copy of the manuscript in October 1962 and after the contract for publishing had been signed, Suenens finally transmitted a list of “remarks” concerning his book manuscript.

Instead o f sending them directly, these remarks “made by His Eminence (were) transmitted by the (Diocesan) Censor and Fr Uylenbroeck.”

As always, Suenens opposed Cardijn’s conception of Specialised Catholic Action and lay apostolate, insisting on lay people playing a separate “active role in the work of evangelisation.”



(15 March, 1963) (Handwritten note by Marguerite Fiévez)

1- As far as the terminology used is concerned, the Council, the Bishops and the diocesan authorities consider that General Catholic Action is as fully valid as specialised Catholic Action, and do not accept it being said that CA is essentially specialised CA. This in no way prevents each Bishop from judging the application of local priorities.

2- Instead of saying that the layperson’s proper role is formally the Christianisation of the temporal, he affirms (His Eminence) that the layperson’s proper and formal role is twofold: on the one hand, it is his proper role to take an active role in the work of evangelisation, by preparing, supporting and prolonging priestly action; on the other hand, it is his proper role under his exclusive responsibility — to Christianise the temporal.

3- Instead of saying that evangelising action must first pass through temporal action, he affirms a connection and an independent relationship between the two actions. Cfr. Humaniser pour évangéliser, in L’Eglise en Etat de mission.


Archives Cardijn 1777

Stefan Gigacz, The Leaven in the Council, Chapter 8, Suenens vs Cardijn, Lay people in the frontlines (Australian Cardijn Institute)

A new title: “Laïcs en premières lignes”

On 14 February 1963, Jean-Pierre Delarge responded to Marguerite Fiévez explaining that it would not be easy to obtain the imprimatur in Paris because the office responsible was overworked.

He also proposed a new title for the book: “Laïcs en premières lignes” or “Lay people in the front lines.”


Archives Cardijn 1778

Trouble to obtain the imprimatur

On 13 February 1963, Marguerite Fiévez wrote to Jean-Pierre Delarge expressing her concern that they had been over-optimistic regarding the grant of imprimatur by the Archdiocese of Malines- Brussels for Cardijn’s book.

Rue Royale Ste Marie,
Brussels 3

Brussels, 13 February, 1963

Mr J.P. Delarge,
Director of Editions Eniversi- taires,
72, boulevard St Germain,
PARIS, Ve France

Dear Mr. Delarge,

I think I’ve been too optimistic about getting the Imprimatur.

Monseigneur Cardijn thinks that it’s better, if it’s not too much trouble for you, to apply for the Imprimatur from the Archbishopric of Paris, and not to deviate from the usual rules, which require the application to be made in the diocese where the work is published.

He therefore relies on your good will, but is convinced that there will be no difficulty.

Many thanks in advance.

Yours faithfully, Mr. Delarge.

Marguerite Fiévez


Archives Cardijn 1778

Publishing contract nearly finalised

On 25 January 1963, Marguerite Fiévez wrote to Jean-Pierre Delarge indicating to him that agreement had virtually been reached regarding the contract to publish the book.

Instead of 20% royalties, Cardijn was asking only 10% but 500 extra copies to distribute, evidently to Council Fathers, theologians, etc.


Archives Cardijn 1778

A new draft of Cardijn’s manuscript

On 14 January 1963, Marguerite Fiévez wrote to Jean-Pierre Delarge informing him that Cardijn’s collaborators had met in Brussels and wished to modify the proposed publishing contract on several points.

As a result, they drafted a new proposed contract, which Fiévez forwarded to Delarge.


Archives Cardijn 1778

“The lay apostolate on a global scale”

On 4 January 1963, Jean-Pierre Delarge sent to Marguerite Fiévez a draft contract for the publication of Cardijn’s book under the title of “L’apostolat des laïcs à la dimension du monde” or “The lay apostolate on a global scale.”


Archives Cardijn 1788

Overwhelmed with work

On 18 December 1962, Marguerite Fiévez responded to Jean-Pierre Delarge explaining the delay in moving forward with the publication of Cardijn’s book.

As usual, they were all overwhelmed with work.

Secondly, there had been discussion over the involvement of the jocist publishing house, Editions Ouvrières.

In the end, it was proposed that Editions Universitaires would publish in France while Editions Ouvrières would publish in Belgium.


Archives Cardijn 1778

Stefan Gigacz, The Leaven in the Council, Chapter 8, Suenens vs Cardijn, Lay people in the frontlines (Australian Cardijn Institute)

1962 12 18 – Fiévez – Delarge

20% royalties offered

On 3 December 1962, Jean-Pierre Delarge wrote to Marguerite Fiévez expressing his keen desire to publish Cardijn’s manuscript, which he had just read in one sitting, he said.

He proposes that Editions Universitaires will co-publish with the JOC in Belgium and offers 20% royalties plus an advance of 50,000 Belgian Francs.


Archives Cardijn 1778

A reminder from the publisher

On 13 November 1962, Marguerite Fiévez wrote to Delarge informing him that his name was already on the list of invitees for the celebration of Cardijn’s 80th birthday.

She also responded to his gentle reminder that he needed an answer as to whether Cardijn wished to go publish his book with Editions Universitaires, noting that Cardijn was in Switzerland and Rome until the end of the month.

13 November, 1962

Dear Mr Delarge,

You will be pleased to know that your name was already on the invitation list when your letter of the 6th reached me. No doubt you are now in possession of the little card.

I understand your “reminder” gesture. This time, you’ve given us a bit of time to think and get organized! I can’t give you any further details yet, as the Monsignor is in Switzerland and Rome until the last days of this month. But it’s not impossible that I’ll be in touch with you at that time to discuss new pro-positions. Which is not to say that everything will be very simple, but in any case, business has been taking shape recently.

I look forward to seeing you on December 2 and, I’m sure, Monsignor Cardijn too.

All the best,

Marguerite Fiévez, secretary

Personal address:

7, rue Royale Ste Marie, Brussels 3


Archives Cardijn 1778

Comblin’s book on the setback to or failure of Catholic Action

On 2 November 1962, Delarge wrote to Fiévez asking if he could attend the celebration of Cardijn’s 80th birthday on 2 December.

He also addresses the problem raised by the fact that Editions Universitaires had published Joseph Combin’s book, Echec de l’Action Catholique?, and asks for details of Cardijn’s views of the book.


Archives Cardijn 1778

1962 11 02 – Delarge – Fiévez

Publisher wants to meet Cardijn

On 1 March 1962, Jean-Pierre Delarge, manager of Editions Universitaires, wrote to Marguerite Fiévez, regretting that he had been unable to contact her and meet Cardijn during his recent visit to Brussels.

He signalled that he would be in Brussels on 27 March, asking if it would be possible to meet Cardijn in order to discuss his proposed book.


Archives Cardijn 1778

Fiévez to meet publisher

On 5 January 1962, Cardijn responded to Jean Lannoye, explaining that he had “so much work” and suggesting that he could meet with Marguerite Fiévez to discuss the book project.


Archives Cardijn 1787

The work continues

Joos - Fiévez 19 01 1961

Even during Cardijn’s absence in Africa, work continues back in Belgium to prepare his submissions for the PCLA.

On 19 January 1961, Tournai vicar-general, Mgr Désiré Joos, writes to Marguerite Fiévez in response to Cardijn’s earlier request to assist him with the drafting and translation into Latin of his documents.

“I tried to send you a few suggestions for correction and translation as quickly as possible,” he wrote.

“It’s always awkward to put on someone else’s boots! I hope I have not betrayed anything,” he added apologetically.

“My apologies that the Latin is not typed up; we just didn’t have time.”


Original French

Mgr Désiré Joos – Fiévez 19 01 1961 (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

English translation

Mgr Désiré Joos – Fiévez 1901 1961 (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

Fiévez writes to Pavan about Cardijn’s suggested encyclical

Fiévez Pavan 1960 12 23

On 23 December 1960, Marguerite Fiévez, clearly acting on Cardijn’s instructions, wrote to Mgr Pietro Pavan, a professor of Catholic social doctrine at the Pontifical Lateran University, enclosing two documents drafted by Cardijn.

“This is a great opportunity to reconnect with you albeit by a completely different path!” wrote Fiévez, who was clearly familiar and on good terms with him, no doubt through her involvement with the COPECIAL, i.e. the Permanent Committee for Congresses of the Apostolate of the Laity..

“Before his departure for Africa a few days ago, Monsignor Cardijn asked me to send you the attached note, on ‘Priests and the social doctrine of the Church.’ Following the line of the Pontifical Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity in preparation for the coming Council, Monsignor Cardijn is concerned with many fundamental issues that you find expressed in the various notes he drafted for the Commission in question. If he had your views on it, I think he would then be in a position to judge whether after a few modifications he would be able to present the note to the Commission at one of the coming sessions.

“If you would like extra copies, I would be happy to send them to you. You will see that the note was written in particular circumstances (on the occasion of his last trip to Latin America) but we could correct a few passages to make it more generally applicable.

Encyclical for the 70th anniversary of Rerum Novarum

“Monsignor Cardijn also asked me to attach a document that he prepared for HH. John XXIII a few months ago proposing an Encyclical for the 70th anniversary of Rerum Novarum. He would like to have your views on this document,” Fiévez adds.

Reading between the lines, it is clear that Fiévez – and of course Cardijn – know full well that Mgr Pavan is already working on John XXIII’s draft encyclical, even though this is not public information.

“I hope I will see you again in February, following the meeting of the Pontifical Commission, on the occasion of the meeting of the Governing Council of the Standing Committee,” Fiévez concludes, referring to a forthcoming meeting of the COPECIAL. “I will be very happy to be able to exchange some impressions with you once again.”


French original

Marguerite Fiévez à Pietro Pavan 1960 12 23 (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

English translation

Marguerite Fiévéz to Pietro Pavan 1960 12 23 (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

French original

Joseph Cardijn, L’Eglise face au monde du travail (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

English translation

Joseph Cardijn, The Church and the world of labour (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

French original

Joseph Cardijn, Les prêtres et la doctrine sociale de l’Eglise (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

English translation

Joseph Cardijn, Priests and the social doctrine of the Church (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

Pietro Pavan (

Pietro Cardinal Pavan (Catholic Hierarchy)

A letter to Cardinal Cento “clarifying ideas”

Cardijn Cento 18 12 1960

Prior to leaving for Africa, Cardijn had also drafted a letter to the president of the Preparatory Commission, Cardinal Cento. This too was sent by Marguerite Fiévez on 18 December along with Note 2 and Note 3 that he had completing writing before his departure.

In the letter he explained that he was leaving to attend a JOC training session in Lomé, Togo, after which he would continue his punishing travel schedule to other countries.

“After the meeting, I will continue to Dahomey, Cameroon, Brazzaville, Leopoldville, Rwanda and Urundi, thus completing the African tour that I had to interrupt in July following the painful events in Congo,” Cardijn wrote.

“I am sending your Eminence two notes which attempt to clarify the one I sent to Him on October 31,” he added.

“The first contains reflections and suggestions about the work program of the Commission, proposed by Monsignor Glorieux; the second seeks to set out the two essential and parallel aspects of all lay apostolate. I apologise in advance for the repetitions they include; but it is often by repeating and confronting that we end up clarifying ideas!

“I am sending two copies to Monsignor Glorieux, hoping that they will arrive before December 22. Other copies are available to Your Eminence and the Commission, if there is a need to communicate these texts to other Members.

“I will be in Rome for the next Session of our Commission from January 30 to February 4. I can extend my stay there after that date if that would be useful for the work of the Commission.

“I also take the opportunity with this letter to offer to Your Eminence my most fervent wishes for a Holy Feast of Christmas and a Happy New Year! And may He deign to accept my deepest homage and respect,” Cardijn concluded.


Cardijn à Cardinal Cento 1960 12 18 (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

English translation

Cardijn to Cardinal Cento 1960 12 18 (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

Even more documents in Latin!


Apart from his packed schedule, Cardijn faced yet another challenge in responding to the requests of the Preparatory Commission: the documents he received were all in Latin.

Although Cardijn had evidently learned Latin at school and in the seminary, Marguerite Fiévez was undoubtedly much less familiar with the language.

Thus, with Cardijn already in Africa, when she received another document from the PCLA dated 19 December, she arranged for a “quick translation” into French by an unnamed person, probably a JOC chaplain.

As well as enclosing a series of reports, the note explained that the Second Sub-Commission, which was dealing with the issue of formation of lay people would also look into the formation needs of priests.

“It also seemed necessary,” the note explained, “to consider what is required to prepare priests in light of the modern form of the apostolate. Rev. P. Jarlot and Mgr Geraud have prepared a note on this issue, based on the wishes of the bishops as well as their own experience.”

“However, since this subject does not fall directly within the competence of our Commission, we will only include their conclusions which contain several concrete proposals.

“Pending what the Commission on Seminaries prepares, we would be grateful if you would send us your observations as soon as possible,” the note requested.

Fathers Georges Jarlot SJ was a French expert on Catholic Social Teaching then working at the Gregorian University while Mgr Joseph Geraud was a French Sulpician priest stationed at the Procure Saint Sulpice. Both were well known to Cardijn.

Finally, the note added that Archbishop Pericle Felici, the secretary-general of the Council, had published a booklet including the lists of the various people making up the various conciliar preparatory commissions.

The conciliar workload was mounting quickly and the need to work in Latin only added to the growing burden!


Traduction Rapide (Archives Cardijn 1584)

Allies in the Diocese of Tournai: Mgr Joos and Bishop Himmer

Bishop Charles-Marie Himmer

Cardijn had only been back a month from the first plenary meeting of the Preparatory Commission on Lay Apostolate (PCLA) in Rome but he was already on the move again, this time to Africa for an important leaders training session of the International YCW.

Before leaving, he hurried to complete two more notes for the Commission numbered as Note 2 and Note 3. Note 3, entitled “Quelques réflexions et suggestions (A few reflections and suggestions) and dated 15 December 1960, offered a detailed response to the PCLA’s proposed plan of work.

Note 2, again entitled simply “L’apostolat des laïcs” (The apostolate of lay people) and dated 16 December 1960, explained what Cardijn characterised as the “two essential, primordial and inseparable aspects” of the lay apostolate, namely “its relationship with God, Christ and the Church; with the plan of God in the work of Creation and Redemption,” and on the other hand “its relationship with the fundamental problems of man and the world, with their influences and their depth, in their total dimension.”

Seeking theological counsel – but not in Brussels or Louvain

Before sending these notes to the PCLA, Cardijn therefore sought to get feedback from a trusted confidant and theologian, namely Mgr Désiré Joos, the vicar-general of the Diocese of Tournai in the industrial south of Belgium. Why Mgr Joos rather than say Mgr Gerard Philips, a recognised expert on the theology of the laity at the University of Louvain whom Cardijn had previously consulted?

Cardijn does not explain of course. Nevertheless, he had previously come into (theological) conflict with Philips during the preparation and holding of the Second International Congress on Lay Apostolate in Rome in October 1957 where the latter was a keynote speaker. Moreover, Philips appeared to have allied himself with the Malines-Brussels auxiliary, Bishop Léon-Joseph Suenens, who had also criticised Cardijn’s approach.

Indeed, Suenens had published a major 1958 article in the Belgian Jesuit journal, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, entitled “L’unité multiforme de l’Action catholique” (The multiform unity of Catholic Action) in which, without mentioning Cardijn, he accused the Specialised Catholic Action movements of seeking a “monopoly” of Catholic Action.

Mgr Désiré Joos and Bishop Charles-Marie Himmer of Tournai

Cardijn’s choice of Mgr Désiré Joos from Tournai was therefore highly significant. Just 20km from the northern French city of Lille, Tournai lies in the middle of the coal mining belt that extends across Belgium and into France.

Its bishop was Charles-Marie Himmer (photo above), originally from the neighbouring Diocese of Namur, who had been a JOC and Specialised Catholic Action chaplain from the 1930s. As a bishop, he had already made himself known for his closeness to the working class.

In 1952, he had organised a Social Week that began with an enquiry carried out in every parish of the diocese into the “economic and social problems” in each parish. Addressing JOC chaplains at the conclusion of this enquiry, he took as his subject “Le problème ouvrier” (The worker problem), emphasising the importance of the work of the JOC in educating young workers to enable them to face up to the issues that had emerged.

“J’ai pratiqué à plein la méthode de Cardijn : voir, juger, agir,” Bishop Himmer also said on another occasion. “I fully practised the method of Cardijn: see, judge, act.”

“J’y suis resté fidèle, et j’y crois toujours,” he continued. “I have stayed faithful to it and I still believe in it.”

So it’s little surprise that he would also choose a vicar-general cut from the same jocist cloth. Thus, Mgr Joos, who served as Himmer’s vicar-general from 1954 to 1977, was also responsible for the Specialised Catholic Action movements in the diocese.

Cardijn’s letter

Mgr Joos was therefore clearly a man in whom Cardijn had great confidence and who shared his vision of the lay apostolate, particularly among workers.

Cardijn wrote:

“You are aware that I am a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity in preparation for the next Ecumenical Council. I had to take an oath to maintain secrecy concerning all the documents I receive – and I believe this also applies to the meetings,” Cardijn wrote, clearly vexed by these restrictions.

“However, I need to consult with people more competent than myself or seek the assistance of collaborators in relation to many issues,” he continued.

“I am not able to type and I don’t understand Italian!” he lamented. “Moreover, other collaborators are also bound to the same secrecy as I am!”

“Given these circumstances, could I ask you to read and evaluate the next two notes that I would like to send to the Commission soon,” Cardijn requested. “I also enclose the first note which I sent earlier prior to the meeting that took place last November.

Cardijn’s twin concerns: Church and world

Apologising for several repetitions in the notes, Cardijn now moved to the crux of his concerns, namely “the relationship of the lay apostolate with God, with Christ, the Church and the Hierarchy in the Church; and on the other hand, the relationship with the problems to be solved by the laity and the apostolate of the laity in our modern world.

“This second relationship is often overlooked, if not ignored, particularly in the statements and definitions. Is there a way to overcome this?” Cardijn asked. “This problem really haunts me.”

Behind his polite language, Cardijn was in effect accusing the PCLA was ignoring the world and focusing only on the Church! What kind of conception of the apostolate of the laity could there be that ignored this issue?

“The Council is a unique opportunity which will not come again for a long time,” Cardijn warned. “And by then, the problems will have been solved either by us or despite us.”

Although he does not name Bishop Himmer, we can surmise that Cardijn also wanted Mgr Joos to relay these concerns to his bishop to the extent that this was possible without compromising Cardijn’s oath of secrecy.

“By the time you receive this letter,” Cardijn concluded, “I will have left for Africa where I will remain until 24 or 25 January. On 30 January, I need to be in Rome for the second session of the Commission. However, the note needs to reach the secretariat without delay (by December 22, it seems!). Could you entrust your precise remarks to Mademoiselle Fiévez who will take care of the sending the documents once the typing is finished?

“But after my return from Africa, perhaps I could see you for a moment just before my departure for Rome and discuss all this with you again.

Please excuse me for bothering you in this way. But you will me doing me a great service. And if in your view my request seems to contradict the oath that I have taken, please feel free to reject it,” Cardijn wrote.


Cardijn to Mgr Désiré Joos, vicar-general of the Diocese of Tournai (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

Cardijn à Mgr Désiré Joos, vicaire-général du Diocèse de Tournai (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

Tournai : décès de Mgr Désiré Joos (Agence de Presse Internationale Catholique)

Charles-Marie Himmer (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

Bishop Charles-Marie Himmer (Catholic Hierarchy)

Mgr Charles-Marie Himmer, Le problème ouvrier (Joseph Cardijn Digital Library)

Léon-Joseph Suenens, L’unité multiforme de l’Action catholique (Nouvelle Revue Théologique)