Saint Paulinus of Trier – Exiled for the Truth

Education that protects against ideology

Paulinus was able to refuse the emperor's demand because he understood what the dispute was about. He knew the Creed of Nicaea and understood what consequences the teaching of Arius had for faith in Christ. For this reason he could not be persuaded that the condemnation of Athanasius was merely a personal matter. It is likely that Paulinus even knew Athanasius personally. After all, Athanasius had spent several years of his exile under the bishop's protection. According to tradition, Paulinus already belonged to the clergy of Trier at that time. A meeting between the two cannot be proven with certainty. Yet much suggests that Paulinus had encountered the famous bishop from Alexandria and heard him defend the Nicene faith.

Athanasius himself knew from his own experience how quickly a theological dispute could be distorted. His opponents did not refute him but tried to silence him through accusations, synods, and exiles. Toward the end of his life he wrote about this: “Now if it was altogether unbecoming for any of the bishops to change his opinion merely out of fear of these things, it was far less fitting—and did not accord with the conduct of men who trust in their faith—to compel and coerce the unwilling. This is how the devil proceeds (…) For truth is not proclaimed with swords, spears, or soldiers, but through persuasion and counsel” (Historia Arianorum 33).

Paulinus experienced the same thing at Arles. The bishops were not to examine together whether the accusations against Athanasius were true. They were to sign a verdict already prepared. The emperor replaced theological argument with the threat of exile. Paulinus recognized this difference and drew the consequence from it.

Every priest needs such clarity as well. During his studies he must come to know Sacred Scripture, the Church's tradition, and the development of doctrine thoroughly. It is not enough merely to memorize individual propositions. He must understand why the Church confesses something and what other statements are connected with it. Only then will he notice when familiar ecclesial words are used while their actual content is lost. This also requires careful handling of sources. Individual sentences can easily be taken out of context and used to support almost any desired conclusion. A good formation therefore teaches one to read texts in their entirety, to take into account the time of their composition, and to relate different statements to one another. In this way it becomes clear whether a claim truly arises from the faith of the Church or whether the faith is being invoked after the fact for an already predetermined goal. This work does not serve merely the priest's personal certainty. His preaching and his counsel shape the faith of others. Many of the faithful have neither the time nor the opportunity to study the decrees of ancient councils or the writings of the Church Fathers themselves. They must be able to trust that their priest conscientiously presents the Church's teaching and explains difficult questions in an understandable way.

Paulinus's signature, therefore, concerned more than himself alone. As bishop he spoke with ecclesial authority. Had he condemned Athanasius against his better knowledge, he would have given the impression that Athanasius's commitment to the Creed of Nicaea had been wrong or meaningless. In order to keep his office, he would have abandoned the very truth he was meant to proclaim in that office.

Study alone, however, does not make a priest steadfast. Paulinus not only knew what was right. He was also willing to act accordingly. Theological formation must therefore reach the conscience and be deepened through prayer. The future priest must learn to answer for his decisions before Christ. Otherwise his knowledge remains merely external and will not sustain him once his convictions bring disadvantages upon him. Paulinus lost his office, his homeland, and finally his life. Even in exile he remained faithful to the faith. This shows what a good priestly formation is meant to achieve: it prepares a priest to recognize the truth, to pass it on in an understandable way, and to remain faithful to it even when it costs his life.

Wikimedia Commons 960px-Saint_Paulin_Crypte_Trèves_280608 Statue de Saint Paulin dans la crypte de l'église Saint-Paulin à Trèves.

The Victory of Truth

The Synod of Arles shows how easily an ecclesial proceeding can lose its true purpose. Outwardly, bishops came together, but they were not meant to deliberate openly. A verdict was already in place, the emperor set the direction, and the threatened exile secured the necessary signatures. The outward appearance of ecclesial order could not conceal that power had taken the place of truth here.

The case of Saint Paulinus therefore remains uncomfortable. Not every ecclesiastical majority is right. Not every orderly procedure leads to a just verdict. Even bishops can yield to the pressure of their time and support a decision that harms the Christian faith. Obedience to office does not release anyone from fidelity to Christ. The moment an ecclesiastical authority forces agreement without seriously examining objections, it betrays the very purpose of its own authority.

Priests must therefore not be trained as functionaries who lend verbal cover to predetermined outcomes and then proclaim them as ecclesial insight. The Church needs priests who recognize the difference between faith and ideology. What price such discernment can demand is shown by the saint himself.

At the time, the emperor seemed to have won. Paulinus was deposed and exiled, Athanasius condemned, and the majority of bishops had signed. Yet the Council of Constantinople confirmed the faith of Nicaea in the year 381. Today Athanasius is venerated as a Doctor of the Church, and Paulinus as a saint. The verdict of Arles remained an injustice.

Even a large majority cannot change the truth. One can fight it, remove its defenders from the way, and feel confirmed by many signatures. In the end, it will still prevail. And why? Quite simply: Christian truth proceeds from Christ, who Himself is the truth. Him one can only accept or reject.