Interview published in the Nouvel Observateur on April 15, 2010 —
The director of "Le Monde des religions" explains Catholicism's historical resistance to modernity and calls for a profound renewal —
Le Nouvel Observateur. Is the pedophilia scandal one controversy too many for Benedict XVI?
Frédéric Lenoir. – If you mention the pope's resignation, I don't believe it at all. It's happened twice in history, but never following scandals, and God knows there have been some! In the 13th century, Celestine V, a hermit saint elected at the age of 84, resigned five months after his election, faced with the weight of a charge he felt incapable of assuming. He was canonized. In the 15th century, Gregory XII abdicated to put an end to the great schism that had divided Christianity for forty years, with one pope in Rome and one pope in Avignon. But it is not customary for the Church for a pope to resign under pressure from public opinion, and even less so from the media. It is true, however, that the pontificate of Benedict XVI, despite his stance on sharing and social justice, is all the more weakened by these new revelations because they come in a series of controversies, the most powerful of which were undoubtedly raised by the reinstatement of fundamentalist extremists, including the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson, and the excommunication of the Brazilian mother who had her raped daughter aborted. In the pedophilia cases that are breaking today, there are two scandals: the sexual assault of which the priests were guilty, but also the silence of the hierarchy, which chose to allow children to be destroyed rather than denounce the priests in order to avoid a public scandal.
NO – Is the Pope directly affected by this affair, or is he the victim of a media conspiracy, as some say?
F. Lenoir. – The conspiracy theory is a reflex of communitarian defense. A key figure in the Vatican for ten years, first as "prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," then as Pope, Joseph Ratzinger has an impeccable attitude and discourse on this issue. But it is difficult to believe that he was unaware of anything. The revelations in the "New York Times" show that in the mid-1990s he did not respond to the urgent appeals of an American bishop who asked him to disbar a pedophile priest who had raped 200 deaf children. This gives food for thought. John Paul II could also be affected by the controversy, and some Italian Vaticanists believe that his canonization would be compromised if it is proven that he took the decision to cover up pedophilia cases in the 1980s and 1990s.
NO – Do all these scandals demonstrate that the Church is incapable of moving with the times?
F. Lenoir. – We must go back to the 16th century, to the Protestant Reformation, to understand the movement of the Church closing itself off from the values of the modern world. The Protestant schism was such a violent shock that it launched into the Counter-Reformation movement initiated by the Council of Trent. This had two sides: first, a desire to rediscover the fundamental evangelical values forgotten by the high clergy of the time. But alongside this salutary reform of morals, the Roman Church initiated a second movement, this one about identity, which aimed to establish as fundamental elements of the faith everything that Protestants rejected: the Pope, canon law, the sacraments, the Latin Mass, the Magisterium, etc. It is thus, in this movement of defensive withdrawal, that the most powerful symbols of Catholicism were born, as most people still imagine it today. The first catechism in its history was published by the Catholic Church in 1566 following the Council of Trent, in which "the truths of faith" were decreed in reaction to Protestant and humanist doctrines. The Catholic Church suffered a second shock in the 18th and 19th centuries with the French Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the advent of modern democracies, which caused it to lose its Papal States (with the exception of the small Vatican City) and its dominant role in society. She will then continue to fight against the values of modernity and will vehemently condemn, like Pope Pius IX in his "Syllabus" (1864), "the perversion of modern ideas": the separation of Church and State, freedom of conscience and worship, human rights, freedom of expression, civil marriage, socialism, etc. All authors, even Catholics, who express the slightest divergence of views with dogma are blacklisted, from Copernicus to Freud, including Descartes, Pascal, Kant, Flaubert and Victor Hugo. Many things have changed since then, but in the minds of the most conservative Catholics, including the current Pope, modernity remains the place of all dangers, starting with its pluralist vision of the world.
NO – Despite the liberal parenthesis of Vatican II (1962-1965), and certain positions taken by John Paul II…
F. Lenoir. – Vatican II was a profound turning point: the Church emerged from this bunker logic by accepting the separation of powers, by recognizing human rights, religious freedom and the value of non-Christian religions. But as soon as the council was over, part of the hierarchy was afraid that the wind of hope raised among many Catholics by the council would become a storm that would sweep away the foundations of faith and morality, particularly with the moral revolution of the late 1960s. In 1968, Pope Paul VI published the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” which condemned contraception, which would lead to the disaffection of many faithful. At the other extreme, the fundamentalists, who were fixated on the fundamentals of the Council of Trent, split behind Archbishop Lefebvre. John Paul II attempted to resolve these conflicts by continuing to remain unshakeable on issues of sexual morality while making extraordinary gestures of openness toward other religions. His charisma masked internal contradictions for a time and gave the impression that the Church had emerged from the crisis. But the election of Benedict XVI clearly highlighted that the majority of the Catholic hierarchy remains conservative and ultimately closer to traditionalists than to liberals, who are infinitely more numerous in Europe and the United States.
NO – The obligation of priestly celibacy has not evolved either…
F. Lenoir. – Priestly celibacy was in no way originally an imposed ideal. Moreover, Orthodox priests and Protestant pastors can have spouses. It was the Lateran Council in 1123 that imposed celibacy, but for patrimonial reasons, not at all theological ones! Indeed, in the 12th century, feudal law changed and the Church did not want married priests to pass on ecclesiastical property to their children. A recent survey shows that in France, 80% of practicing Catholics are in favor of the ordination of married men. But Rome is opposed to it. Why? First, for unacknowledged economic reasons: the Church cannot support hundreds of thousands of priestly families around the world! Then, because she wants to remain faithful to the icon of the celibate priest erected as a model during the Counter-Reformation in the face of married pastors.
NO – Is a new council – a “Vatican III” – desirable today?
F. Lenoir. – A new council would not change much. Since the current bishops were all appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, there is, in my opinion, no upheaval to be expected in the coming decade. The true reform of the Church, if it were ever to take place, would consist of taking into account the evolution of mentalities on questions such as the place of women – like other religious organizations, the Catholic hierarchy remains rather misogynistic – or sexual morality: sexuality is still considered an act aimed solely at procreation. The institution would also have to be desacralized. The Church as an organization is necessary to transmit the faith, but if it wants to regain its initial momentum, it must be poor and at the service of the message it delivers. However, since the 4th century and the conversion of Constantine, it has been modeled on the ancient Roman administration. As I explain in my latest book, religious power was divided during the first four centuries between five patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. But the last Roman emperors, Constantine and especially Theodosius, made the Bishop of Rome the Pope as we know him, that is, the sole head of all Christendom, and Roman Christianity became a gigantic administration with its ministries, its canon law, etc. The Pope would have to renounce the concentration of power he enjoys in order to return to the more pluralistic Christianity of the origins, in which Rome simply had a primacy of honor as the seat of the Apostle Peter. The Christian Churches—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—would thus be reunited. Finally, the renewal must apply to canon law. This regulation of the Church is the antithesis of the message of Jesus, who fought vigorously against religious legalism: let us recall the episode of the adulterous woman in the Gospels. When you think that canon law de facto excommunicates anyone who performs an abortion, whatever the reason! And that it does not even excommunicate the perpetrators of pedophile crimes. This kind of aberration becomes unbearable for many of the faithful, who are nevertheless very attached to the Church. If there were to be a new council, it would be a beautiful symbol if it were not held in the Vatican but in Jerusalem, where the Christian adventure began.
Source: Nouvel Observateur Hebdo Publication date: 04/15/2010
Publication number: 2371
Pages: 20 to 22
Author: Eve Roger