Interview published in Le Nouvel Observateur on April 15, 2010 —
The editor of "Le Monde des Religions" explains Catholicism's historical resistance to modernity and argues for a thorough renewal —
Le Nouvel Observateur. Is the pedophilia scandal the final straw for Benedict XVI?
Frédéric Lenoir: If you're talking about 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 plenty! In the 13th century, Celestine V, a hermit saint elected at 84, resigned five months after his election, overwhelmed by the weight of a responsibility he felt incapable of fulfilling. He was canonized. In the 15th century, Gregory XII abdicated to end the Great Schism that had divided Christendom for forty years, with one pope in Rome and another in Avignon. But it is not customary for the Church for a pope to resign under pressure from public opinion, let alone the media. It is true, however, that Benedict XVI's pontificate, despite his stances on sharing and social justice, is all the more weakened by these new revelations as they come amidst a series of controversies, the most significant of which were undoubtedly sparked 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 abort her. In the pedophilia cases that are erupting today, there are two scandals: the sexual abuse perpetrated by the priests, but also the silence of the hierarchy, which chose to allow children to be harmed 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 claim?
F. Lenoir – The conspiracy theory stems from a reflex of communal self-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 knew nothing about it. 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 defrock a pedophile priest who had raped 200 deaf children. This gives one pause for thought. John Paul II could also be affected by the controversy and some Italian Vatican experts believe that his canonization would be compromised if it is proven that he made the decision to suppress pedophilia cases in the 1980s-1990s.
NO – Do all these scandals demonstrate that the Church is incapable of adapting to its time?
F. Lenoir – We must go back to the 16th century, to the Protestant Reformation, to understand the Church's closing itself off to the values of the modern world. The Protestant schism was such a violent shock that it launched itself into the Counter-Reformation, initiated by the Council of Trent. This had two aspects: 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 Catholic Church promoted a second movement, this one focused on 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 was in this defensive retreat that the strongest symbols of Catholicism, as most people still understand it today, were born. 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 proclaimed 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 rise of modern democracies, which led to the loss of its Papal States (with the exception of Vatican City) and its dominant role in society. She would then relentlessly fight against the values of modernity and 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, and so on. All authors, even Catholics, who expressed the slightest divergence of views from dogma were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, from Copernicus to Freud, including Descartes, Pascal, Kant, Flaubert, and Victor Hugo. Much has changed since then, but in the minds of the most conservative Catholics, including the current Pope, modernity remains a source of all dangers, beginning with its pluralistic worldview.
NO – Despite the liberal interlude 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 its bunker mentality by accepting the separation of powers, recognizing human rights, religious freedom, and the value of non-Christian religions. But as soon as the council ended, part of the hierarchy feared that the wind of hope it had stirred in many Catholics would become a storm sweeping away the foundations of faith and morality, especially with the sexual revolution of the late 1960s. As early as 1968, Pope Paul VI published the encyclical "Humanae Vitae," which condemned contraception, leading to the disaffection of many faithful. At the other extreme, the traditionalists, clinging to the fundamentals of the Council of Trent, broke away behind Archbishop Lefebvre. John Paul II attempted to resolve these divisions by remaining steadfast on issues of sexual morality while simultaneously making extraordinary gestures of openness toward other religions. His charisma temporarily masked internal contradictions and gave the impression that the Church had emerged from its crisis. However, the election of Benedict XVI clearly revealed that the majority of the Catholic hierarchy remains conservative and ultimately closer to traditionalists than to liberals, who are far more numerous in Europe and the United States.
NO – The obligation of priestly celibacy hasn't changed either…
F. Lenoir. – Priestly celibacy was by no means 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 poll shows that in France, 80% of practicing Catholics are in favor of ordaining married men. But Rome is opposed to it. Why? First, for unstated economic reasons: the Church cannot support hundreds of thousands of priests' families around the world! Secondly, because she wants to remain faithful to the icon of the celibate priest erected as a model during the Counter-Reformation in contrast to married pastors.
NO – Is a new council – a “Vatican III” – desirable today?
F. Lenoir. – A new council wouldn't change much. Since the current bishops were all appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, in my opinion, no upheaval is 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 attitudes on issues such as the role of women – like other religious organizations, the Catholic hierarchy remains quite misogynistic – or sexual morality: sexuality is still considered an act aimed solely at procreation. The institution would also need 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 humble and at the service of the message it delivers. However, since the 4th century and the conversion of Constantine, it has been structured on the model of the ancient Roman administration. As I explain in my latest book, religious power was distributed among five patriarchates during the first four centuries: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. But the last Roman emperors, Constantine and especially Theodosius, transformed the Bishop of Rome into 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, and so on. The Pope should relinquish the concentration of power he enjoys and return to the more pluralistic Christianity of its origins, in which Rome held only a primacy of honor as the seat of the Apostle Peter. The Christian Churches—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—would thus be reunited. Finally, this renewal must extend to canon law. This Church regulation is diametrically opposed to the message of Jesus, who fought fiercely against religious legalism: one need only recall the episode of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospels. When you consider that canon law de facto excommunicates anyone who performs an abortion, whatever the reason! And that it doesn't even excommunicate perpetrators of pedophilia. This kind of aberration becomes unbearable for many faithful, who are nonetheless very attached to the Church. If there were to be a new council, it would be a powerful symbol if it were held not in the Vatican but in Jerusalem, where the Christian adventure began.
Source: Nouvel Observateur Hebdo Publication date: April 15, 2010
Publication number: 2371
Pages: 20 to 22
Author: Eve Roger