- Tweeter
republish
In a book to be published this February 15 and from which Le Figaro published extracts, the former Pope Benedict XVI, who resigned from his office in 2013, urges his successor to abandon the idea of ordaining priests of men already married. The book, co-signed with Guinean cardinal Robert Sarah, creates a stir within the Catholic community. Explanations with the permanent correspondent of the newspaper La Croix at the Vatican, the journalist Nicolas Senèze.
RFI: The tone of the extracts broadcast by Le Figaro is at the same time dramatic, supplicatory and offensive: the authors consider " the future of the Latin Catholic Church compromised if we touch on priestly celibacy, one of its pillars " . They say " cannot be silent " and " beg (s) " the pope to renounce this reform. However, they assure "to act in a spirit of love for the Church and the Pope " and affirm their " filial obedience ". You write that this book, From the depths of our hearts, is " a nasty blow to the pope's back ". Why ?
Nicolas Senèze : This book is in the wake of rumors of the pope's resignation launched at the end of last year with the aim of weakening his authority. Why obey a pope who will soon leave? We are witnessing another attempt here. It is a pressure, a not very “sporty” way of warning the pope. In the Roman milieu, it is said that these are things that cannot be done. This book also arrives after the synod for the Amazon in October 2019 , which brought together the bishops on ecological but also pastoral issues - how the Church can evangelize more effectively in Amazonia. The bishops have proposed to be able to ordain priests of married men. This issue has been debated. Cardinal Sarah participated, had intervened, had opposed it, but his position had not been retained by the overwhelming majority. Today, this position of the cardinal and pope emeritus comes at a time when the debate on the synod is closed. So what they did not manage to pass during the synod, they try to make it accepted by going to seek Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. However, he had to remain silent so as not to interfere in the pontificate of his successor. So he comes out of his silence, which is very problematic.
Why ?
He had already spoken on a few points. But in this way, by clearly warning Pope Francis, it is clearly a hostile act. Especially since in the text he signs with Cardinal Sarah, he evokes "diabolical embezzlement" about the debates of the synod, an official act of the Church presided over by the Pope in person. It is extremely serious.
The status of Pope Emeritus has been problematic from the start . With the same title, the same white clothes, he embodies an authority and carries the germ of confusion for the faithful. It was fine as long as he stayed out. From the moment it intervenes in the life of the Church, it is an attempt to create a magisterium parallel and concurrent to that of the only pope. For several months now, we have been witnessing a task of delegitimizing Pope Francis. All this brings water to the mill of a number of opponents saying that, in the end, Benedict XVI is the only true pope. It is hardly acceptable. Besides, as the question arises one day of the resignation of Francis if he no longer feels the strength, I know that he is thinking for himself of a different status as bishop of Rome emeritus, and not of pope, as well as a much stricter obligation of silence in the texts to create the difference and avoid any instrumentalization on the part of those around him.
Precisely, some enlightened observers openly wonder about a possible instrumentalization of Benedict XVI, 92 years old. What is your opinion ?
It wouldn't surprise me. There was this report last week on Bavarian television, we saw it very weak. We saw Mgr Gänswein, his private secretary and prefect of the pontifical house who did not hesitate to answer questions for him. This questions.
The book is co-signed by Cardinal Sarah, whom the general public knows less about. We identify him, through his very conservative stance on social facts, as an opponent of the pope within the Curia. But the character is complex : much more mystical than political, according to the newspaper La Vie . In the light of these extracts, how would you describe it?
It is clearly not a politician. I don't think he plays for himself. Besides, this kind of position disqualifies him in a certain way in a possible conclave [when the cardinals gather to elect the new pope]: how a man who has placed himself in such opposition against the pope can it collect two thirds of the votes necessary to be elected? In fact, I especially have the impression that he is himself the object of recoveries which use his personality for ends, themselves, much more political. A whole identity environment, especially in France, but not only, is reflected in the ambiguity of his words. In Africa, he is listened to like a great voice, but he is not the only one. There is a whole generation of bishops and cardinals who are much closer to Francis and who embody a pragmatism, an anchoring in African life, while being rigorous on doctrine. I am thinking of Cardinal Nzapalainga in Bangui , Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo in Kinshasa .
At one point he said to speak like a " son of Africa ". What does this invocation of his native continent mean ?
In a way, he establishes himself as “spokesperson for Africa”. Now, I heard African cardinals during the synod who were not at all in the same position. On the question of the ordination of married men, clearly, the African bishops are not for. And this is understandable for various reasons. A very serious issue in the African Catholic Church is that of tribalism which plagues a certain number of dioceses. If you add married priests who have families, children, we can see all the difficulties that this can cause and we understand their reluctance on this issue. That said, they said so at the synod and were heard, including by the Latin American bishops, who said that it was something they did not want to impose on Africans. They were therefore reassured and convinced of the interest of the reform.
Aside from form, what is the theological stumbling block in the book ?
The whole problematic of priest theology supported by Cardinal Sarah in this book is presented as the one and only truth that would be valid for the Church. This is not true: there are different ways of being a priest and this is what François admits and recognizes. He does not intend to call into question the rule of celibacy but he recognizes that there have always been exceptions to this rule, including very widely in the Catholic Church since the priests of Eastern and Anglican rites who joined it can to marry. What Francis does not want is to impose a single model and those who wanted this model are not at all comfortable in the pontificate of Francis, who is much more aware of pastoral questions and of the adaptation of questions non-doctrinal. There is one more great pragmatism. It is unbearable for them.
In your survey How America wants to change the pope , you explain that an ultra-conservative American movement, made up of clerics and laity, seeks to push him to resign. Does the book of Benedict XVI and Robert Sarah fit into this rebellious logic, without necessarily being backed by this movement?
Indeed, they are not necessarily backed, but we are well within the framework of these ultra-conservatives. There are links. Bishop Gänswein is linked to certain very conservative German circles very opposed to François. In Regensburg, for example, Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, representative of a large princely family, is campaigning very conservatively in the Church. We know that it has links with these American circles. These people find themselves in a certain number of positions, it is not something concerted. Cardinal Sarah defends his vision, without seeing the possible implications and recoveries that there may be.
Without playing a soothsayer, how can Francis react, on both the content and the form?
On this kind of attack, François is rather inclined not to look behind him. He will take this opinion into account. There was also a reaction this Monday from the Holy See. It essentially says that Cardinal Sarah's position is one position among others. I think he will continue to move forward on this issue. In particular on the Amazon, with the solution that is emerging: keep this exception of being able to ordain married men. But rather that it is the Vatican which gives the authorizations, that could be the responsibility of the episcopal conferences which would give the exemptions. This will reassure the African bishops. But do not believe that this will create large movements of ordination of married men around the world.
Could this reform still mark a breaking point in this pontificate, whatever its form: renunciation ? schism ? Two things that are hardly feared by François.
No, on the contrary, it will rather, I believe, strengthen him in his determination. He is a pontificate of reforms , he was elected for that and it is not the pressures that will stop him. A sort of anti-reform alliance is throwing its last forces into battle. The reform of the Curia is underway and there again, there are powerful forces to prevent it. The fact remains that it is a serious crisis. We must therefore not exclude the possibility that Cardinal Sarah or Mgr Gänswein will be sanctioned. The day Cardinal Müller crossed the red line, François replaced him.
What support can François count on?
The great strength of his opponents is to make them believe that they represent half of the Church, that 80% of the priests are against Francis. It is not true at all. He has real supporters in the Curia, including those who do not necessarily agree with him - we hear bishops support certain words against the Pope - but who are loyal, and large swathes of Church faithful who agree with the pope. The disagreement is legitimate. But between disagreement and dissent, there is a step that almost all bishops do not want to take.
The question of celibacy of priests embodies a nodal point even beyond ecclesiological confrontation. It has become a subject in Western societies which are largely secularized because it brings together universal problems: the sexuality of priests, pedophilia, vocations crisis, etc.
The theology expressed by Cardinal Sarah is the vision of a Church centered on the priest. The priest like other Jesus Christ in a certain way, at the center of everything. It is a theology that has shown its limits, if only through clericalism and all the abuses that it has engendered. We came back from that theology, and we can no longer present the priest like that. Celibacy helps make the priest a man apart. What it certainly is: theology says that the priest is a man set apart by the Lord. But there is a difference between being set aside and a man standing next to others on a pedestal. This is François's great awareness in his fight against abuse: he is trying to tackle the causes of the abuse. Benedict XVI had established zero tolerance, in a strong and reliable way. Francis wants to go further: it is of course necessary to punish those who have committed crimes, but to stop them before they commit them and to make sure that the ecclesial system does not produce any more abuses is even better.
Are the ordination of married men, even the female deacon , seen as solutions?
No, not directly in any case. Especially since we know that most sexual abuses in the world are committed in the family, therefore by married men. But it is simply to bring about a legitimate diversity in the Church, in the way also to exercise the ministries. Bring the Church into its time.