CathNews New Zealand

The declining number of believers in Europe, the Church’s struggle to continue playing a role in Western society, the debate over priestly celibacy and new views about sexuality…

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich – the 63-year-old Jesuit who leads the Archdiocese of Luxembourg and who is president of COMECE (the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union) — speaks frankly about these and other issues.

La Croix: You are a former missionary to Japan, a Jesuit, an archbishop of Luxembourg, a cardinal… Have you always sought God in the same way?

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich: When I arrived in Japan as a young priest, it was a great shock. At that time I was a young man steeped in the popular Catholicism of Luxembourg.

With other Jesuits, each one coming from a different Catholic background, we arrived with a model of Catholicism that we all saw very quickly did not correspond to the expectations of Japan.

For me, this represented a crisis.

I had to put aside all the piety that had been the richness of my faith until then and give up the ways that I loved.

I was faced with a choice: either renounce my faith because I could not find the ways that I knew, or start an inner journey. I chose the second option.

Before I could proclaim God, I had to become a seeker of God. I said with insistence: “God, where are you? Where are you, both in traditional culture and in postmodern Japan?”

When I returned to Europe ten years ago, I had to start over again.

To be honest, I thought I would find the Catholicism that I had left in my youth. But that world no longer existed.

Today, in this secularised Europe, I have to do the same thing: seek God.

Has Europe today once again become a land of mission?

Yes, it has been for a long time.

The Luxembourg of my youth was a bit like Ireland, with great processions, strong popular piety, etc. When I was a child, all the children went to church. My parents didn’t go, but they sent me, because it was normal to do so.

I remember at school, a child in my class didn’t make her first communion and that created a scandal. Now the thing that causes the scandal is when a child actually does make it.

But upon reflection, I can see that this past was not so glorious. I obviously didn’t see that as a child, but I realise now that there were already many cracks and hypocrisies in that society back then.

Basically, people didn’t believe any more than they do today, even if they went to church. They had a kind of cultural Sunday practice, but it was not inspired by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Do you think this cultural Catholicism is finished?

Not quite yet. It varies in different parts of the world. But I am convinced that Covid will accelerate this process.

In Luxembourg, we have one-third fewer churchgoers. I’m sure they won’t come back. Among them are people of a certain age who will find it painful to return to religious practice, to go to a church.

But there are also those Catholics for whom Sunday Mass was an important ritual, providing stability to their lives.

For many, calling oneself Catholic is still a kind of disguise endowed with a general morality. It helps them to keep up with society, to be “good Christians”, but without really defining what that means.

But this era must end. We must now build a Church based upon faith.

We know now that we are and will be a minority. We should not be surprised or saddened by this.

I have the sweet certainty that my Lord is present in Europe today.

And you have no doubts about that?

Oh no. No doubts at all. It’s not a question that haunts me anymore.

When I was younger, I was afraid I wouldn’t find it. It was as though I was haunted by this fear. I had to find out or I would sink. Now I am much more peaceful.

Is that the wisdom of age?

I don’t know if there is such a thing as wisdom of age. (Laughs.) I would be happy if there were!

But deep down, we always do the same stupid things, and we always come up against the same wall. At least we know that the wall is there, and that it will hurt.

I also know now that I am only an instrument of the Lord. There are many others. This awareness makes me always a little suspicious of all those who say they have the unbeatable formula for announcing God.

There is no magic recipe?

No. There is only the humility of the Gospel.

And when you were younger, did you believe in magic recipes?

Yes, of course, I believed in them. But it is a beautiful folly of youth. It also shows the enthusiasm of young people.

Why is the message of Christianity still relevant today?

Because people have not changed in two thousand years.

We are still looking for happiness and we don’t find it. We are still thirsty for infinity and come up against our own limits.

We commit injustices that have serious consequences for other people, which we call sin. But we now live in a culture that tends to repress what is human.

This consumer culture promises to fulfil human desires, but it fails to do so.

Yet, in moments of crisis, of shock, people realise that a whole host of questions lie dormant in their hearts. The message of the Gospel is exceptionally fresh in responding to this search for meaning and happiness.

The message is still relevant, but the messengers sometimes appear in costumes from times gone by, which is not the best service towards the message itself.

This is why we need to adapt. Not to change the message itself, of course, but so that it can be understood, even if we are the ones announcing it.

The world is still searching, but it is no longer looking in our direction, and that hurts. We must present the Gospel message in such a way that people can orient themselves towards Christ.

This is precisely why Pope Francis launched the Synod on Synodality last October, for which you are general rapporteur. You said recently that you do not know what you will write in the report?

I have to be the one to listen. If I make a lot of proposals, it will discourage people who have a different opinion. So it is the people who have to fill my head and the pages.

This is a synod. It must be open. As the pope says, it is the Holy Spirit who is the master builder. So we must also leave room for the Holy Spirit.

This method is important today because we can no longer be satisfied with giving orders from the top down. In all societies, in politics, in business, what counts now is networking.

This change in decision-making goes hand in hand with a real change in civilisation, which we are facing. And the Church, as it has always done throughout its history, must adapt to it.

The difference is that this time the change in civilisation has an unprecedented force. We have a theology that no one will understand in 20 or 30 years. This civilisation will have passed.

This is why we need a new language that must be based on the Gospel. And the whole Church must participate in the development of this new language: this is the meaning of the synod.

As president of COMECE, you took part in a meeting in Rome at the beginning of October with the European right-wing and centre-right parties. On leaving, Cardinal Pietro Parolin encouraged them not to consider Christianity as a supermarket from which only certain values can be chosen. Does this temptation exist among politicians?

Yes, clearly.

On the right, they take up Christian symbols. They like rosaries and crucifixes, but this is not always linked to the mystery of Christ.

This is related to our past European culture. They want to refer to a culture in order to keep it. This is a misuse of religion.

On the left, I also know politicians who say they are committed Christians, who fight against climate change, but who vote in the European Parliament to make abortion a fundamental right and to limit freedom of conscience for doctors. That is also taking religion like a supermarket.

One can be a Christian Democrat, a socialist, an environmentalist, etc., and still be a Christian. This diversity of political formations is of great benefit to society.

But politicians often tend to keep their religious preferences private. In this case, it is no longer a religion, but a personal conviction.

Religion requires a public space to express itself.

But isn’t it more difficult for Christians to get involved in politics?

First, it is true that there are fewer Christians. Secondly, it is true that they are less and less involved in politics.

We see this after each election.

On the other hand, it is obvious that the message from the bishops to society is no longer getting through. You have experienced this in France for several years.

This is the consequence of our being in the minority.

To help people understand what we want, we must enter into a long dialogue with those who are no longer Christians, or who are Christians only on the periphery.

If we have certain positions, it is not because we are conservative but because we believe that life and the human person must be at the centre.

To be able to say this, I think we need to have dialogues and friendships with decision-makers or politicians who think differently.

Even if they are not Christians, we share with them an honest concern to collaborate for the good of society. If we do not want to live in a compartmentalised society, we must be able to listen to each other’s stories.

Does this mean that the Church must give up defending its ideas?

No, it’s not about that. We must try to understand the other, to build bridges with society.

To speak about Christian anthropology, we must base ourselves upon the human experience of our interlocutor. For although Christian anthropology is marvellous, soon it will no longer be understood if we do not change our method.

And what use is it to us to speak if we are not heard? Do we speak for ourselves, to make sure we are on the right side? Is it to reassure our own followers? Or do we speak to be heard?

What are the conditions for this listening?

First of all, humility.

I think that even if it is not necessarily conscious, the Church has the image of an institution that knows everything better than others. So therefore it needs a great deal of humility, otherwise, it cannot enter into a dialogue.

This also means that we must show that we want to learn from others.

Here is an example: I am totally opposed to abortion. And as a Christian, I cannot have a different position.

But I also understand that there is a concern for the dignity of women, and the discourse we had in the past to oppose abortion laws is no longer heard today. So what else can we do to defend life?

When a discourse no longer carries weight, we must not be obstinate in using it, but look for other ways.

In France, many believe that the Church has lost a large part of its credibility because of the sexual crimes committed within it. How do you position yourself in relation to this crisis?

First of all, I want to say that these abuses are a scandal.

And when we see the numbers in the Sauvé Report, we can see that it is not the lapse of a few. There is a systemic fault somewhere, and it needs to be addressed.

We should not be afraid of the injuries that this might inflict on us, which are absolutely nothing compared to those of the victims. We, therefore, need to be very honest and be prepared to take some hits.

A few weeks ago I was in Portugal, where I was celebrating Mass. There was a little boy there who, while serving Mass, looked at me as if I were the good Lord. I could see that he saw me as a representative of God, which I was, in fact, during the liturgy.

Abusing such children is a real crime. It is a much more serious offence than if a teacher or a sports coach were to commit such acts. The fact that this was tolerated to protect the Church hurts. We turned a blind eye! It is almost irreparable.

Now I come to your question. Some people have lost confidence.

In order to regain it, when possible, one must have great humility. When one accompanies a community or a person, one must always keep in mind the principle of absolute respect for those whom one accompanies. I cannot put aside even one person.

It seems obvious to me that these questions will be on everyone’s mind and in everyone’s heart during the synodal process. We need to embrace change.

If there is a systemic fault, do you think systemic changes are needed?

Yes. Obviously, in my diocese, like many others, we have a charter of good conduct that everyone has to sign, priests as well as laypeople who work for the Church.

Before ordination, we also subject seminarians to eight psychological sessions designed to detect paedophilia.

We are doing all we can, but it is not enough. We need a Church that is structured in such a way that these things are no longer possible.

What does that mean?

If women and young people had been given more of a voice, these things would have been discovered much sooner.

We must stop acting as if women were a marginal group in the Church.

They are not on the periphery of the Church, they are in the centre. And if we do not give a voice to those who are at the centre of the Church, we will have a big problem.

I don’t want to be more specific: this question will inevitably be asked at the Synod, in various cultures, in diverse contexts.

But women have been ignored too much. We must listen to them, as we do to the rest of the people of God.

Bishops must be like shepherds who listen to their people. It’s not just for them to say, “Yes, I hear, but that doesn’t interest me”. They need to be in the midst of their flock.

What other changes need to be made?

The formation of the clergy must change.

It must not be centred only on the liturgy, even if I understand that seminarians attach great importance to it.

Lay people and women must have a say in the formation of priests. Forming priests is a duty for the whole Church, so the whole Church must accompany this step, with married and single men and women.

Secondly, we need to change our way of looking at sexuality. Until now, we have had a rather repressed vision of sexuality.

Obviously, it’s not about telling people they can do just anything or abolishing morality, but I think we need to say that sexuality is a gift from God.

We know that, but do we say it? I’m not sure.

Some people attribute the increase in abuse to the sexual revolution. I think exactly the opposite: in my opinion, the most horrible cases occurred before the 1970s.

In this area, priests also need to be able to talk about their own sexuality and to be heard if they are having trouble living out celibacy. They must be able to talk about it freely, without fear of being reprimanded by their bishop.

As for homosexual priests, and there are many of them, it would be good if they could talk about it to their bishop without the latter condemning them.

As for celibacy and the priestly life, let us ask frankly if a priest must necessarily be celibate.

I have a very high opinion of celibacy, but is it indispensable?

In my diocese, I have married deacons who carry out their diaconate role in a marvellous way, who give homilies through which they touch people much more powerfully than we who are celibate. Why not have married priests too?

In the same way, if a priest can no longer live this solitude, we must be able to understand him, not condemn him.

I’m old now, so this doesn’t concern me as much…

Have you felt the difficulty of living this solitude?

Yes, of course.

At certain times in my life, it was very clear. And it is also obvious that every priest falls in love from time to time. The question is how to behave in this case.

First of all, one must have the honesty to admit it to oneself and then act in such a way that one can continue to live out one’s priesthood.

• Interview by Loup Besmond de Senneville. First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

Additional reading

News category: Analysis and Comment, Palmerston.