Catholicism theology secularism council

Interview with Cardinal Ratzinger
Given to L'Express in March 1997.

(from L'Express, April 25, 2005)

Interviewed by Michel Cool

In March 1997, when he was saying he wished to retire from his Roman duties, Joseph Ratzinger granted us an interview. To discuss doctrine—and also to speak about the successor to John Paul II.

In France, you are the archenemy of progressive Christians, who accuse you of burying the Council. Do you think this debate is outdated?

We are now in the second generation of the Council. For them, Vatican II already belongs to history, even though its message remains relevant. Their relationship with the Council is therefore different from that of the generation that lived through it. From the beginning, that generation was divided between two contradictory interpretations: one reformist, seeking to renew the Church while remaining faithful to its history and the great message of Christ; the other revolutionary, rejecting the past and calling the Church to commit itself to building a new world of fraternity and peace. These promises of a new world naturally fascinated the youth of 1968. The historical failure of these revolutionary ideologies has shown us how such promises can end: in slavery! The current younger generation has understood this very well. That is why there is now greater openness to recognizing in the Council’s reforming path a chance for humanity and for the Church.

“Tomorrow, we will greatly need a pope who reminds us of the spiritual foundations of our lives.”

Aren’t you being harsher toward liberation theologians than toward supporters of Bishop Lefebvre?

Unlike “Lefebvrism,” which is fundamentally anachronistic, liberation theology was rooted in a movement of our time. Our vigilance increased precisely because it inspired great hope and idealism among the young. Certainly, Christians must live out their faith in political and social life, especially in contexts of poverty and injustice. But the politicization of theology and the theologization of politics are dangerous and unacceptable distortions. I have always been surprised that defenders of secularism do not protest more strongly against liberation theology’s claim to dominate political life!

Are you not concerned by the collusion between traditionalist Catholics and the National Front?

As with liberation theology, this is an unacceptable identification of Christian faith with a political regime. These two currents are radically opposed, yet they commit the same error: for one, identifying faith with a revolutionary ideology; for the other, identifying it with a totalitarian, fundamentalist regime. In the Lefebvrist movement, however, one must distinguish a hard core fundamentally hostile to the Council from faithful believers who simply long for a more contemplative liturgy.

The French people repeatedly elect Abbé Pierre, Sister Emmanuelle, and Bishop Gaillot. Doesn’t it bother you that the same people criticize the Vatican on moral issues?

I think it is right to admire their commitment to the poor and marginalized. Their freedom of speech is also certainly captivating—especially when it comes from a bishop opposing authority! Still, we must qualify the popularity of these figures. They do not represent the full reality of French Catholicism: for example, the strong appeal of monasteries, pilgrimages, and religious life. Moreover, the Pope was truly popular during his visit last year [1996] in France.

Bishop Gaillot wants the Church to recognize his charism as bishop of the excluded. What do you think of that?

His intention to be a witness of the Gospel among the marginalized is positive. But a Church pastor must above all have the humility to be present to his flock in his diocese—especially to those who suffer and need the personal support of the bishop. He himself has acknowledged he lacks this charism, which justified the Holy See’s decision. He claims to have another one, but he must define it more clearly.

Do you fear that Catholics might lose their soul by engaging in dialogue with other religions, such as Buddhism?

Interreligious dialogue is necessary in a world moving toward unity. But the danger lies in a superficial dialogue. For the relativism that now dominates minds fosters a kind of moral and intellectual anarchy, leading people to reject any single truth. Affirming one’s truth is now seen as intolerance. Yet genuine dialogue is not an empty movement. It has a purpose: the shared pursuit of truth. A Christian cannot renounce his knowledge of truth, revealed to him in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God. If Buddhism appeals, it is because it appears as a way to touch infinity and bliss without concrete religious obligations. In a sense, it is a kind of spiritual self-pleasure. Someone had actually predicted in the 1950s that the Church’s challenge in the 20th century would not be Marxism, but Buddhism.

What would you say to a Catholic tempted to believe in reincarnation?

Reincarnation has meaning within Hindu religion—a path of purification. Outside that context, it is morally cruel, since these endless returns to earthly life resemble an infernal cycle.

Is French-style secularism a model that can be exported for relations between the state and religious confessions, including Islam?

It has already spread across Europe and Latin America. But secularism is neither perfect nor immutable. Western secular societies currently still respect Sunday, Christian holidays, and the Christian calendar, as well as monogamous marriage. Yet nothing guarantees that one day these fundamental elements of our social life won’t be questioned. Moreover, Islam cannot renounce its inherent desire to be a decisive factor in public order. Even if it currently integrates into secular society, can we say this situation is definitive? Finally, I believe a state that is absolutely neutral cannot seriously guarantee freedom and tolerance in a society unless it itself embodies high moral and human values. For all these reasons, secularism is not a final achievement.

Can you understand why President Chirac was criticized for receiving communion in front of television cameras?

A politician must not impose his faith on his fellow citizens in a pluralistic democratic society. But he must also avoid becoming schizophrenic. Discretion should teach politicians an art of speech that allows them to respect democratic and pluralistic structures while still revealing what personally guides them in life.

What kind of profile do you expect in the successor to John Paul II?

No one expected John XXIII after Pius XII, nor did anyone expect the current Pope after John Paul I. So I will not venture predictions. However, the papacy will continue to fulfill three essential missions. First, to safeguard the unity of Catholics within the Church and throughout the world. Second, to promote dialogue between Christianity and other religions: the Pope will always be the architect of ecumenism, because...