SENT ON PAPAL FLIGHT. The EU document on Christmas is «an anachronism» of «watered down secularism». Democracy is in danger due to populisms and supranational governments. On the Aegean flight A34994 returning from Athens after two days spent in Greece and as many in Cyprus, Pope Francis answers journalists’ questions. And he defends the archbishop of Paris Michel Aupetit: “I had to dismiss him for the chatter but his carnal sin is not the most serious”.
Your Holiness, what did you apologize to the Orthodox patriarchs for?
“I apologized to my brother Chrysostom for all the divisions that exist among Christians and for the divisions we have caused as Catholics. During Greece’s war of independence, Catholics sided with European governments that wanted independence. Only the Catholics of the islands supported it and gave their lives for their homeland. But the others at that time sided with Europe. We too have our fault for the divisions, for the spirit of self-sufficiency. However, I always think that God never gets tired of forgiving, never, it is we who get tired of asking for forgiveness. If we do not ask God for forgiveness we will hardly ask our brothers. It is more difficult to ask for forgiveness from the brothers than from God. With the brothers there is shame, humiliation … I apologized for the divisions we caused and for the divisions caused when we took sides for the European Union. And then one last excuse from the heart: sorry for the scandal of the migrants’ drama, for the scandal of so many lives drowned at sea.
He also spoke with the patriarchs about synodality. What did he mean?
«That we are one flock. The dynamic that regulates the differences within the Church is synodality, listening to one another, going together: “syn-odós” going, being together. The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches have preserved all this. The Latin Church, on the other hand, had forgotten the Synod. Paul VI restored the synodal journey and we are making this journey to have the habit of walking together ”.
What do you think of the document on Europe that suggested to European Commission officials not to use the word Christmas because it was divisive and instead opt for a neutral term?
“It is an anachronism. In history, many dictatorships have tried to do this … Napoleon, the Nazi dictatorship, the communist one … it is a fashion of a watered down secularism, “distilled water”, but it is something that has not worked in history. I believe it is necessary for the EU to take hold of the ideals of the founding fathers, ideals of unity and greatness, and be careful not to take the path of ideological colonization. Because all this could lead to dividing countries and causing the European Union to fail. The EU must respect a country for how it is structured inside, its variety and not standardize. I believe they won’t but they have to be careful. Sometimes they throw projects like this in there and don’t know how. Each country has its own peculiarities, its own sovereignty, but all in a unity that respects the singularities. For this I say: be careful not to make ideological colonization. In any case, the exit on Christmas is an anachronism ».
You spoke of democracy “retreating” in Europe. Which countries were you referring to?
“Democracy is a treasure of civilization and must be guarded, not only by a higher entity but also in the countries themselves. Against democracy today I see two dangers. The first is that of the populisms that are here and there and are starting to show their nails. I am thinking of a great populism of the last century, Nazism, a populism which, defending national values, so he said, managed to annihilate democratic life and become a dictatorship, with the death of the people. We are careful that governments – I am not saying left or right – do not slip down this path of populisms that have nothing to do with popularism which is the expression of free peoples, peoples with their own identity, folklore, art. A second danger arises when national values are sacrificed, they are watered down in an “empire”, a kind of supranational government. Therefore, neither fall into populism nor a watering down of one’s identity within a supranational government. There is a novel written in 1903 by Robert Hug Benson, “The master of the world“, who dreams of the future in an international government that governs all other countries with economic and political measures. When this type of government is given, one takes liberty and tries to achieve equality among all. The danger is when there is populism and when there is a superpower that dictates cultural, economic and social behavior ».
Migration is a central theme in many European countries, especially in Eastern Europe, for example in the Belarusian crisis and with barbed wires on the border with Europe. What do you expect from Poland and Russia and other countries, such as Germany with its new government?
“If I had in front of a ruler who prevents immigration with the closing of borders and barbed wire, I would say: think of the time when you were a migrant and they did not let you in, you wanted to escape … Those who build walls lose the sense of their own history , when he himself was a slave in another country. Those who build walls have this experience of having been slaves. But governments must govern and if a migratory wave arrives, can they no longer govern? Each government must clearly state how many migrants it can receive, it is its right, but at the same time migrants must be welcomed, accompanied, promoted and integrated. If a government cannot do this, it must enter into dialogue with other countries. The EU must make harmony for the distribution of migrants. In Europe there is no common line, no general harmony. Migrants must be welcomed and integrated: because if you do not integrate the migrant, this will develop a ghetto citizenship. If you don’t integrate you will have a warrior. Of course, it is not easy to welcome them. But if we don’t solve the problem, we risk wrecking civilization in Europe. Not only the Mediterranean but also our civilization. Representatives of European governments must come to an agreement. One model was Sweden, which welcomed Latin American migrants from military dictatorships and integrated them. Today I went to a boarding school in Athens and I told the manager that I felt like I was facing a “fruit salad” of cultures. And he told me: this is the future of Greece. But if a country sends a migrant back to its country then it must integrate him there too, not leave him on the Libyan coast. There is a film from Open Arms that shows the reality of what is happening ».
When is his next meeting with Kirill? What common projects do you have with the Church of Russia and what difficulties?
«The meeting with Kirill is on the horizon. I think next week Hilarion will come to me to arrange a possible meeting. The patriarch has to travel and I am willing to go to Moscow to meet him. There are no protocols to dialogue with a brother, call Kirill or Chrysostom or Hieronymus. We are brothers and we say things to each other. It is also nice to see the brothers arguing because they belong to the same mother church. We must work in unity and for unity. The great Orthodox theologian Zizioulas said that we will find unity in the eschaton… It is a way of saying but it does not mean that we have to sit still waiting for the theologians to come to an agreement. Let the theologians continue to study, but in the meantime we go forward together, we pray together, we do charity together ».
In France, the independent commission on abuses spoke of institutional responsibility of the Church, of a systemic dimension. What is your opinion of this statement? What does it mean for the universal Church?
“When doing these studies, we have to be careful of interpretations. When you consider such a long time, you risk confusing the way people feel about a problem. A historical situation must be interpreted with hermeneutics of the time, not of now. For example slavery, today we say it is brutality but once there was another hermeneutic. So the covers. I have not read the report but I have listened to the comments of the bishops, now they will come to Rome and I will ask them to explain it to me ».
Why did you accept the resignation of the archbishop of Paris Aupetit?
«You ask me: what has he done so serious that he has to resign? He does not know? Before answering I will say: do an investigation. Was he convicted? And who condemned him? Public opinion. If you know why, say so. It was his lack, against the sixth commandment, but not total. The little caresses, the massages he gave the secretary, that’s the way it is. And this is a sin, but it is not a serious sin. The sins of the flesh are not the most serious. The most serious are those who have more angelicality: pride, hatred. Thus Aupetit is a sinner as I am, as was Peter the bishop on whom Jesus founded the Church and who had denied him. Why had the community of the time accepted a sinful bishop? It was a normal Church, in which we were used to all feeling sinful, humble. We see that our Church is not used to having a sinful bishop, let’s pretend to say: my bishop is a saint … No, this red hat … we are all sinners. But when the chatter grows, grows, grows and takes away the fame of a person, no, he will not be able to govern because he has lost his fame not for his sin, which is sin – like Peter’s, like mine like yours – but for the chatter of people. This is why I accepted the resignation, not on the altar of truth but on the altar of hypocrisy ».