Although the »Synod on Synodality« is undoubtedly the greatest event of the universal Church since the Second Vatican Council, only a few may follow it without doubts. From the word »synod« to the contradictions of its participants, countless ambiguities overshadow the key questions that the Church faces on its »walk in communion.« That is why the possibility that those questions could be clarified for the readers of the Glas Koncila by the one who watches over the entire Synod – its general relator, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich – brought us joy. In the conversation we had during his recent stay in Split, one of the nine advisors of Pope Francis shared with us without hesitation his view of the German synodal way but also commented on the challenges of the Church in Croatia, such as the fight against abortion and the crisis of masculinity. At the same time, the archbishop of Luxembourg did not hesitate to clarify the controversial statements with which he had previously commented on the Church’s teaching on the ordination of women and homosexual persons.
Your Eminence, Pope Francis recently appointed you to the Council of Cardinals. How do you see this choice and the role of the Council in the Pope’s deliberation?
News of the nomination caught me at the synodal assembly in Ethiopia, and it left me astonished. I feel very honored to be among the people the Holy Father wants to ask for counsel, but these are not people who get more influence in the Church. We may give counsel to the Pope, yet in the end, he will do as he decides.
More and more Jesuits surround the first Jesuit Pope in the Vatican. What does such a presence of the spirituality of Saint Ignatius bring to the universal Church?
It surely makes discernment all the more prominent. But discernment is not solely Jesuitic. It may be called different names or stressed differently; still, there is discernment in all the spiritualities of the Church because it is the work of the Holy Spirit. This insistence on discernment means that the action of the Holy Spirit becomes more important in the Church, bringing us closer to our Orthodox brothers and sisters, among other things.
How is it so?
There is a continuous objection of the Orthodox Christians that we as Catholics are too Christocentric.
But is that not positive?
Of course, we should be centered on Christ. But, speaking to young priests and seminarians, one quickly notices that they learn a lot about the Trinity in theology, yet it has little impact on their spiritual life, unlike in the lives of our saints. The renewed consciousness that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be the distinctive mark of the Christian spirit today, especially in light of the great migrations of Muslim peoples to the West.
You mentioned the Holy Spirit many times in your homily opening the Continental Synod Assembly in Addis Ababa. The charismatic movement has also »popularized« speaking of his presence again. But how can we be certain of his »involvement« with the Synod?
It is the Holy Spirit who makes the charisma and the hierarchy come together – in the person of Peter’s successor. That is why I am sure if the Pope points in a direction, it is the direction the Church must take. And the Pope pointed in the synodal direction.
Isn’t the synodal way the very opposite of the Pope deciding something himself?
Synodality does not replace the ministry of Peter, and it does not replace the role of the bishops. Yet all of the baptized are sons and daughters of God; all of the baptized are adoptive brothers and sisters of Christ. Therefore, the Holy Spirit undoubtedly speaks through them. This is our discernment material, and we cannot abstract from it just because we may not like it. But we may take it even further. Sometimes even being wrong does indicate a lack of the Spirit.
Could you provide an example?
Francis Xavier, Ignatius of Loyola, and Peter Faber – all of the first companions of the Society of Jesus – vowed in Paris to poverty, chastity, and going to the Holy Land. If the Holy Land would prove unattainable, they vowed to go to Rome. It was impossible to go to the Holy Land at the time, so they went to Rome, and that is how the Society of Jesus was born. The desire they had was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it had a different scope. A long time is necessary for all the actions of the Spirit, for we do not understand them immediately.
The word you just used instead of the »faithful« – »baptized« – seems to us as no coincidence.
Yes, I do not just aim at Catholics, but at all of the baptized. In the Church, we have cherished a theology centered on communion, expressed especially in receiving communion in the Holy Eucharist. This eucharistic spirit is also why the first dimension of the Synod is communion. Yet baptism is the fundamental sacrament from which all of the sacraments proceed. This is what we mean when we confess in the Creed that we believe in one baptism; but this is a message one can easily read from our baptistries, such as the one in your cathedral in Split.
What does this baptismal perspective mean for the synodal way?
It means that the synod should make us feel incomplete: we must experience the painful separation from the rest of our baptized brothers and sisters. Therefore, at the beginning of the synodal assembly in Rome, we shall have a Taizé moment in which the Pope will be joined in prayer by the Patriarch of Constantinople and other Christian leaders. It is the first time a successor of Peter will ask other Christians to pray for the Synod of the Catholic Church.
The Pope himself recently called in his Angelus to pray to the Lord to »give us the strength to weep.« Drawing on these words, should we not strive for more than a »weeping« communion with other Christians? Is common prayer enough?
No, it is not enough. But praying together is what will give us the strong feeling that it is not enough; that we have to strive for unity. The Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity has done a wonderful job in this aspect. They have written many fundamental theological papers that show, for instance, that the question of justification is not a true impediment to our unity with the Protestants. We understand we agree, but it remains at a very high theological level. There are also other issues such as the eucharistic theology and the apostolic succession that render unity impossible at the moment. Yet we can build a lot on baptism.
In what way?
The recent pilgrimage of the Holy Father to South Sudan along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland confirmed the possibility of ecumenic action, of common service for justice and peace in the world. We should give the Holy Spirit time so he can make us understand how he leads the Church to bigger unity.
With the continental phase of the Synod drawing to an end, we wish to revisit the words you spoke ahead of the Continental Assembly of the Synod in Europe. »Christian Europe is a thing of the past,« you seem to have said that with a kind of joy…
Not because it is a thing of the past, but because I still detect the action of God in Europe today – this is what brings me joy.
Should we not fight for our Christian tradition in Europe?
It depends on what you understand by fighting. The Christian tradition of Europe is tremendous, and we must cherish it. But tradition is something that unfolds all the time. Pope Francis warns us that it is tradition that helps us to enculture faith in the new world. If we consider tradition as something of the past, we miss the present, and if we miss the present, we cannot prepare for the future. We cannot simply do politics of restoration of Catholic Europe. It will not work.
But what is left for us to do then?
We have to detect the presence of God in the world of today. When we discover God outside of the Church, we must rejoice: it means our tradition continues.
Yet our tradition in Croatia is still dominantly Catholic…
Compared to other European countries, Croatia is still a very Catholic country. But my homeland, Luxembourg, used to be similar to Ireland: it was not just Christian, but deeply Catholic. I knew Protestantism only from the history books because I had never met a protestant as a child. After the first lesson in our public school, we went to church for mass. Such things are unthinkable today in Luxembourg, as well as in Europe. It has evolved very quickly. In Croatia, you should recognize these examples as a warning to prepare for such a change. And it is in this preparation that you may discover new joy, especially in your youth and children.
Is not the change you are speaking of exactly the result of the Church forgoing its tradition?
No, the Church was always fighting against this. When I was a child, the priest in our parish more or less told the adults whom to vote for in the elections! Many people went against the Church because it was too dominant; it was seen as a dictatorship that wanted to enforce its positions on the whole society. Today, the Church and the state in Luxembourg are separated. The separation hurt the Church in some ways, but in other ways, it has done it well.
For example?
Today we have good relationships with the very political parties that hated the Church before. We do not agree on all the points, though.
And what about the negative consequences?
In Croatia, you still have a chance that a party calling itself Christian may be Christian. In Luxembourg, this is not the case anymore. The »Christian« parties are no more Christian than others, no matter the name. How can you be a Christian and favor the right to abortion? I cannot understand that.
The abortion issue is very prominent in Croatia as well. Despite the Christian majority, we still have a very permissive law on abortion, which proved to be a stepping stone for all parties in Croatia. We would love to hear a perspective on this from someone who – as a missionary – faced issues broader than the issues of western Europe. Speaking in Gospel terms, should the Church in the contemporary abortion debate think of itself as the »strong man« or the »good Samaritan«?
The Samaritan way has always been a priority for the Church. The Church Fathers interpreting the parable understood well that the good Samaritan is Christ himself. We are hurt in our way of life, and Christ takes care of our wounds. If we want to be Christ-like, we have to do the same. We must proclaim the Gospel, directly announcing Christ, dead and risen for us. Yet people will only understand if we become good Samaritans at service to the world. Otherwise, it is just a theory, and people do not believe in theories any more.
The Church teaches abortion is a great sin, but the practical fight against abortion is carried out mostly by the laity. Can a more decisive way of acting by the Church hierarchy contribute to eradicating abortion?
Abortion will not be stopped by the official positions of the Church. We have to be against abortion, but I would always foster timely counseling for the women so they can review their decision. Also, historical laws against abortion often went directly against women and not against their parents or partners who pushed them toward abortion. We have to be just towards women, and we must make sure people understand that the Church is pro-life in the true sense of the word. We are pro-life: we care for unborn babies. We are pro-life: we care for the people living in poverty. We are pro-life: we care for the disabled, sick, and dying. We are pro-life: we care for the dignified life of people who no longer seem useful to society. If the Church appears to isolate the abortion issue, it will hurt its position, which in the end favors only abortion.
Speaking of isolating issues in the Church, the German synodal way immediately comes to mind. Has the German case turned us away from looking at the true meaning of the synod? Walking together in a single faith seems to have turned into sitting and talking about singular beliefs…
Sitting and talking only make a synod when the talking is about the journey. Otherwise, it becomes a war of concepts. The Pope has two main criticisms of the German synodal way. The first one is that it does not grow from the grassroots upwards. Instead, you have Catholics in associations that resemble trade unions. That differs vastly from the vision of the people of God, especially from the one the Holy Father experienced in South America. The second objection is that there is no emergence of a mission. The Church in Germany is occupied with itself and its structures. That is not a Church serving the world, but itself, giving little space to the Holy Spirit. And you know what Pope Francis says about the Pentecost…
What do you aim at?
The Pentecost seemed like a big mess; people even thought the apostles were drunk! It is only afterward that harmony was established. The Holy Spirit sometimes generates great confusion to bring new harmony. But harmony is lacking in Germany. There is a confrontation between a minority and a majority among the bishops, without the willingness to compromise. There must never be a triumphant majority and a wounded minority in a synod.
You mentioned Pentecost as the archetype of the synodal Church. At the conclusion of the Asian Continental Synodal Assembly, you even said that the synodal view of the creation of man is that God created humanity rather than a man and a woman. Yet the second time something like Pentecost happens, it happens to a family – the family of the centurion Cornelius. Can we separate the good of the family and the good of humanity?
No. I love family, but I am concerned with individualism. In the West, we have a very personalistic interpretation of creation. It is correct, but with Europe becoming more individualistic, a mere personalistic interpretation can become a bit narrow: just God and me. God did not just create me, he created us. Pentecost shows us that God aimed for something more than a family or a people. This need for a broader view is especially evident in Asia, even in the way they did their continental assembly. When there was an amendment, people from different countries would sit at a table, and the whole table would have to agree. That would never work in Europe. Asia has a Christian culture distinct from Europe, and it opens our eyes to understand that our way of seeing things is not the only one. It would be stupid to think so.
Your appointment to the Council of Cardinals, your role in the Synod, your cardinalate… You seem to be a person of the Pope’s trust. Yet it is no secret that many Catholics have trouble trusting the direction in which the Pope leads the Church – to say the least. Can we be faithful to the Church without trusting its shepherd?
It is very difficult to be Catholic without obedience to the Pope. Some very conservative people always preached obedience to the Pope – as long as the Pope said the things they wanted to hear. The Pope says things that are difficult for me too, but I see them as a chance for conversion, for becoming a more faithful and happier Christian.
You have recently been elected again as president of the Coetus Internationalis Ministrantium, the international association for altar servers. Recently you called altar servers »special witnesses of Christ.« Are they not special witnesses of abuse as well?
Sexual abuse is terrible; moreover, it is devilish. Altar servants look to priests as the men of God: they have complete trust in them. This is why the Church must have the highest standard in protecting against abuse: the man the children considered the man of God abuses them, haunts them, and uses them as an object of his lust. It could not be more wrong. It is the complete overturn of all the values we preach. We have to acknowledge and atone for it, but also show everyone a different Church where such things are impossible.
Speaking of abuse in a recent interview for La Croix, you said that »a female presence would have avoided many problems.« Where do you see a female presence lacking in the Church?
I was pointing out that if there is a sexual predator in the Church, women will spot him quicker than men. A society devoid of women is not healthy. Men get accustomed to it and develop certain negative attitudes toward women. That is clericalism. Jesus never told jokes about women. Women felt loved by him – that is why they followed him wherever he went. Women must feel welcome in the Church, not just in preparing meals and cleaning churches, but also in making decisions and taking responsibility. By that, I do not mean priesthood.
What is it that you mean then?
In my diocese, a woman is in charge of all the formation, and she does it wonderfully. I entrusted her to preach for the pilgrims to our cathedral as well, in complete accordance with the canon law because it was outside of mass. I have apostolic delegates who are all women. If we cannot be at ease with women in society or the Church alike, there is something wrong with us.
Still, churches in Croatia are filled mostly by women. The global Church statistics published recently in the L’Osservatore Romano also show a decade-long decline in seminarian vocations. Is this not the result of an »effeminate« spirituality in the Church?
Boys and men disappear in every system that disregards differences in psychology. For instance, boys and girls progress in education in different ways: girls learn steadily, so the test system works well for them, while boys mostly get the shorter end of it. Looking at the Church, if most of our catechists are women, they will catechize in a feminine way, which will estrange some of the boys. If it is too soft, they will not like it. We have disregarded these differences, and in that sense, have become very feminized.
Every first Saturday for the last few months, men have been flocking to city squares all over Croatia to pray the rosary, causing monthly media turbulence. What is your view on this phenomenon?
It shows that men still want to do something heroic. But it also shows a lack of place for men in the Church. The priests today are mostly surrounded by women. In the small town from which I come there used to be sodalities that organized confession days and communion days for men because they rarely went to communion due to sexual sin. That is the past, but we still have to give men opportunities today to get muddy from working inside the Church.
Speaking of women and men in the Church, we cannot help but address the tumult you caused by saying in an interview for the KNA that you are »open« to the idea of ordaining women. Is this attitude not in stark contrast with Church teaching?
Pope Francis does not want the ordination of women, and I am completely obedient to that. But people continue to discuss it. I am not a promoter of the ordination of women; I am a promoter of giving women more pastoral responsibility. And if we achieve that, then we can perhaps see if there still is a desire among women for ordination. But for such a huge change, we should have to seek the consent of the Orthodox Church. We could never do that if it would jeopardize our fraternity with the Orthodox or if it would polarize the unity of our Church. Love is not something abstract; it is the love for our sisters and brothers that prevents us from doing things that would alienate them.
You present the ordination of women as purely a matter of prudential judgment.
It is the Holy Father who has to decide about it.
But can he decide against what Saint John Paul II wrote in »Ordinatio sacerdotalis«?
With time, yes.
Is this not infallible teaching?
I am not sure you could call it so; probably not. Infallible would be, for instance, the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII.
We are pressing this because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published two documents clarifying that »Ordinatio sacerdotalis« was infallible teaching.
The »Syllabus errorum« of Pius IX had a similar claim to infallibility. But if you look at the Syllabus, you will see Pius IX condemned many things which are now common practice in the Church.
We cannot simply do politics of restoration of Catholic Europe. It will not work. We have to detect the presence of God in the world of today. When we discover God outside of the Church, we must rejoice: it means our tradition continuesFor example?
Dialogue of religions, freedom of religion, human rights… Pius IX saw these ideas as very sinful and against revelation.
And you think it is the same with the impossibility of ordaining women?
It surely is a true teaching for its time, and we cannot just push it aside. But I think that there might be some space to expand the teaching – to see which of the arguments of Pope John Paull II could be developed. But for the moment, if Pope Francis tells me it is not an option, it is not an option.
If it is so, how can we ever certainly know if a Pope is right in his teaching?
There is no way you can strictly go against the Pope’s teaching, yet sometimes there is a development in thought which can lead to different conclusions. But if I were the one to jump to those conclusions, it would be preposterous. It is the whole Church together with Peter that must acknowledge there was a development.
Did you have a similar development in mind when you told the »L’Osservatore Romano« that the church teaching on homosexuality is »false«?
When Church teaching was made, the term homosexuality did not even exist. Homosexuality is a new word; even in the time of Saint Paul people had no idea that there might be men and women attracted to the same sex.
What about Paul’s numerous rebukes of sodomy?
Sodomy was seen as something merely orgiastic at the time, typical of married people who entertained slaves for personal lust. But how can you condemn people who cannot love except the same sex? For some of them it is possible to be chaste, but calling others to chastity seems like speaking Egyptian to them.
Does that annul their calling to chastity?
We can only charge people with moral conduct they can bear in their world. If we ask impossible things of them, we will put them off. If we say everything they do is intrinsically wrong, it is like saying their life has no value. Many young people came to me as a father and spoke to me about being homosexual. And what does a father do? Does he throw them out or embrace them unconditionally?
Are those two the only options?
No, but homosexual people must feel welcome in our house. Otherwise, they will go away. The Pope said something crucial about this topic. I paraphrase him: surely, homosexuality is a sin – like all sex outside of marriage is a sin.
But the Catholic tradition treats homosexual behavior more harshly than it treats fornication.
You are speaking of the Catholic treatment of sodomy.
You are saying we cannot equate sodomy with homosexuality?
Sodomy is also present among married men and women.
But the Church condemns it all the same following the natural moral law. Pardon our analogy, but is it not wrong to tell someone who inclines to steal not to steal too much? Should we not just say: »You shall not steal?«
Yes, of course, we should. But a person with a tendency to steal can manage without stealing. A homosexual person will always love people of the same sex. We should not reduce homosexuality to inordinate sexual relations. That is a very crude way of understanding a human person. When Jesus meets somebody like Zacchaeus, he does not say: »You have to change your life, my boy, and then, perhaps, if you do penance, I might consider visiting you.« No; his look on such a person puts them at ease and makes them feel accepted. Then Jesus goes to their house, and only then do they change. I do not exclude change, but it comes after meeting Jesus.
It seems to us that you are calling into question the Church’s practice towards homosexuals more than her teaching.
I find the part of the teaching calling homosexuality »intrinsically disordered« a bit dubious. Still, we have to accept all the people and make them feel the love of God. If they feel it, I am sure it will change something in their heart.
