John Paul II twenty years later, what inheritance?

What does John Paul II still represent today?

Charles Mercier : For those who knew him, he remains the pope who fought against communism. One of his big audacity was work in favor of interreligious dialogue, notably Judeo-Christian. He resulted almost the whole Catholic Church in this relationship, he posed concrete acts, moreover taken up by the French episcopate. So much so that Judeo-Christianism, an expression that would have made the Catholics jump intransigent in the years 1920-1930, is today assumed and integrated. Christianity and Judaism are now perceived as close.

For new generations, however, it is not much. At the time of his beatification and then his canonization in 2014, his figure was of course highlighted. But the revelations on sexual abuses released in 2018 led to a critical return on certain aspects of his pontificate, in particular the lack of subsidiarity in his way of governing. Today, I’m not sure that a scout group would be baptized by its name. The devotion to John Paul II has not disappeared, but it is no longer a rallying figure as ten years ago.

So it arouses a certain polarization?

CM: The gaze on him is both admiring and circumspect, and wonders about the place of charism in the church. John Paul II magnetized the crowds, while always referring this aura to Christ. But the time of synodality that we cross encourages caution in the face of charismatic figures. The life of John Paul II is therefore dated in a broader setting: he is a man among others, always a source of inspiration for some, and reason for distrust for others.

However, the faithful do not argue around his face. The cleavage of sensitivities, when he spoke, was articulated around the figures of François and Benoit XVI.

Where does this distrust of it come from?

CM: His pontificate was a moment of refocusing, or even a slight return to what Vatican II had opened, in particular the promise of a co-responsibility between Synod of Bishops and Pope. In the early 1980s, the Vatican limited the skills of intermediate bodies – episcopal conferences – to make them exchange and coordination spaces, without decision -making power. The pyramidal character of the church is reaffirmed.

It is undoubtedly one of its weaknesses: John Paul II has not gave itself enough to the discernment of the intermediate bodies, in particular with regard to the founders of new problems. Subsidiarity has failed, causing failures. His desire to instill a new spirit for a church in crisis may have been at the expense of rules of prudence.

François was created Cardinal by Jean-Paul II. What do they have in common, and what distinguishes them?

CM: François was elected in 2013 in part to initiate a new cycle after the duo Jean-Paul II-Benoît XVI. He kept the journeys of John Paul II, but decentressing them to the outskirts. Like him, it is a pastoral pope, who feels expectations and adapts his speeches to concrete situations. Nevertheless, he uses his charisma in a more measured way. Above all, François sought to restore room to synodality, and starting more baptized.

In short, the assessment of John Paul II is contrasting?

CM: We are twenty years after his death. For any historical figure, this is the moment of the inventory. Ten years ago, he was still a revered figure. Today, the abuse crisis may create a perception bias. In ten years, the balance sheet will undoubtedly be more balanced.