-
- Monseigneur Laurent Ulrich
Photo : Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
Can you be an archbishop and lie? Clearly, yes, as Archbishop Laurent Ulrich has just demonstrated in an interview given to the newspaper Paris Notre-Dame, which distributes the good word of... the diocese of Paris, i.e. Archbishop Ulrich.
The interview deals with the question of Viollet-le-Duc’s stained glass windows. And we can see that it is indeed the voice of his master, because the question itself is already the answer: ‘Notre-Dame has given rise to its share of controversy; a lot of false information is circulating about what the stained glass windows are going to look like, about your alleged refusal to see the crown of light return... What is your answer?’.
We’ll come back a little later to the crown of light and the ‘alleged refusal’. What is the ‘false information about what the stained glass windows are going to look like’ about? Certainly not what the opponents of this project, who have already signed the petition en masse, are denouncing. Because we haven’t talked for a single moment about these contemporary stained glass windows - that’s not our subject. As we have already said, we are not opposed to contemporary stained glass windows in old buildings, but we are opposed to the removal of Viollet-le-Duc’s stained glass windows, which is a very different matter.
It’s true that grotesque images are circulating on social networks, mainly the work of conspiracy theorists or staunch opponents of the President of the Republic (Emmanuel Macron can sometimes be seen in grotesque positions in these so-called stained-glass windows), but no serious person can believe that these are the real plans (which, incidentally, we still don’t know). Those who want to discredit our well-reasoned and argued fight with the worst of Twitter are as dishonourable as those who disseminate these montages.
In his response, Archbishop Ulrich claims to have heard a lot of lies: ‘they would like to destroy the roses, the stained glass windows that are emblematic of the cathedral, such as the Tree of Jesse. This is completely false’. Yes, it is false, because what the archbishop is saying is also an enormous lie. Who says they want to destroy the rose windows? Who says they want to destroy the Tree of Jesse, which is not a rose window, but the only stained glass window by Viollet-le-Duc in the south chapels of the nave that will not be removed, and the only figurative one there?
Accusing one’s opponents of lying about something they have never said is a particularly detestable tactic, because some people might believe the person who says it. After all, he’s an archbishop, so he’s respectable...
Laurent Ulrich went on to point out that the chapels in the north and south aisles of the nave once had paintings ‘designed by Viollet-le-Duc’ that were erased sixty years ago by the State, which owns the cathedral.
In this respect, Archbishop Ulrich is right: these murals, designed by Viollet-le-Duc and created under his direction (and not just wanted by him), were destroyed by the historical monuments department at the time, a heritage crime by the very people who are supposed to protect heritage, even though these paintings were classified as historical monuments, which was carried out with the greatest indifference (and with the support of the clergy, who at the time only dreamt of removing all the decorations from churches) because Viollet-le-Duc was still little regarded, as was most of the 19th century.
Today, all the specialists (including those from the Ministry of Culture) regret and deplore the vandalism of the 1960s. And to see it as an excuse to complete the job by removing the stained glass windows is to take advantage of one’s own turpitude. Not only should the stained glass windows, which are classified as historic monuments, be preserved, but one day we will have to consider the advisability (we are obviously in favour of this) of reconstructing the decorations imagined by Viollet-le-Duc, which an abundance of documentation (drawings, cartoons, photos, etc.) would make it easy to reconstruct, since they are purely decorative motifs, just as the destroyed spire was reconstructed.
‘As for the crown of light,’ adds Archbishop Ulrich, “when it was removed from Notre-Dame twenty years ago and assigned to the choir of the Basilica of Saint-Denis ten years ago, [...] it was a firm decision: there was no further question of its return to Notre-Dame”. This is still not true. The authorisation to move it to Saint-Denis in 2014 clearly states, in article 2 of the three articles of this text, that: ‘In the event of the deposit ceasing at the request of the affectionate clergy or the State, the crown of light will be moved and redeposited in the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris’. Well aware of the anomaly represented by this move, the Ministry left the door open to a return to its original building, so this was not a firm decision. We refer you to our article published on this subject which amply demonstrates that this return was indeed envisaged and moreover proposed by the chief architect of historic monuments, but refused by the diocese (and therefore by Archbishop Ulrich) with the complicity of the public establishment. This refusal is not ‘alleged’, it is real. It would also be easy to find out what the experts’ opinion is on this subject, by letting the Commission nationale du patrimoine et de l’architecture say whether or not it validates this return, which the ministry has been careful not to do.
A reading of Paris Notre-Dame is sometimes interesting: it reminds us (see this interview with Father Matthieu Villemot) that ‘the lie is contrary to the message of the Gospel’ and that it is an ‘attack on human dignity and fraternity’. It is therefore a sin, even if it is not mortal, and it is sad to see an archbishop indulging in it. In the meantime, if you want to remind him of his duties, you can always sign the petition, which now exceeds 230,000 signatures.