-
- Monseigneur Ulrich/Emmanuel Macron
Photos : Pierre André (CC BY-SA 4.0) et
France Diplomatie - MEAE (CC0 1.0) - See the image in its page
In view of the success of the petition for the conservation of Viollet-le-Duc’s stained glass windows, which has risen sharply in recent days and will certainly reach 200,000 signatories before long, a little music is being played in defence of the French President of the Republic, who claims that he has little or nothing to do with this affair, and that the real culprit is Mgr Ulrich.
Of course, Mgr Ulrich and, more generally, the Diocese of Paris bear some responsibility. The Church of France, which in the 1960s and 1970s was responsible for the greatest religious vandalism since the French Revolution, following the Second Vatican Council, has not yet recovered from this detestation of its heritage. In fact, it can be said that it is experiencing a revival. Mgr Lustiger had already begun to vandalise Viollet-le-Duc’s work, notably by having the choir enclosure and the crown of lights removed (see article). We will soon come back to the countless attacks that the cathedral has already suffered with the complicity of the State since at least 1960.
But in this case, as we are dealing with a classified monument belonging to the State, and stained glass windows that are by their very nature "immovable by destination", their replacement is in no way a matter for the decision maker, i.e. the diocese.
The Ministry of Culture alone has the power to authorise or prohibit the replacement of stained glass windows in listed religious buildings belonging to the State. In fact, the Ministry has consistently opposed the archbishops’ attempts to do so. Mgr Aupetit also tried, just after the fire, to have contemporary stained glass windows installed in place of those by Viollet-le-Duc, but the Ministry of Culture immediately and unambiguously opposed this (see news item of 24/11/20). Needless to say, the "continuity of the State", a principle that up until now meant something, has been dealt a blow because Emmanuel Macron does not apply it to himself. It’s the famous "at the same time" principle.
While the diocese has long wanted these contemporary stained glass windows, Emmanuel Macron is the one who decided to go back on them, no doubt frustrated at not having been able to impose aa spire that would have "carried the mark of our time", in the famous words of his Prime Minister Édouard Philippe (see article).
We wrote about it here: it was indeed he who revived the idea, sending the archbishop his wish that the latter should send him a letter (see article) to make such a request again, so as not to appear to be the driving force behind the affair.
Of course, Mgr Ulrich complied, only too happy to finally find a sympathetic ear from the Élysée Palace. We’re talking about the Élysée Palace, because the Ministry of Culture, i.e. the civil servants in charge of protecting heritage, are dead set against the idea, with the exception of Minister Rachida Dati, not out of conviction but out of a desire to please the President.
The civil servants’ reports to the National Commission for Heritage and Architecture (CNPA) were all unfavourable, and the civil servants on this commission, who had been ordered to vote yes, preferred, thanks to the authorisation of the ’directeur des patrimoines’, not to take part in the vote so as not to disobey or vote against their opinion (see the news item of 11/7/24 with the subtitle: "The facts".
Yes, these are facts. Facts that have been abused by all the protagonists in this farce. Fact: the diocese is delighted. Fact: this is commissioned by the government. Fact: the only decision-maker and driving force in this affair is the President of the Republic.
Of course, the Archbishop of Paris could quite easily object. His opinion is advisory, like that of the CNPA, but it would undoubtedly carry more weight. He did not do so because he wanted the vandalism to take place.
The President’s defenders (including Marlène Schiappa in this debate on BFMTV) claim that he had nothing to do with it, that it was the diocese’s choice. On the contrary, the diocese claims that it was commissioned by the state. Don’t blame me, blame him! In reality, they are both responsible, but the real culprit is Emmanuel Macron.