A detail gives the measure of this post: Mr. Sauvé is – or was, one should say – a member of the Academy.
The Catholic Academy of France
According to its own presentation, this Academy was born to promote “the intellectual production attached to Christianity, to Catholicism in particular”, and to create a place for it in the public space.
After preparation, the Academy was incorporated and received its name on October 13, 2008. It is based on two “pillars”: to federate, that is to say “to bring together the institutions and people who wish it, whose production testifies to an attachment to the intellectual tradition of Catholicism as well as to its updating ”; to found “an Academic Body, animated by an Academic Council, a sort of“ committee of wise men ”made up of personalities from different disciplines.
By “Academy” is meant: “the illustration and improvement of sciences, arts and letters”. The motto of the institution is from Saint Augustine: “One only enters into truth through charity.
This Corps has set itself three missions: 1) To represent disciplinary excellence in a body of Catholic conviction; 2) Advance reflection on selected intellectual or social themes; 3) Intervene within the framework of occasional meetings with the cultural media.
The Academy, until recently, had: 94 individual members, 20 institutional members, 64 members of the Academic Body.
Critique of the CIASE report
A 15-page document, signed by eight members of the Academy, including the president, the two vice-presidents and the secretary general, was sent to the president of the Episcopal Conference of France, Mgr. Erice de Moulins-Beaufort, as well as to the apostolic nuncio in France, Mr. Celestino Migliore.
This is a documented critique of the Sauvé report, centered on “the factual and statistical dimension”, that is to say the question of the figures put forward; on “the theological and philosophical dimension”, that is to say on the explanations put forward by the report as to the bases of the abuses, considered as “systemic”; on “the legal and financial dimension”, which concerns the way in which the report applies responsibility.
The first part notes the improbability of the figures, in particular as regards the number of victims per culprit. She also recalls that a study on the subject, carried out by the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, at the request of the CIASE, found an extrapolated figure of 24,000 victims.
This study was purely and simply discarded in favor of the statistical method of surveys, with the result that we know.
The authors do not hesitate to write: “The spirit which presides over the analysis of the causes and the formulation of recommendations seems a priori ideological. Heavy accusation between intellectuals.
The second part is the weakest. In the analysis of the causes, the authors seek to show that the report rests on “an imperfect ecclesiology, a weak exegesis and an outdated moral theology”.
But unfortunately the authors themselves rely on more or less erroneous elements of modern theology, in particular of Vatican II. And, in fact, they accuse an outdated moral theology, because it is too fixed on natural law.
Now, Benedict XVI – quoted in the previous article – notes on this subject a post-conciliar “collapse” of moral theology and of the Church’s teaching in moral matters, the fruit of a veritable revolution, born of the conscious disregard for natural law.
As for contesting with the bishops the fullness of power in the Church – which also implicitly targets the Bishop of Rome for whom the same power applies to the whole Church – this is a blatant modern error.
On the other hand, the third part is a legal precision which indicates a certain control. This is the most interesting part. It shows that, in the appreciation of the responsibilities of the various actors, in the search for a solution of financing by solidarity, as well as in the accountability of the facts, the report of the CIASE is deeply inaccurate, even erroneous.
A notice clearly specifies that this text is not a declaration of the Academy, and that it engages only the responsibility of its authors. But this precaution was not enough.
According to some newspapers, several members of the Academy have resigned, including Mgr. de Moulins-Beaufort and Sr Véronique Margron, Superior of the Conference of Religious of France (COREFF). As well as Mr. Sauvé. The Academy confined itself to recognizing that “5 members out of 200 have just resigned as a result of this text”.