The French renegade

In France the Church and politics debate has focussed of late on the small north western town of Evreux and its bishop. Peter Stanford reports
1T IS ALMOST a year now since junior industry minister, John Butcher, made his controversial outburst about clerics keeping out of politics for Lent.
The intervening months have coincided with the prolonged miners strike, and with several church efforts to reconcile two increasingly intransigent sides. The Bishop of Durham controversy continues to excite passions, even in the normally staid general synod of the Church of England.
Passion is not generally a' quality attributed to the British in their conduct of public affairs, but rather to their neighbours on the other side of the channel. In France the church and politics debate has focussed of late on the small north-western town of Evreux and its bishop.
Evreux, the departmental capital of Eure, has been a flourishing market town since, Gallo-Roman times, but has lately developed into more of a modern industrial centre, bringing a large influx of immigrant labour and for the first time a Communist 'noire.
Another new arrival has been Bishop Jacques Gaillot in the fifteenth century episcopal palace. Since his appointment two-and-a-half years ago, the bishop, in a series of spectacular public gestures has alienated a large section of his congregation, while at the same time winning the undying loyalty of many.
From the very start Bishop Gaillot with his untidy and academic appearance did not seem to live up to what the
town's bourgeoisie expected of him. Sermons calling for greater understanding of the immigrant community and its problems were not what the leading townspeople expected to hear in their splendid cathedral, with a nave dating back to the eleventh century and some of the finest rose windows in France.
The bishop's reputation as a "red" was confirmed in many eyes when he appeared in 1983 before a tribunal in defence of a local man who had refused to do his military service on grounds of conscience. In the same vein, Mgr Gaillot voted against the French bishops' text, Gagner la Paix, which put forward a case for nuclear deterrence.
Vexation turned to downright anger in some circles when, that Christmas, the bishop abandoned his cathedral on Christmas Day in favour of a public hall where he mixed with the down-and-outs, and then moved on to the psychiatric hospital and the local prison.
Such transgressions might have been forgotten by the proud bourgeoisie, many of whom found their new bishop personally charming. What turned sniping into open warfare was the bishop's attitude to the schools question which dominated French politics for much of the early part of 1984. When a massive demonstration was planned for Paris in June in defence of the rights and independence of private schools, the vast majority of which are Catholic, the Bishop of Evreux warned from his pulpit of the "very politicised" character of the protest, adding that he regretted that "the Church is associated with this political manoeuvring which is alien to its liberty".
The words of a man who wished to keep out of politics, it might be thought. But on January 15 in Le Monde there appeared an "appeal for liberty". It's purpose was to give support to teachers in private Catholic schools, who although paid by the state arc technically employees of the schools themselves, and, as much, enjoyed none of the benefits of state allowances. The proposed school law would change this situation, and indeed it was this very proposal which became the major stumbling bloc with the Catholic schools vehemently opposing a move which they thought would remove their control over their staff.
Into this turbulent situation came the Le Monde advertisement denouncing the "pressures, sanctions and arbitary transfers" meeted out to teachers in private schools. '[he signators included Georges Marchais, secretary-general of the Communist party and Bishop Gaillot.
The Catholics of Evreux were up in arms and their discontent was soon reflected in the press. Le Figaro carried a piece denouncing the "dissident bishop", setting the tone for the debate. Was Bishop Gaillot an out-and-out socialist as his critics in Evreux contended, or was he just a sheep who lost his way and ended up amid a pack of wolves, as one local editor suggested. Throughout the dispute the French bishops have remained ominously silent.
The besieged bishop rejects both views of himself, and defends his decision to intervene on certain subjects. "In each of my interjections, I was thinking of non-believers who would not have been touched by a church message" he said recently. "The only way to address a wide audience is by means of the media".
He denies totally the image of himself as a "red" bishop. "1 am not systematically of the left, and I have intervened to register my concern at events in Poland and Afghanistan". Yet he is unrepentant at exciting and upsetting the good citizens of Evreux, "One must recognise that the Church has all too often seemed tied to the right in politics. Christ was not neutral". As to the fuss over his intervention in the schools war, it was in defence of liberty that he spoke, the liberty of teachers.
Meanwhile tempers have cooled somewhat in Fvreux. The dropping of controversial government plans to restructure private schools has contributed significantly, but the bishop does not intend to step down, and his large postbag has encouraged him nOt to. "Freedom of conscience by and for all" will be his watchword.