Interview by vice-rector Prof. Dr.-Ing. Anke Kahl (K:) with the Pope researcher and first holder of the "Dr Jörg Mittelsten Scheid Guest Professorship", Professor Dr Dr. Dr. h.c. Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (B:), in the chapel at Burg Castle on 12 July 2017.

K: Dear Mr Paravicini Bagliani. We are delighted that you are the first holder of the Dr Jörg Mittelsten Scheid Visiting Professorship at the University of Wuppertal. You have been working at our university in the School of Humanities and Cultural Studies since April of this year. What is your experience of the people here?

B: First of all, I would like to say that I feel very honoured to have been awarded this visiting professorship. I have also spoken at length with Dr Jörg Mittelsten Scheid, whom I have met several times, about my research and above all about what I want to do here in Wuppertal.

I can only answer your question like this: the atmosphere at the university, in the buildings, in the dining hall, in the pub, is very pleasant. I also met my colleagues at the very beginning at the Luther Conference and made contacts. The whole group around Professor Jochen Johrendt, the medievalist here in Wuppertal, is great and I particularly enjoy being able to discuss many topics of papal history with all his doctoral students, and also to talk about the publication of essays, etc.

K: You speak German impressively well. Where did you learn that?

B: When I was young, I spent five years at a Swiss boarding school until I finished school. My father wanted me to study in German. In the meantime, I have also learnt other languages. I lectured in French and I also speak French with my children, as this is the language of their unmarried mother. I'm Italian myself, so these different languages are with me every day, which is why I can talk to you in German.

K: After your habilitation, you worked for several years as a scriptor in the Vatican Library, a place that is certainly the envy of many academics. What exactly did you do there?

B: Scriptor is an old title that comes from the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, scriptors were the people who wrote the popes' letters on parchment. In the Renaissance, a scriptor was someone who wrote manuscripts and in the late 19th century, when the Vatican Library also became a modern research centre, the title scriptor was given to those who took care of the library's manuscripts scientifically: cataloguing, studying, analysing, etc. The Vatican Library is one of the most important research centres in the world.

The Vatican Library is one of the largest libraries holding manuscripts. Certainly not the largest in terms of quantity, but not the smallest in terms of quality either. It holds around 100,000 manuscripts, which are very important for the Renaissance period and certain periods of the Middle Ages, and also represent all the world's languages. My job was to catalogue manuscript funds scientifically. And then there was an(laughs) unwritten duty to help the scholars from all over the world - including Germany - who came every day and to make contacts. That was a very interesting task, which is not written in any statutes, but took up a lot of time. You could help a lot and also make discoveries. I remember finding a whole pile of letters from Cardinal Mazarin** and immediately gave them to a great connoisseur of Mazarin who happened to be in the library. Another time I found a letter written by a certain Michelangelo. Of course, my heart was pounding, but the author of the letter was not Michelangelo himself, but his nephew, who wrote to a cardinal of the Barberini family in the year of Michelangelo's death to tell him that he wanted to publish his uncle's sonnets.

So it was possible to help many people, including young researchers who came from America, Canada and further afield and needed information. The Vatican Library is a big world and it's not always easy to find your way around.

K: So the library is open to everyone, including young researchers? People always think that the Vatican City is closed, but what you say sounds very cosmopolitan for scientists working on this subject.

B: The Vaticana as an institution was founded in 1475 as an open library. It was one of the first in this respect, together with the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence and the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice. It was an open library from the very beginning, and it has remained so. Of course, open in the 15th century meant 'open to humanists', not 'open to everyone'. Today, anyone who can prove that they are engaged in academic research can study there. Denominational affiliation plays no role. You don't have to be Catholic to study at the Vaticana!

K: You were a professor of medieval history at the University of Lausanne until you retired. How did a recognised Pope researcher come to Wuppertal of all places?

B: Because there are several groups in Germany that specialise in papal history at a high level. And there is such a group here in Wuppertal, one of the most active. When Professor Johrendt talked to me about it, I accepted immediately, because I already knew some of his doctoral students and knew that something interesting was happening here. That's why I accepted.

K: You have already mentioned the scientists at our university. What is your impression of our students in this field? Are they open to your topics?

B: Yes, well, I have more to do with doctoral students than with young students, but here in Wuppertal you find a university that is based on solid work, on open discussion. But I wasn't surprised either, because I know a bit about the quality of German universities.

K: You are an expert in papal research, an academic field with an almost endless range. Has your work changed your personal relationship with the Catholic Church over the years?

B: I must perhaps first define how I have pursued papal history. Like many German papal historians of the 19th and 20th centuries who were Protestants, I am fascinated by this field of research. However, this fascination does not stem from religious reasons. It comes from the fact that the papacy is an institution that has lasted for around two thousand years. And the question that occupies many historians of papal history is to understand how this institution has developed. With all kinds of methods and research directions. For me as a historian, the papacy in its centuries-long history is interesting as an institution, without my private view of things being able to play a role.

To give an example: I recently wrote a book about animals and the papacy ("Il Bestiario del Papa", Turin, Einaudi, 2016) and also gave a lecture about it at the University of Wuppertal***. I wanted to understand whether and how animals helped to construct papal authority, or how animals were used to delegitimise the authority of the papacy. What Martin Luther did with the figure of the papacy, for example. These are questions that interest me and over a long period of time, because there is no other institution in the world today that has existed for so many centuries.

K: You have already mentioned the development of this institution "papacy". In your opinion, is the papacy still relevant in a digital, constantly changing world? Does it still have any meaning?

B: It's a good, interesting question that can and should be asked for all time. I would say that the papacy has always changed, but always within a continuity, a tradition. It has survived the centuries with continuity and flexibility. The papacy of the last century is very, very far removed from the papacy of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. Today's pope is a homo spiritualis, he no longer has political-territorial power. That is the first answer.

The second answer is that the papacy has been thinking universally, globally, since the first centuries of its history, because the papacy is basically the heir to the Roman Empire. And the Roman Empire thought globally.

So: we are in a time of globalisation; the papacy has been able to constantly modernise itself, if you look at it over the long term, good or bad it remains to be seen, but structurally the papacy is an institution that is familiar with "globalisation". Whether for religious reasons the papacy or Christianity - more Christianity than the papacy - will survive, that is a completely different question.

K: Mr Paravicini, you wrote the book "The Body of the Pope". In your opinion, why is this body still not allowed to be autopsied today?

B: The history of embalming and the opening of the body since the Middle Ages is well documented in the sources for the papacy. Of course, this also applies to other rulers, but for the popes, the documentation is very extensive. In certain periods, for example in the Renaissance, people always wanted to open the popes' bodies to see whether they had been poisoned. There was almost a fashion, a fear that the popes - and not only the popes - had been poisoned. The bodies also had to be opened and the entrails - without going into detail - removed, because the time between death and burial was getting longer and longer. Until the thirteenth century, popes, like all bishops, were buried on the same day of death. This changed, also for the high aristocracy in Europe, in the 13th century. There was a major change. People wanted to expose the body of the dignitaries for a long time, to put it on display in the church for a long time. And the popes' funerals now officially lasted nine days, as they still do today. The model originates from ancient Rome and Byzantium. Of course, back then a corpse could not lie open for nine days, or even more than three to four days. But in order to exhibit a corpse for even a few days, it had to be embalmed.

What lies behind your question is also the fact that no autopsy was performed on John Paul I, who died after a short, one-month pontificate, i.e. before the pontificate of John Paul II. And this gave rise to many questions. Why? And also perhaps the legend - others say it's true - that he may have been poisoned. For me it's a legend. It's always like that. If a pope dies too soon, the thought immediately arises that he may have been poisoned. And that was also the case with John Paul I.

K: You have already mentioned several popes, church history knows 266. Has anyone ever refused to be elected pope?

B: You have to differentiate between the moments: When was it renounced? At the election or before the election? In the long history of the papacy, it is said of several cardinals that they did not want to become pope. Whether these stories are true or not is often very difficult to determine.

If a pope was elected, did he not accept? There are no certain cases. The new pope must - as required by the ritual still in force today - answer such a question and say whether he accepts the election.

And then there is a third moment, when he has accepted the election but later renounces the pontificate. The most famous case for us today is, of course, Benedict XVI. And before him, which was certainly also his role model, Coeelestin V, in 1294. He was the first pope who certainly abdicated voluntarily and after an in-depth canonical discussion. It is very interesting to compare the two abdications because they point to a difference. Coeelestin V was a monk, a hermit, who realised after six months that, according to the sources, he did not feel fit to be pope. However, after his "abdication", he wanted to remain dressed as pope, but the cardinals did not allow him to do so at the time. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, is still dressed as pope, at least with the white tunic. That is a big difference.

There are also other popes who have abdicated, but more or less had to abdicate. During the great schism in the 14th and 15th centuries, for example, when there were several popes.

So popes who did not accept the election are difficult to prove historically. There were several candidates who let it be known before the election that they would not accept it, although these are cases that are often difficult to analyse. In any case, it is part of the rhetoric of humilitas, of humility, that one does not want to become pope if the election is accepted.

K: Does that impress you or do you think it's right to resign when your body and mind can no longer fulfil this great task?

B: Between 1294 and Benedict XVI, no pope (apart from the abdications during the Great Schism, which were more or less negotiated) resigned voluntarily. What does that mean? It means that the papacy has been seen as a function that always lasts until the end of life, because the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. And the Vicar of Christ should not resign. Of course, this does not mean that a pope cannot abdicate, especially if he feels that he is no longer able to fulfil his high function. There will certainly be more cases in the future because society has changed, because lifespans are much longer.

There are popes, such as John XXIII or even medieval popes, who said: "We have died in Christ". This relationship between the Pope and Christ is very important and also has institutional implications.

K: We have already mentioned several popes. Which pope in the entire history of the Church fascinates you the most?

B: Well, when I look at the long history of the papacy, it is difficult to find a single pope. But at least I have an idea. I am fascinated by popes who have changed the world, whose pontificate coincides in some way with a new world. This is Gregory the Great, the pope around 600 A.D. He accompanied the change from antiquity to the Middle Ages. He was the first pope to use the word Europe in geopolitical terms. He was the pope who proselytised England. He sent a monk, Augustine, the first Bishop of Canterbury. England was not yet Christian. He is also the pope who wrote the most. He really was a writer, an author. As pope, he wrote many works, he is certainly the medieval author who was copied the most. At the research institute that I direct in Florence (S.I.S.M.E.L), we are in the process of publishing the catalogue of Gregory the Great's manuscripts: there are around 9,000 of them. Gregory the Great had a classical education and introduced the new Middle Ages, so to speak, in his works. He was therefore a pope who changed the world. John XXIII also changed the Church with his Council. But the pope who fascinates me the most, because I know him better historically, is one of the popes who was certainly one of the most creative in the field of symbolism and self-expression. This is Boniface VIII, the pope of the first Jubilee of Christendom (1300), the pope who had a major conflict with the King of France, and so on. This is a pope who is historically very interesting. You can also study the body, the body of the pope. He is the first pope to have himself depicted in statues that fused the physical body of the pope with the person of the pope. He is the first pope to hold the keys of Peter in his hand. He is the first pope to bless like Christ. He is the first pope to wear a very high tiara on his head, symbolising Noah's Ark. In other words, creativity that knows no bounds. That was Boniface VIII, the last truly medieval pope.

K: So you could say that your scientific view of the popes, or of popes who particularly impress you, is different from a religious view of the popes.

B: It is very difficult to look at the popes only from a religious point of view. And that is also the reason why only one pope (Cölestin V) was canonised in the Middle Ages. Popes are certainly religious people, but they are also rulers. It is very difficult to determine religiosity - at least as far as the Middle Ages are concerned - but it is perhaps easier for the later periods, the sources are better.

We historians, especially the medievalists, tend to see the external. Perhaps less so in the case of Gregory the Great, because he wrote a lot of spiritual works. Innocent III was also an author, but his works are more in the direction of rule, authority and the primacy of Peter. In short: investigating the religiosity of dignitaries is a difficult endeavour from a historical point of view, especially for the Middle Ages. The sources are often inadequate.

K: One topic that interests me very much is the subject of celibacy. Celibacy was first laid down at the Synod of Elvira in 309 AD and is still staunchly defended today. In June 2014, Pope Francis extended the ancient right of bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches to allow married men to be ordained as priests to Western territories, provided that an Eastern Church hierarchy exists there. Could a modern pope abolish celibacy?

B: I don't think he can do it alone. It is difficult to define the pope's authority in this area. What can he do? What can he not do?

If I were to answer this specifically, I would say that the Pope alone does not have the right to decide on celibacy. Synods and councils would have to discuss it, even if in the end the decision is perhaps left to the Pope himself.

At the last synod on the family, which dealt with the question of whether divorced people, if remarried, should be allowed to go to the Eucharist, two synods in Rome discussed it and the Pope decided. I don't think any pope would decide such a big question as celibacy on his own. It also has to do with the conception of the church. The Catholic Church has been organised in this way for more than a millennium. From the 11th century onwards, celibacy became more and more of a reality, practically until today.

Changing the discipline of celibacy will perhaps require various stages, perhaps firstly the forgiveness of the priesthood to men who are already married. As far as the question of women is concerned, this is an even more difficult issue. Because of tradition! It's such a long tradition where so many different questions come together...

K: You mentioned women: And here I have a question that also interests me personally. Pope Joan. The Dominican monk Martin von Troppau first mentions this case in detail in his "Chronicle of the Popes and Emperors" in 1278. The sella stercorata (a chair without a seat), her depiction in the cathedral in Siena and the altered papal road (vicus papessa) are often cited as evidence of a woman in the highest priestly office. Myth? Legend? What do you think? Was there a woman in the Holy See?

B: Legend! And the proof that it is a legend comes paradoxically from Rome itself, because two centuries earlier, in the middle of the 11th century, a pope wrote to the Emperor of Constantinople: "Yes, yes, there was a patriarch in Constantinople who was a woman." Two centuries later, around 1250, a Dominican from Metz, John of Mailly, suddenly wrote about a woman who had become pope. This story then spread, particularly through the chronicle of Martin of Troppau.

(laughs) I once gave a lecture in Geneva about Pope Joan. At the end, a woman came up to me and said: "You did a very good job, but I will continue to believe that there was a Pope Joan of Arc."

Pope Joan of Arc is basically a variant of a hagiographic tradition that was particularly widespread in the Byzantine Empire. The story goes that a woman becomes a monk without the monks realising it and can even become an abbot. Only when she dies do the monks realise that she was a woman. Then there are two solutions. Either she is demonised because she should not have done so, because monks can only be men, at least in this context, or she is heroised, made holy, because she wanted perfection, like the monks.

There is another legend that was first described by a French Dominican friar towards the end of the 13th century, shortly after Martin of Troppau. This Dominican friar, Robert d'Uzès, wrote what was told again and again until the 16th century, namely that the elected pope had to sit in a chair so that his virility could be verified, i.e. to be sure that he was a man. But this is also a legend. All the authors who talk about it never say that they have seen it, they always say: "I have heard... they say ...etc.".

But this legend has a clear logic. It was created to say that there would be no second popes. We have only known that it is a legend since the 19th century. The first modern research on Pope Joan of Arc came from a German, Ignaz Döllinger (1863) in the midst of the Kulturkampf! People believed in her existence in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The Dominicans John of Mailly and Martin of Troppau also believed that there was a female pope. However, they spoke of this in order to make it clear that the succession of the popes should not be called into question.

Incidentally, the name Joan is not even in the first texts. It's like William Tell. There is no place, no name in the first texts. The more time passes and the more new texts are written, the more precise the time and the name become. And Johanna is not the only name. There are also texts that speak of a certain Agnes, there are texts that say she is from Mainz, others from England, which also proves that it is a legend.

Myths and legends are often more important than reality. William Tell is more important for Switzerland because it is a myth. Legends say essential things. In the case of Pope Joan, the legend says what the Pope does not have to be or should not be; and also that the papacy is not a dynasty (Pope Joan is exposed when she gives birth to a child).

K: You say that the legends also keep creating new legends, creating more details.

B: Legends create legends when they are necessary.
 

K: The topic of power. The Pope's dogma of infallibility, which was introduced at the First Vatican Council in 1870 and is still valid today, also confers power. Can you take this seriously as a modern Christian?

B: It is a very important issue. Firstly, only the dogma was decided in 1870, not the concept of infallibility. The concept itself is very old. The infallibility of the Pope has been theorised since the end of the 13th century. But also the other way round. Thomas Aquinas discussed for a long time whether the Pope is wrong when he canonises saints, for example. St Thomas says two very important things. The canonisation processes are something human, they are man-made and only God knows the inner being of man. St Thomas also gives a solution to the problem. He says that it is good(pie) to believe that the pope is not mistaken. So at the end of the Middle Ages, both questions were debated for a long time. Is the pope infallible or can he also be wrong? But after the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the pope is considered infallible in the canonisation process, although no one speaks of a dogma. The problem of infallibility is not just a problem of popes. Modern states are infallible. It is only in the last 20 to 30 years that states have begun to apologise. Switzerland, for example, has apologised for its policy towards gypsies during the Second World War. Chirac is the first French president to apologise, and his decision was discussed at length in France. Should a state apologise? If the state is not allowed to apologise, it is because it is considered infallible. The absolute king is infallible. So it's not just the Pope. The problem is the dogma of 1870, which was defined at a time when the papacy was very weak. It was the time of the Kulturkampf. The Council Fathers made an authoritarian decision in a weak time that makes us smile a little today and has no implications at all today. No pope needed this dogma. Nor do I believe that any pope would claim this dogma for himself. In any case, it is the result of a long history of sovereignty involving not only popes, but also kings and modern states.

K: It's very nice that you always draw these comparisons, I was just thinking about Willi Brandt's genuflection, which was also received with difficulty, this apology from the population. A large part was enthusiastic and another part was horrified.

B: The problem is why they didn't want to before. People used to say that the state must not apologise because it is infallible.

Apologies and rehabilitations are very common today. From Galileo to the last witch to be burnt in a Swiss canton (Anna Göldin, 1782). But it was not long ago that political communities began to apologise. And perhaps they need to do so even more.

K: The issue of guilt. We've just touched on that and you're probably familiar with the play "The Deputy" by Rolf Hochhuth. In it, the playwright deals with the role of the Pope in the Second World War. In your opinion, why did Pope Pius XII remain silent during the Second World War?

B: That's one of the most difficult questions because ... a historian can't analyse silence very well. It's difficult because historians always need texts. And unfortunately, it has to be said, it is not yet possible to analyse all the documentation, all the sources, all the texts that are in the Vatican. The pontificate of Pius XII has not yet been fully declassified. That's why it's so difficult. Perhaps there is a simple answer, which of course is not entirely satisfactory. Perhaps Pius XII - he was always well informed - kept silent, even about Jews etc., for fear of reprisals. That would perhaps be the simplest solution. But silence always leaves the situation open. All the more so because the papacy as an institution in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance often granted protection to Jews, especially Roman Jews. It is a basic thesis that is often shared by historians of Judaism. In Trent, in 1475, the last major accusation against Jews was that they had planned a ritual murder of a boy (Simonin). The Bishop of Trent, Johannes Hinderbach, was the accuser. However, the trial records show that the Vatican nuncio was much more cautious at the time. He wanted evidence and protection. There was also such an affair in Fulda in the 13th century. Emperor Frederick II intervened, as did Pope Innocent IV, his contemporary. Both wanted proof first.

Pius XII probably thought it would be better to remain silent. He knew Germany very well, he had been nuncio in Germany. It will always be a question to which there will probably never be an answer. Unless new texts are found that clarify this difficult question. But I am sceptical.

K: You mentioned the texts that are not yet accessible. Is there a temporal seal on the library?

B: The Vatican library is open. If there were texts by Pius XII, you could find them in the Vatican Library, because it is open. The Vatican archives are based on pontificates, not years. And they are open until Pius XII, also for these reasons. Up to 1939, all sources, all archives are accessible. From 1939 onwards, it may be necessary to negotiate with the archives, because the pontificate is not yet open. I don't know when it will be accessible.

K: Let's move on to the present. In May of this year, the first visit of the American President, Donald Trump, to Pope Francis took place. The media reported on it intensively. How much political influence do you think the Pope currently has in the world?

B: A scientific assessment is very difficult, but the very fact that Trump went to see the Pope shows what influence the Vatican could have.

Politically, there are moments (Poland, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.) where the Vatican has played an important role, for reasons that need to be analysed in each case. Generally speaking, you can say that the universal organisation of the Catholic Church has some kind of influence, because the Vatican is a place where a lot of information passes through, because bishops from all over the world meet there, and so on. And then, of course, there is the moral influence. I believe that our society values the word of a person who is not politically involved, the word of a spiritual person - it depends on what he says. John Paul II, Benedict and certainly Francis, who is Argentinian, have also played an important role in Cuba. We don't know much, but I would say that structurally speaking, this world organisation plays a role, if only because of the many relationships.

K: I am thrilled that when the Pope travels the world, this spiritual word also appeals to many young people. That is also a good sign that he is inspiring young people.
Dear Mr Paravicini, you will be 74 years old this year and after a remarkable career you could enjoy your retirement, in other words, "la dolce vita". What still drives you?

B: Dolce Vita means enjoyment. And enjoyment can take many forms. Pleasure can also be intellectual. I'm interested in learning, researching and socialising whenever possible. In other words, intellectual enjoyment in relation to research. And what could be better than keeping in touch with young researchers? Doctoral students are the future of research. And it's always interesting to see, perhaps especially as an old man, how research develops. That's why I like being in Wuppertal.

K: Pleasure, that's a good keyword. Is Francis a reformer? The Pope's letter "Amoris Laetitia" ("the joy of love") was published in 2016. Can the Pope use it to change the Church's teaching on marriage and sexuality?

B: Well, there are various aspects. Humanae vitae (1968), Paul VI's famous decision on contraception, was a decision made by a pope, not a council. Basically, and Pope Francis has already hinted at this, a pope could change this. Marriage is an institution for the Church. That is something else. The Catholic doctrine of marriage as a sacrament cannot be changed by the Pope alone. Pope Francis also wanted two synods to discuss family and marriage. I also believe that popes do not want to change fundamental things on their own. After all, the popes are the guarantors of Catholic tradition. Many popes have gradually adapted the tradition to their times, but have also preserved much more. Pope Francis' revolution, which is much talked about, is more a revolution of mentality than of structure. And when Pope Francis wants to change structures, he seeks advice from bishops in synods. However, the Pope alone could change Humanae Vitae. But does he want to overturn a papal decision of this kind? That could be difficult.

K: Nobody works just for their own benefit. What benefit does your academic work on papal research have for people outside the universities?

B: This is a very important question that concerns all academics. I believe it is our duty to do research as well as we can so that we can achieve serious results. That is our duty. But we also have to make sure that our research is publicised. I have tried to do this on a small scale. As a papal historian, I have written a lot in newspapers, in La Repubblica for example. I think that the dissemination of knowledge has to be verified, and it has to be serious; but we have to consider its dissemination as a duty, through newspapers, through books, and so on. I agree with you, research must not be self-interested.

K: You have just summarised the transfer strategy of the University of Wuppertal wonderfully. This is exactly what we have written down in our strategy, where we have anchored transfer as a third, strong pillar and explicitly emphasise social responsibility.

Yes, Mr Paravicini, I'd like to finish with a not entirely serious question. Which medicine do you think is sold the most in the Vatican?

B: I don't know.

K: It's aspirin, the headache tablet.

B: Oh yes, I was thinking of aspirin...but why in the Vatican?

K: ...because people worry a lot? And that's why there are packs of 100 there, which are not available anywhere else in Italy.

B: But perhaps the headaches don't come from too much work. John XXIII was once asked - so the story goes - how many people work in the Vatican. The Pope is said to have replied: Half. (laughs)

K: We certainly don't need aspirin. Thank you very much for the great interview and I wish you a great time at our university.
 

**(Jules Mazarin, actually Giulio Mazarini (* 14 July 1602 in Pescina, Kingdom of Naples; † 9 March 1661 in Vincennes Castle, France), was a French diplomat and cardinal of Italian descent, Duke of Nevers and Rethel from 1659 and reigning minister of France from 1642 to 1661 as successor to Cardinal Richelieu. Editor's note)

***"Animals and the papacy in the pre-modern era: symbolism of power, satire and polemics", 6 February 2017.