On October 23, 2024, the Minister of Culture, Rachida Dati, declared that she wanted to propose to the Archbishop of Paris the implementation of paid access of five euros to Notre-Dame Cathedral. Clarifying her remarks the next day, she indicated that this entry fee would be requested only from « cultural visitors » and therefore that religious visitors would be exempt. The minister estimates that this measure would bring 75 million euros to the state budget and she would like to allocate them to the restoration of religious heritage. She adds, very imprudently, that “Notre-Dame de Paris would save all the churches of Paris and France” !
This project poses numerous technical, legal and political difficulties. The law of December 9, 1905, on the separation of Churches and State, protects freedom of worship by enshrining exclusive religious use of religious buildings, which it must be remembered are the property of the municipalities for churches built before 1905 and the State for the vast majority of cathedrals.
In this case, the assignee of Notre-Dame de Paris officially declared his opposition to the commercialization of a space dedicated to worship, of which he is the sole guarantor: ite missa is ! Unless we imagine that the Minister of Culture, aided by the Minister of Religion, Bruno Retailleau, imposes an adjustment on the clergy through an anachronistic expression of regal Gallicanism, vaguely inspired by the Pragmatic sanctionit is therefore doubtful that Ms. Rachida Dati’s company will go further than the declaration of intent. It would undoubtedly have been more judicious and more respectful to first inquire about the opinion of the archbishopric before announcing it to him through the press.
Religious use, cultural use
Nevertheless, this ministerial declaration had the educational advantage of enlightening our fellow citizens on several articles of the 1905 law which they place above all else, but which they know so little about. Let us therefore remember that this law protects freedom of conscience and enshrines freedom of worship as one of its components. As religious buildings are overwhelmingly owned by municipalities and the State, the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the legislative and jurisprudential principle of double exclusivity. The churches are left at the entire disposal of their assignees and they cannot be used without their authorization, but the assignees cannot host activities other than religious ones. However, since the law of July 1, 2006, it is possible to organize, within a building used for worship, with the agreement of the assignee, paid access to several of its parts.
In the case of Notre-Dame de Paris, by law and with the agreement of the assignee, we could arrange, around the part of the nave dedicated to worship, a space reserved for paid visits and therefore physically isolated from that freely accessible. Is this the Minister of Culture’s project? It is difficult to imagine how such a device could be satisfactory, because it is to be feared that “cultural visitors” access the religious space so as not to pay the entrance fee to the tourist circuit. The idea of organizing the nave of Notre-Dame according to office times is no longer admissible, because that would force the “cult visitors” to pay an entry fee outside of these, which is an attack on freedom of worship. In the nave of Notre-Dame, it is not technically possible to separate religious and cultural uses.
Common property of the Nation
In his press release of October 24, 2024, the assignee of Notre-Dame Cathedral does not say anything else and recalls the attachment of the Catholic Church in France to free access to churches and cathedrals in order to “to welcome unconditionally (…) every man and woman, regardless of their religion or belief, their opinions and their financial means”. The communist and atheist senator that I am praises the firmness of this declaration and is pleased to once again be alongside the Catholic faith to defend secularism, freedom of worship and universalism.
A careful Republican, I recall that, since 1789, religious buildings have been the common property of the nation and as such they are open to all citizens. There are very few buildings left in France and particularly in Paris into which it is possible to enter without hindrance. Is it moral to deliver a unique building that brings together art and spirituality to the temple merchants? Should trading be introduced everywhere?
Finally, this new attempt to circumvent the 1905 law by the executive worries me because it comes after many others. I am thinking, for example, of the authoritarian takeover of the functioning of associations founded under the law of 1905 or the way in which the Ministry of the Interior had granted itself the right to reform liturgical practices during the pandemic. . On several occasions, I have denounced this neo-concordatarian drift by which successive governments attempt to extend their management of public affairs to the organization of worship, in defiance of the separation of Church and State. I have the weakness to think that the Notre-Dame affair is part of this design.