Very early the morning of the day after Easter, François Legault wrote this on Twitter: “Catholicism has also engendered in us a culture of solidarity which distinguishes us on a continental scale.” What paschal fly stung him?
In fact, he took up a phrase taken from a column by Mathieu Bock-Côté entitled “Praise of our old Catholic background”. The title speaking for itself.
Faced with the wave of outraged reactions, Mr. Legault tried to correct the situation: “We must distinguish between secularism and our heritage.”
The problem, however, remained.
By choosing to praise Catholicism at the same time as Passover and Ramadan are also celebrated, François Legault paid special attention to the Catholic religion.
Whether we like it or not, Law 21, of which he is the progenitor, is nevertheless based on clear principles. Separation of state and religions. State religious neutrality. Equality of all citizens. Freedom of conscience and religion. Isn’t the prime minister the representative of the state?
Like any citizen, Mr. Legault enjoys freedom of conscience, but as Premier, unlike a columnist, he must speak on behalf of all Quebecers.
In this case, whether they are atheists, agnostics, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc.
Selective reading
By saying that Catholicism would have “engendered in us a culture of solidarity which distinguishes us on a continental scale”, Mr. Legault also makes a selective reading of History.
The Quiet Revolution was in fact intended to put an end to the power of the clergy and not to be inspired by it. In the numerous institutions under their control and thanks to the blessing of Maurice Duplessis, the clergy decided who, among their French-Canadian “faithful”, would or would not have the right to education and health care. Or failing that, to “charity”.
Result: women were excluded from higher education and political life. The priests’ control over their lives, their bodies and their sexuality was pervasive. Zero “solidarity” for women.
What about an institution capable of having set up a system for the protection of pedophile priests and the sexual exploitation of children, including in the infamous aboriginal residential schools?
When Mr. Legault writes that “we must distinguish between secularism and our heritage”, the concept of Catholic-secularism is not very far either. Among other things, catho-secularism is a strange positioning where Christian symbols are emptied of their religious nature and are valued more than others for their so-called “heritage” nature.
“Our” heritage?
However, at the same time, objects associated with other faiths – yarmulke, hijab, turban, kirpan, etc. – are seen as religious symbols. A fascinating paradox.
Let us think of the long debates on the crucifix of the Blue Salon. Opponents of its release demanded that it be kept for “heritage” reasons, whereas the crucifix, as the bishops reminded us, is indeed a religious object.
Would Catholicism also really be part of “our” common heritage? The reality is that it is part of that of Quebecers of French, Irish, Italian, Hispanic, etc. ancestry. They are however less and less likely to claim it.
The reason? If so many people over 50 have turned their backs on it, it is because they have already suffered the patriarchal, misogynistic, racist and ultra-conservative yoke of the Church. Point.
This explains why this same rejection of Catholicism produces in many Quebecers a similar distrust of other religions. A generational phenomenon above all.
Young Francophones have not suffered the oppression of the clergy and thanks to Bill 101, they are immersed in school in diversity at all levels.
Their reaction to religious practices and symbols is therefore much more “live and let live”. And much less of a state secularism whose logic, even for a prime minister, is sometimes difficult to follow.