Bishop Dominique Rey’s resignation from the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon last January, after 25 years of service, marked a turning point in the Catholic Church in France. 

Known for his bold missionary approach and openness to traditionalist and charismatic communities, Bishop Rey had long been a figure as admired as he was controversial. 

Under his stewardship, the diocese in southern France stood out from the rest of the European Church landscape for its abundance of vocations. 

His decision to resign followed a direct request from Pope Francis, a request that Bishop Rey accepted out of fidelity, as he stated in his interview with the Register, considering that it opened up “a time for reflection and conversion, but also a time to rebound and rethink [his] mission.” 

Bishop Rey also reflected on the deeper reasons for his resignation, evoking the tensions that have surrounded some of his pastoral choices in recent years and admitting having taken risks. “If you leave the car in the garage, you’ll never have an accident,” he said. 

He offered an analysis of the challenges facing the Catholic Church today, in particular the growing divide between traditionalist and progressive movements. The prelate argues that the Church must engage with the younger generation attracted by the sacredness of traditional liturgy, while remaining firmly rooted in the teachings of Vatican II.

Although he has retired from his territorial responsibilities, Bishop Rey, who has recently moved to Paris, remains determined to support the missionary projects and initiatives he has helped to set up over the years.

 

You recently resigned from your episcopal position. How did you feel when you closed this important chapter in your life and ministry? 

I resigned at the beginning of the year to begin a new chapter in my episcopal life. It was somewhat surprising because, during a canonical inquiry concerning me, I met with the Pope, who encouraged me: “Don’t resign; stay there — we need you.”

But later, I received a message saying that I was ultimately being asked to resign. Faced with a direct request from the Pope, I accepted out of fidelity. 

Every crisis is an opportunity to return to the essentials. In the face of difficulties, you can either fall into discouragement or rebellion — I chose to remain faithful to the Holy Father and to continue my mission, wherever the Church calls me. This is a time for reflection and conversion because we may have made some mistakes — but also a time to rebound and rethink my mission.

 

Do you believe this decision came from external influences rather than the Pope himself?

The Holy Father makes his decisions based on the advice and recommendations he receives. Ultimately, he is the one who decides, but in this case, it’s clear he relied on the reflections and recommendations of those who had handled the matter.

Sometimes, when the Pope knows a situation personally, he can make decisions that surprise those around him. But here, he clearly followed the advice he was given.

 

What do you think were the real reasons why the Pope asked for your resignation? 

It’s possible that some people around me influenced this decision because of certain pastoral choices I made in the past. My priority has always been the mission: evangelization and building a missionary Church in a secularized society where the Christian cultural matrix is rapidly eroding.

I have sometimes taken risks with a bold missionary approach. As I often say: If you leave the car in the garage, you’ll never have an accident. Jesus himself took risks. But this boldness has borne fruit: vocations, a strong pastoral presence, and a solid network of parishes and communities.

 

You mention a courageous missionary strategy. Do you think that’s what was misunderstood?

Yes, that’s possible. My goal was not just to carry out missionary actions but to spark true missionary transformation — a pastoral conversion, not just maintaining the status quo.

I was also criticized for welcoming a wide variety of communities, especially from the “trad” (traditionalist) world. The Church is rich in diversity; a charism does not exist for its own sake — it serves the whole Church. Some accused me of being too accommodating toward groups attached to the traditional liturgy. But in a de-Christianized context, these communities have often reactivated pastoral dynamics.

 

Was this openness to traditionalist communities the core issue, in your view?

Yes, it is part of the problem, but it is not the only one. The Church is enriched by this diversity. Welcoming these sensibilities was a process of discernment. Some things didn’t work out, but others bore significant fruit.

I was criticized for being too welcoming to the “trad” world, which some perceive as closed and extremist. But there’s great diversity within these groups — some young people participate in the Chartres pilgrimage while also attending modern liturgies and the Paray-le-Monial pilgrimage. The challenge was to integrate these sensibilities into ecclesial communion while remaining faithful to Vatican II.

I was also criticized for some financial mismanagement. Certainly, some decisions may have been questionable, but, overall, the diocese’s financial situation is comparable to many other French dioceses.

We’ve seen a decline in donors, but the local demographic base has allowed us to maintain a solid support network. Many faithful were drawn to the missionary openness I encouraged. Financial issues were presented as the main problem, but I think they were secondary.

 

It seems like a knot has formed between part of the hierarchy of the Church of France and the Catholic communities attached to the traditional rite, which today represent a large proportion of French youth. This problem is therefore a matter of urgency in view of the decline of faith in the country. As someone who has been in contact with these diverse communities for many years, what could be the ways out of the crisis in the years to come? 

The Church must listen to young people drawn to the traditional liturgy. Many of them are not from the traditionalist world — they are converts, catechumens, and seekers of spiritual roots. The Holy Spirit works through this desire for sacredness and rituality in a secularized world.

We need to make a more nuanced analysis of this phenomenon instead of relying on stereotypes. The goal is to integrate these communities into the life of the Church rather than allowing them to become isolated and exposed to extremism.

Synodality, which is a current priority for the Church, must also apply to these communities: to discern, accompany and integrate them into the ecclesial fabric. Some may refuse, and that would be their responsibility — but we must remain attentive because the future of the Church depends on this diversity.

 

It seems like the universal Church, and more specifically the Western Church, is at a turning point in its history. Over the last few years, you’ve demonstrated your ability to read the signs of the times: What elements and phenomena do you think the Church should be careful not to ignore or neglect? In what areas should it invest, and how?

First, the Church must preserve continuity in a volatile world. We live in a liquid society, marked by programmed obsolescence and insecurity. The Church has been around for over 2,000 years; it knows humanity and its thirst for meaning. Encouraging interest in cultural heritage through museums and history helps reconnect people to their roots.

Second, the Church must offer communion in a fragmented society marked by narcissism and individualism. Christianity’s contribution today is to provide a sense of the universal, transcending particular national interests. To speak about fraternity, you need fatherhood.

Third, the Church must focus on what is growing. Even when anthropological values are declining, Christianity can transmit wisdom and an art of living. Attention to personal growth and resilience is essential.

Fourth, the Church must remain attentive to the Holy Spirit’s action. I’ve always been sensitive to new movements of faith and new expressions of spirituality. This openness to the Spirit’s surprises is key to the Church’s prophetic role.

It is essential to understand that the Church is at a historical crossroads. Christianity is not simply a legacy but a promise. Christianity is right in front of us.

 

How do you intend to put to good use the field experience you’ve gleaned over the years from your many travels, particularly in Latin America? 

I no longer have territorial responsibilities, but I’m still a bishop. And everything I’ve been able to launch and initiate, circles of thought, humanitarian and missionary projects, will continue to require various forms of support, which I won’t be backing away from.