Q&A with Joëlle Rollo-Koster, Editor of The Cambridge History of the Papacy

14 min read

Editor’s note: This interview was conducted before the death of Pope Francis on April 21.

Thanks, Joëlle, for agreeing to do this. You are the lead editor of the soon-to-be-published three-volume The Cambridge History of the Papacy. The total length is some 2,400 pages. This is a monumental achievement, years in the making. Can you please give us an overview?

The volumes have been published. Because it is Cambridge UP, they start by distributing in the UK and then they ship to the US. We have had the digital copies since February 2025.

To respond. I have to be candid and say that I would have never imagined doing such a project, but I have to admit that when Cambridge contacted me, I became intrigued. I was familiar with the field of papal history for the Middle Ages, by working on the Avignon papacy (when the papacy moved to Avignon, in the Comtat Venaissin in the south of France 1309-1376) and the Great Western Schism when we have 2 and even 3 popes (1378-1418). But of course, I did not know the entire history. I checked what was available and noticed encyclopedias, or narrative histories, all quite dated, and nothing that would address the sources and the historiographies, that is, the history of each sub-topic treated in the volumes. I also wanted something “modern” that would address many of the contemporary issues that the papacy faces, from banking to sex scandals. Something thematic and chronological. So we ended up preparing something that tries to be as encompassing as possible, treating as many topics as possible, and bias-free and unapologetic. This is not catechism, this is history in its scientific meaning, where meaning is decoded and reconstructed. An example, the first essay of Volume 1 is by George E. Demacopoulos and called “Inventing Peter in Late Antiquity.” He challenges the historicity of Peter’s visit to Rome, etc, and how and when Peter is “used” in late antiquity.

A Catholic believer would argue that Peter is in the Bible and this is it, it is the truth. But George shows the historical construction of Peter. The point is that I don’t think it’s something you want to read from beginning to end, because it is not a “narrative” history. This History explores how and why the longest-surviving world institution has navigated its ups and downs. It examines the papacy as an instrument of authority (often contested), governance, and social and cultural influence. Topics discussed include the papacy’s relationship to secular power (a lot of them throughout time!), including global events (again a lot!) and political movements throughout history; the role of popes in the governance of the Catholic Church, including its own internal structures and relationship with the Catholic hierarchy; and its involvement in histories of art, culture, spirituality, gender, sexuality, bioethics, the environment, fashion, science, medicine, and the body.

Contrary to the assumption, there has not been one papacy across the centuries, but many papacies. Many different institutional forms of the idea – and ideal – of the papacy as an instrument of power and influence over the lives of believers and non-believers alike.

The Cambridge History of the Papacy is organized to provide readers with a critical-historical survey of the structural development of the papacy as an institution and as an actor in Church History, and in world history.

In general, we set 4 questions:

The pope’s centrality within the Catholic Church,
The primacy of papal power as an instrument of governance,
The papacy’s cultural influence in society and culture,
And the implications of secularity for its place in the lives of believers and non-believers alike.

Each question and search for answers converges around the fundamental question of papal authority:

Its original claims;
- The ebbs and flows of its reach
- And the ways in which claims and expressions of papal authority and supremacy have been contested within the Catholic tradition, and without.
So it’s all a question of theory and practice. There is what the papacy thinks and imagines and then there is the reality, theory and praxis. We looked at the papacy’s theo-political imagination – that is, the theological presuppositions of the popes and their vision of the papacy and its place in the Church, and in the world. And then Praxis: what might be best understood as the various forms of papal politics; that is, the expression in domestic politics, civil society, and international relations of the overarching theo-political vision.

All volumes provide:

Cross-disciplinary and intersectional history of the papacy as an actor in European and global history
A sustained analysis of the origins and nature of papal power and authority, and its evolution over the centuries
Provides new and original insights into the papacy’s role in and response to such processes as globalization, decolonization and movements for social and reproductive rights around the world

The Papacy, of course, is centuries old, dating back to Saint Peter, held to be the first pope. The records, documents and other source materials from and for it surely are beyond enormous. How did you and fellow contributors sort through all that?

The papacy is very old! Meaning…there is a lot of material, primary and secondary sources. Archives, like the Vatican’s, hold an enormous number of documents and information, and specialists are here to read and analyze them. You need the paleographic and linguistic skills to do so, but it’s what we do. This is why the current climate defunding all the great instruments of support, like the National Endowment for the Humanities, will have a devastating effect on American researchers, who will be eclipsed by researchers from nations that value and pursue intellectual pursuits. In any case, what we did was ask every possible specialist of each topic to address “their” sources. This is the only way possible because we cannot all be specialists in everything! Specialists know where and which sources are the best. They know their topic well and where to find the most relevant information, and also who the other historians are who have worked on their topic (what we call the historiography).

Let’s get into those contributors, first with your co-editors: Robert A. Ventresca, Melodie H. Eichbauer, and Miles Pattenden. Can you tell us a bit about each of them?

When I started the project in 2018, I thought I would do it alone. I quickly realized that it would not work. But I drafted the volumes and their content roughly. I realized, looking at authors, that I needed editors to be complementary. So, Robert Ventresca joined first, he is a modernist working on the papacy of WWII (Pius XII), then I am a social historian of the Middle Ages, and not so much an institutional historian. With the Church, there is much on canon law, so Melodie is the specialist; she is also medieval, but complement me. Then we needed someone in between, an early modernist, and this is where Miles fit. I met him while a fellow of the European Center for Advanced Studies.

And there were many others, as well. How did you assemble such a distinguished group?

We decided on topics and then brainstormed on who the best representatives of the topics are today. We wrote many letters to colleagues, and we revised our lists of authors and topics as we went until we were satisfied with what we had. This took more than a year. I have to say that while our team is well balanced gender wise, I know it is not fashionable to speak about this right now, the volumes are heavily tilted toward authors who are old white males, because this is the demographic of the field. I do hope that it will change, because diversity brings a new way to analyze things.

What and when were the origins of The Cambridge History of the Papacy?

I signed a contract with Cambridge for another book, which was published in 2022 and the editor of Cambridge contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in dealing with a new “Cambridge History of the Papacy.” I thought, why not? It’s the biggest project I have ever dealt with, and I am happy it’s done.

In its press release, the University of Rhode Island, where you are Professor of Medieval History in the Department of History, stated that The Cambridge History of the Papacy “provides a comprehensive and cross-disciplinary examination of the papacy from its creation and development as a central institution in the world that affects the lives of millions of Catholics to its vast influence on society, culture and world affairs for centuries.” Can you expand on that, please?

I think that I responded to this in the first question. But I would add that even non Catholics and atheists know the weight of the papacy, its ritual, its customs. I mean, in RI most people, I bet, eat fish on Fridays and hold the traditional “Friday fast.” As historians, you cannot discuss anything from the past without encountering the Catholic Church and its leadership, from diet to abortion. But what we attempted to do is show that the “papacy,” henceforth the ”Catholic Church,” was not born all formed and uncontested from the start. It became what it is because of its historical evolution and basically its history. It moved and adapted through threats in order to maintain itself. I would argue that any government that attempts to “survive” should look at the Catholic church and how it navigated 2000 years of history and challenges.

We have 3 volumes: Volume 1: How the papacy became the institution it is and how it distinguished itself from other powers, secular and religious. Volume 2: Deals with the centrality of the popes in the Church and the contested claims of papal authority as it was exercised through that wider institution’s various governing instruments. Volume 3: Addresses questions of the papacy’s cultural influence; that is, the influence successive popes and various vectors of papal authority have had on a broad range of social and cultural developments in European and global societies.

I also need to say that we could not find historians on certain topics, especially modern topics addressing globalism. It is difficult to escape Rome and we need to focus on the periphery (Middle East, Africa, Asia) and visit the papacy’s role in the structures, mentalities and practices of colonialism, slavery, residential schools, etc., in alliance with powerful state actors and economic interests.

Also noted in the release was how The Cambridge History of the Papacy recounts the Papacy’s “response to issues such as the role of women in the Church, reproductive rights around the globe, and sexual scandals.” Again, can you please give us more details?

Well, I will let interested readers read the specific essays in the volumes. But the papacy has a long history of knowing how to navigate thorny issues. Pope Francis is trying to be more candid and open about the issues but in the end, there is a lot of pulling of the rugs under the table. There is not a day that a new scandal is not discovered. For example, in France right now there is the charges of rape and sexual assault at the Notre-Dame de Bétharram, a school in the south of France. What makes the story even more sickening in this case is the links between the Catholic Church and the political world and the regular protection and omerta. Several articles, especially in volume 3, address the Church’s vision on gender, sex, marriage, abortion, end of life and how these visions (some can evolve over time) have affected or not the populations of Catholics.

And you were quoted in the release as saying: “This is not light reading. We cover a huge array of history. But this has nothing to do with faith. This is how historians look at the papacy.” Can you please expand on that?

We are all professional historians and academics. We reflect on the historical reality as it appears in our sources, and we attempt to stay the course without embellishing or hiding, or manipulating or writing propaganda. This is not reading the catechism. This is not an apologetic history of the Catholic Church. It is a “critical” or “analytical” history. We are not trying to convert anyone. We are just the journalists of the past.

The release also declares that the Papacy has “been able to last for centuries – and grow to more than 1.406 billion followers – by adapting and reinventing itself when needed. And it has stayed relevant as popes, such as Francis, have taken stands on issues such as climate change and LGBTQIA+ issues.” What has the appeal been to so many people? And how would you assess the Papacy of Francis, who was recently released from the hospital after a long admission?

There is an interesting shift, even countries like the UK are seeing their communities of Catholics growing and taking over from Anglicans.

We live in a tumultuous world and people find succor and maybe support in the Church. The charisma of Francis may also be at play. Francis supports a two-state solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict, supports fair treatment and wages for poor exploited people, and he has involved himself in some of the most important questions of our time, advancing this time the concept of an enlightened Church that adapts to its time. In June 2015, rebuking many conservative politicians who balk at climate change he became the first pope with his Laudato Si, to advocate for the protection of both the social and physical environment of our planet. Like our modern democracies, the Vatican is deeply divided between progressives and conservatives. One of the pope’s most daring doctrinal decrees was Fiducia Supplicans, issued on December 18, 2023, which allowed the blessing of same-sex couples and people in “irregular” situations, such as divorcées and LGBTQ individuals. Conservatives and traditionalists oppose him on issues such as allowing communion for remarried Catholics and preserving or eliminating the Latin Mass.

These tensions will make the election of the next pontiff difficult to predict. Conservatives hold a majority in the College of Cardinals. Of approximately 253 members, about 138 are electors (as there is an age limit of 80 years old for participation in the Conclave). However, Francis preempted an easy Traditionalist victory by appointing new cardinals (some 140) from underrepresented countries, strategically ensuring that their nominations might facilitate a progressive win, if only out of gratitude. On the other hand, if we compare a Vatican election to our democratic systems, recent trends in democratic voting have leaned toward conservatism. It remains to be seen whether the Vatican will follow suit. One of Pope Francis’s greatest achievements will have been his engagement with the world—troubles and all, with a clear mind and a deep understanding of the challenges it faces.

Has there been any response from the Vatican?

No.

When did you first become interested in medieval history?

I am too old to remember, but I always loved reading and reading history. I was first interested at the university in France with the French Revolution, loved it. Then I took a medieval course, and this did it. I did my PhD in the US and continued with medieval. It is an open field, so many sources still untouched, a totally open field. It is difficult because you need the linguistic skills (Latin and most modern Romance languages), and also because medieval manuscripts are not easy to read, but it’s just fun! The pleasure of being in archives, opening boxes, touching old parchments that few have touched in centuries, great feeling! And then you can give your interpretation and you may be the first person to work on certain documents, your interpretation becomes then foundational. Fun stuff!

And lastly, please tell us about the courses you teach at URI and your students.

There is only one medieval historian and that’s it. So I usually teach a large survey at the 100 level, and then more specialized courses, on medieval women, the later Middle Ages (X-XIV centuries), the so-called Renaissance, and our capstone sequence. This year I am teaching it on 4 topics: the Crusades, the Hundred-year war, the Black Death, and medieval women. Most students are not comfortable taking classes in medieval because it’s “new” and requires a commitment to learn that you do not need if you take US history, for example. Education in the U.S. is not geared toward the love of something but toward making money. So while I require my students to really work for their grade, I also adapted. I teach medieval history but also skills in difficult research and analytical reasoning. So my students are usually committed and interested. I mean, medieval history may get you a job in Hollywood (pretty limited!), but the methodology for medieval research will make you a true independent thinker and that will land you a job anywhere.