Memory & Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past
(December 1999)
The Vatican
PRELIMINARY NOTE
The study of the topic “The Church and the Faults
of the Past” was proposed to the International Theological Commission
by its President, Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger, in view of the celebration of the Jubilee Year
2000. A sub-commission was established to prepare this study; it was
composed of Rev. Christopher BEGG, Msgr. Bruno FORTE (President), Rev.
Sebastian KAROTEMPREL, S.D.B., Msgr. Roland MINNERATH, Rev. Thomas NORRIS,
Rev. Rafael SALAZAR CARDENAS, M.Sp.S., and Msgr. Anton STRUKELJ. The
general discussion of this theme took place in numerous meetings of
the sub-commission and during the plenary sessions of the International
Theological Commission held in Rome from 1998 to 1999. The present text
was approved in forma specifica by the International Theological
Commission, by written vote, and was then submitted to the President,
Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, who gave his approval for its publication.
- Introduction
- 1. The Problem: Yesterday and Today
- 2. Biblical Approach
- 3. Theological Foundations
- 4. Historical Judgment and Theological Judgment
- 5. Ethical Discernment
- 6. Pastoral and Missionary Perspectives
- Conclusion
Introduction
The Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, Incarnationis mysterium (November 29, 1998), includes the purification of memory among the signs "which may help people to live the exceptional grace of the Jubilee with greater fervor." This purification aims at liberating personal and communal conscience from all forms of resentment and violence that are the legacy of past faults, through a renewed historical and theological evaluation of such events. This should lead - if done correctly - to a corresponding recognition of guilt and contribute to the path of reconciliation. Such a process can have a significant effect on the present, precisely because the consequences of past faults still make themselves felt and can persist as tensions in the present.
The purification of memory is thus "an act of courage and humility in recognizing the wrongs done by those who have borne or bear the name of Christian." It is based on the conviction that because of "the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God, who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us." John Paul II adds: "As the successor of Peter, I ask that in this year of mercy the Church, strong in the holiness which she receives from her Lord, should kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters."(1) In reiterating that "Christians are invited to acknowledge, before God and before those offended by their actions, the faults which they have committed," the Pope concludes, "Let them do so without seeking anything in return, but strengthened only by 'the love of God which has been poured into our hearts' (Rom 5:5)."(2)
The requests for forgiveness made by the Bishop of Rome in this spirit of authenticity and gratuitousness have given rise to various reactions. The unconditional trust in the power of Truth which the Pope has shown has met with a generally favorable reception both inside and outside the Church. Many have noted the increased credibility of ecclesial pronouncements that has resulted from this way of acting. Some reservations, however, have also been voiced, mainly expressions of unease connected with particular historical and cultural contexts in which the simple admission of faults committed by the sons and daughters of the Church may look like acquiescence in the face of accusations made by those who are prejudicially hostile to the Church. Between agreement and unease, the need arises for a reflection which clarifies the reasons, the conditions, and the exact form of the requests for forgiveness for the faults of the past.
The International Theological Commission, in which a diversity of cultures and sensitivities within the one Catholic faith are represented, decided to address this need with the present text. The text offers a theological reflection on the conditions which make acts of "purification of memory" possible in connection with the recognition of the faults of the past. The questions it seeks to address are as follows: Why should it be done? Who should do it? What is the goal and how should this be determined, by correctly combining historical and theological judgement? Who will be addressed? What are the moral implications? And what are the possible effects on the life of the Church and on society? The purpose of the text is, therefore, not to examine particular historical cases but rather to clarify the presuppositions that ground repentance for past faults.
Having noted the kind of reflection which will be presented here, it is important also to make clear what is referred to when the text speaks of the Church: it is not a question of the historical institution alone or solely the spiritual communion of those whose hearts are illumined by faith. The Church is understood as the community of the baptized, inseparably visible and operating in history under the direction of her Pastors, united as a profound mystery by the action of the life-giving Spirit. According to the Second Vatican Council, the Church "by a strong analogy is compared to the mystery of the Incarnate Word. In fact, as the assumed nature is at the service of the divine Word as a living instrument of salvation, indissolubly united to him, so also in a not dissimilar way, the social structure of the Church is at the service of the Spirit of Christ which vivifies it for the building up of the body" (cf. Eph 4:16).(3) This Church, which embraces her sons and daughters of the past and of the present, in a real and profound communion, is the sole Mother of Grace who takes upon herself also the weight of past faults in order to purify memory and to live the renewal of heart and life according to the will of the Lord. She is able to do this insofar as Christ Jesus, whose mystical body extended through history she is, has taken upon himself once and for all the sins of the world.
The structure of the text mirrors the questions posed. It moves from a brief historical revisiting of the theme (Chapter 1), in order to be able to investigate the biblical foundation (Chapter 2) and explore more deeply the theological conditions of the requests for forgiveness (Chapter 3). The precise correlation of historical and theological judgement is a decisive element for reaching correct and efficacious statements that take proper account of the times, places, and contexts in which the actions under consideration were situated (Chapter 4). The final considerations, that have a specific value for the Catholic Church, are dedicated to the moral (Chapter 5), pastoral and missionary (Chapter 6) implications of these acts of repentance for the faults of the past. Nevertheless, in the knowledge that the necessity of recognizing one's own faults has reason to be practiced by all peoples and religions, one hopes that the proposed reflections may help everyone to advance on the path of truth, fraternal dialogue, and reconciliation.
At the conclusion of this introduction, it may be useful to recall the purpose of every act of "purification of memory" undertaken by believers, because this is what has inspired the work of the Commission: it is the glorification of God, because living in obedience to Divine Truth and its demands leads to confessing, together with our faults, the eternal mercy and justice of the Lord. The "confessio peccati," sustained and illuminated by faith in the Truth which frees and saves ("confessio fidei"), becomes a "confessio laudis" addressed to God, before whom alone it becomes possible to recognize the faults both of the past and of the present, so that we might be reconciled by and to him in Christ Jesus, the only Savior of the world, and become able to forgive those who have offended us. This offer of forgiveness appears particularly meaningful when one thinks of the many persecutions suffered by Christians in the course of history. In this perspective, the actions undertaken by the Holy Father, and those requested by him, regarding the faults of the past have an exemplary and prophetic value, for religions as much as for governments and nations, beyond being of value for the Catholic Church, which is thus helped to live in a more efficacious way the Great Jubilee of the Incarnation as an event of grace and reconciliation for everyone.
1. The Problem: Yesterday and Today
1.1 Before Vatican II
The Jubilee has always been lived in the Church as a time of joy for the salvation given in Christ and as a privileged occasion for penance and reconciliation for the sins present in the lives of the People of God. From its first celebration under Boniface VIII in 1300, the penitential pilgrimage to the tombs of the Apostles Peter and Paul was associated with the granting of an exceptional indulgence for procuring, with sacramental pardon, total or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.(4) In this context, both sacramental forgiveness and the remission of temporal punishment have a personal character. In the course of the "year of pardon and grace,"(5) the Church dispenses in a particular way the treasury of grace that Christ has constituted for her benefit.(6) In none of the Jubilees celebrated till now has there been, however, an awareness in conscience of any faults in the Church's past, nor of the need to ask God's pardon for conduct in the recent or remote past.
Indeed, in the entire history of the Church there are no precedents for requests for forgiveness by the Magisterium for past wrongs. Councils and papal decrees applied sanctions, to be sure, to abuses of which clerics and laymen were found guilty, and many pastors sincerely strove to correct them. However, the occasions when ecclesiastical authorities - Pope, Bishops, or Councils - have openly acknowledged the faults or abuses which they themselves were guilty of, have been quite rare. One famous example is furnished by the reforming Pope Adrian VI who acknowledged publicly in a message to the Diet of Nuremberg of November 25, 1522, "the abominations, the abuses...and the lies" of which the "Roman court" of his time was guilty, "deep-rooted and extensive.sickness," extending "from the top to the members."(7) Adrian VI deplored the faults of his times, precisely those of his immediate predecessor Leo X and his curia, without, however, adding a request for pardon. It will be necessary to wait until Paul VI to find a Pope express a request for pardon addressed as much to God as to a group of contemporaries. In his address at the opening of the second session of the Second Vatican Council, the Pope asked "pardon of God.and of the separated brethren" of the East who may have felt offended "by us" (the Catholic Church), and declared himself ready for his part to pardon offences received. In the view of Paul VI, both the request for and offer of pardon concerned solely the sin of the division between Christians and presupposed reciprocity.
1.2 The Teaching of the Council
Vatican II takes the same approach as Paul VI. For the faults committed against unity, the Council Fathers state, "we ask pardon of God and of the separated brethren, as we forgive those who trespass against us."(8) In addition to faults against unity, it noted other negative episodes from the past for which Christians bore some responsibility. Thus, "it deplores certain attitudes that sometimes are found among Christians" and which led people to think that faith and science are mutually opposed.(9) Likewise, it considers the fact that in "the genesis of atheism," Christians may have had "some responsibility" insofar as through their negligence they "conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."(10) In addition, the Council "deplores" the persecutions and manifestations of anti-Semitism "in every time and on whoever's part."(11) The Council, nevertheless, does not add a request for pardon for the things cited.
From a theological point of view, Vatican II distinguishes between the indefectible fidelity of the Church and the weaknesses of her members, clergy or laity, yesterday and today,(12) and therefore, between the Bride of Christ "with neither blemish nor wrinkle...holy and immaculate" (cf. Eph 5:27), and her children, pardoned sinners, called to permanent metanoia, to renewal in the Holy Spirit. "The Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of purification and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal."(13)
The Council also elaborated some criteria of discernment regarding the guilt or responsibility of persons now living for faults of the past. In effect, the Council recalled in two different contexts the non-imputability to those now living of past faults committed by members of their religious communities:
- “What was committed during the passion (of Christ) cannot
be imputed either indiscriminately to all Jews then living nor to
the Jews of our time.”(14)
- “Large communities became separated from full communion with
the Catholic Church – at times not without the fault of men on
both sides. However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation
those who now are born into these communities and who in these are
instructed in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church embraces
them with fraternal respect and love.”(15)
We can conclude from the testimonies gathered that in all cases where
the “sins of the fathers” are mentioned, the confession is
addressed solely to God, and the sins confessed by the people and for
the people are those committed directly against him rather than those
committed (also) against other human beings (only in Nm 21:7
is mention made of a human party harmed, Moses).(35) The question arises
as to why the biblical writers did not feel the need to address requests
for forgiveness to present interlocutors for the sins committed by their
fathers, given their strong sense of solidarity in good and evil among
the generations (one thinks of the notion of “corporate personality”).
We can propose various hypotheses in response to this question. First,
there is the prevalent theocentrism of the Bible, which gives precedence
to the acknowledgement, whether individual or national, of the faults
committed against God. What is more, acts of violence perpetrated by
Israel against other peoples, which would seem to require a request
for forgiveness from those peoples or from their descendants, are understood
to be the execution of divine directives, as for example Gn 2-11 and Dt 7:2 (the extermination of the Canaanites), or 1 Sm 15 and Dt 25:19 (the destruction of the Amalekites).
In such cases, the involvement of a divine command would seem to exclude
any possible request for forgiveness.(36) The experiences of maltreatment
suffered by Israel at the hands of other peoples and the animosity thus
aroused could also have militated against the idea of asking pardon
of these peoples for the evil done to them.(37)
In any case the sense of intergenerational solidarity in sin (and in
grace) remains relevant in the biblical testimony and is expressed in
the confession before God of the “sins of the fathers,” such
that John Paul II could state, citing the splendid prayer of Azaria:
“‘Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our fathers... For we
have sinned and transgressed by departing from you, and we have done
every kind of evil. Your commandments we have not heeded or observed’
(Dn 3:26,29-30). This is how the Jews prayed after the exile
(cf. also Bar 2:11-13), accepting the responsibility for the
sins committed by their fathers. The Church imitates their example and
also asks forgiveness for the historical sins of her children.”(38)
1.3. John
Paul II’s Requests for Forgiveness
Not only did John Paul II renew expressions of regret for the “sorrowful
memories” that mark the history of the divisions among Christians,
as Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council had done,(18) but he also
extended a request for forgiveness to a multitude of historical events
in which the Church, or individual groups of Christians, were implicated
in different respects.(19) In the Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente,(20) the Pope expresses the hope that the Jubilee
of 2000 might be the occasion for a purification of the memory of the
Church from all forms of “counter-witness and scandal” which
have occurred in the course of the past millennium.(21)
The Church is invited to “become more fully conscious of the sinfulness
of her children.” She “acknowledges as her own her sinful
sons and daughters” and encourages them “to purify themselves,
through repentance, of past errors and instances of infidelity, inconsistency
and slowness to act.”(22) The responsibility of Christians for
the evils of our time is likewise noted,(23) although the accent falls
particularly on the solidarity of the Church of today with past faults.
Some of these are explicitly mentioned, like the separation of Christians,(24)
or the “methods of violence and intolerance” used in the past
to evangelize.(25)
John Paul II also promoted the deeper theological exploration of the
idea of taking responsibility for the wrongs of the past and of possibly
asking forgiveness from one’s contemporaries,(26) when in the Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia, he states that in the sacrament
of Penance “the sinner stands alone before God with his sin, repentance,
and trust. No one can repent in his place or ask forgiveness in his
name.” Sin is therefore always personal, even though it wounds
the entire Church, which, represented by the priest as minister of Penance,
is the sacramental mediatrix of the grace which reconciles with God.(27)
Also the situations of “social sin” - which are evident in
the human community when justice, freedom, and peace are damaged –
are always “the result of the accumulation and concentration of
many personal sins.” While moral responsibility may become diluted
in anonymous causes, one can only speak of social sin by way of analogy.(28)
It emerges from this that the imputability of a fault cannot properly
be extended beyond the group of persons who had consented to it voluntarily,
by means of acts or omissions, or through negligence.
1.4. The Questions Raised
The Church is a living society spanning the centuries. Her memory is
not constituted only by the tradition which goes back to the Apostles
and is normative for her faith and life, but she is also rich in the
variety of historical experiences, positive and negative, which she
has lived. In large part, the Church’s past structures her present.
The doctrinal, liturgical, canonical, and ascetical tradition nourishes
the life of the believing community, offering it an incomparable sampling
of models to imitate. Along the entire earthly pilgrimage, however,
the good grain always remains inextricably mixed with the chaff; holiness
stands side by side with infidelity and sin.(29) And it is thus that
the remembrance of scandals of the past can become an obstacle to the
Church’s witness today, and the recognition of the past faults
of the Church’s sons and daughters of yesterday can foster renewal
and reconciliation in the present.
The difficulty that emerges is that of defining past faults, above
all, because of the historical judgement which this requires. In events
of the past, one must always distinguish the responsibility or fault
that can be attributed to members of the Church as believers from that
which should be referred to society during the centuries of ‘Christendom’
or to power structures in which the temporal and spiritual were closely
intertwined. An historical hermeneutic is therefore more necessary than
ever in order to distinguish correctly between the action of the Church
as community of faith and that of society in the times when an osmosis
existed between them.
The steps taken by John Paul II to ask pardon for faults of the past
have been understood in many circles as signs of the Church’s vitality
and authenticity, such that they strengthen her credibility. It is right,
moreover, that the Church contribute to changing false and unacceptable
images of herself, especially in those areas in which, whether through
ignorance or bad faith, some sectors of opinion like to identify her
with obscurantism and intolerance. The requests for pardon formulated
by the Pope have also given rise to positive emulation both inside and
outside the Church. Heads of state or government, private and public
associations, religious communities are today asking forgiveness for
episodes or historical periods marked by injustices. This practice is
far from just an exercise in rhetoric, and for this reason, some hesitate
to do so, calculating the attendant costs – among which are those
on the legal plane - of an acknowledgement of past wrongs. Also from
this point of view, a rigorous discernment is necessary.
Nevertheless, some of the faithful are disconcerted and their loyalty
to the Church seems shaken. Some wonder how they can hand on a love
for the Church to younger generations if this same Church is imputed
with crimes and faults. Others observe that the recognition of faults
is for the most part one-sided and is exploited by the Church’s
detractors, who are satisfied to see the Church confirm the prejudices
they had of her. Still others warn against arbitrarily making current
generations of believers feel guilty for shortcomings they did not consent
to in any way, even though they declare themselves ready to take responsibility
to the extent that some groups of people still feel themselves affected
today by the consequences of injustices suffered by their forbears in
previous times. Others hold that the Church could purify her memory
with respect to ambiguous actions in which she was involved in the past
simply by taking part in the critical work on memory developed in our
society. Thus she could affirm that she joins with her contemporaries
in rejecting what the moral conscience of our time reproaches, though
without putting herself forward as the only guilty party responsible
for the evils of the past, by seeking at the same time a dialogue in
mutual understanding with those who may feel themselves still wounded
by past acts imputable to the children of the Church. Finally, it is
to be expected that certain groups might demand that forgiveness be
sought in their regard, either by analogy with other groups, or because
they believe that they have suffered wrongs. In any case, the purification
of memory can never mean that the Church ceases to proclaim the revealed
truth that has been entrusted to her whether in the area of faith or
of morals.
Thus, a number of questions can be identified: Can today’s conscience
be assigned ‘guilt’ for isolated historical phenomena like
the Crusades or the Inquisition? Isn’t it a bit too easy to judge
people of the past by the conscience of today (as the Scribes and Pharisees
do according to Mt 23:29-32), almost as if moral conscience
were not situated in time? And, on the other hand, can it be denied
that ethical judgement is always possible, given the simple fact that
the truth of God and its moral requirements always have value? Whatever
attitude is adopted must come to terms with these questions and seek
answers that are based in revelation and in its living transmission
in the faith of the Church. The first question is therefore that of
clarifying the extent to which requests for forgiveness for past wrongs,
especially if addressed to groups of people today, are within the biblical
and theological horizon of reconciliation with God and neighbor.
2. Biblical Approach
The investigation of Israel’s acknowledgement of faults in the
Old Testament and the topic of the confession of faults as found in
the traditions of the New Testament can developed in various ways.(30)
The theological nature of the reflection undertaken here leads us to
favor a largely thematic approach, centering on the following question:
What background does the testimony of Sacred Scripture furnish for John
Paul II’s invitation to the Church to confess the faults of the
past?
2.1. The Old Testament
Confessions of sins and corresponding requests for forgiveness can
be found throughout the Bible – in the narratives of the Old Testament,
in the Psalms, and in the Prophets, as well as in the Gospels of the
New Testament. There are also sporadic references in the Wisdom Literature
and in the Letters of the New Testament. Given the abundance and diffusion
of these testimonies, the question of how to select and catalogue the
mass of significant texts arises. One may inquire here about the biblical
texts related to the confession of sins: Who is confessing what (and
what kind of fault) to whom? Put in this way, the question helps distinguish
two principal categories of “confession texts,” each of which
embraces different sub-categories, viz., a) confession texts of individual
sins, and b) confession texts of sins of the entire people (and of those
of their forebears). In relation to the recent ecclesial practice that
motivates this study, we will restrict our analysis to the second category.
In this second category, different expressions can be found, depending
on who is making the confession of the sins of the people and on who
is, or is not, associated with the shared guilt, prescinding from the
presence or absence of an awareness of personal responsibility (which
has only matured progressively: cf. Ez 14:12-23; 18:1-32; 33:10-20).
On the basis of these criteria, the following rather fluid cases can
be distinguished:
- A first series of texts represents the entire people (sometimes
personified as a single “I”) who, in a particular moment
of its history, confesses or alludes to its sins against God without
any (explicit) reference to the faults of the preceding generations.(31)
- Another group of texts places the confession - directed to God
- of the current sins of the people on the lips of one or more leaders
(religious), who may or may not include themselves explicitly among
the sinful people for whom they are praying.(32)
- A third group of texts presents the people or one of their leaders
in the act of mentioning the sins of their forebears without, however,
making mention of those of the present generation.(33)
- More frequent are the confessions that mention the faults of the
forebears, linking them expressly to the errors of the present generation.(34)
We can conclude from the testimonies gathered that in all cases where
the “sins of the fathers” are mentioned, the confession is
addressed solely to God, and the sins confessed by the people and for
the people are those committed directly against him rather than those
committed (also) against other human beings (only in Nm 21:7
is mention made of a human party harmed, Moses).(35) The question arises
as to why the biblical writers did not feel the need to address requests
for forgiveness to present interlocutors for the sins committed by their
fathers, given their strong sense of solidarity in good and evil among
the generations (one thinks of the notion of “corporate personality”).
We can propose various hypotheses in response to this question. First,
there is the prevalent theocentrism of the Bible, which gives precedence
to the acknowledgement, whether individual or national, of the faults
committed against God. What is more, acts of violence perpetrated by
Israel against other peoples, which would seem to require a request
for forgiveness from those peoples or from their descendants, are understood
to be the execution of divine directives, as for example Gn 2-11 and Dt 7:2 (the extermination of the Canaanites), or 1 Sm 15 and Dt 25:19 (the destruction of the Amalekites).
In such cases, the involvement of a divine command would seem to exclude
any possible request for forgiveness.(36) The experiences of maltreatment
suffered by Israel at the hands of other peoples and the animosity thus
aroused could also have militated against the idea of asking pardon
of these peoples for the evil done to them.(37)
In any case the sense of intergenerational solidarity in sin (and in
grace) remains relevant in the biblical testimony and is expressed in
the confession before God of the “sins of the fathers,” such
that John Paul II could state, citing the splendid prayer of Azaria:
“‘Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our fathers... For we
have sinned and transgressed by departing from you, and we have done
every kind of evil. Your commandments we have not heeded or observed’
(Dn 3:26,29-30). This is how the Jews prayed after the exile
(cf. also Bar 2:11-13), accepting the responsibility for the
sins committed by their fathers. The Church imitates their example and
also asks forgiveness for the historical sins of her children.”(38)
2.2. The New Testament
A fundamental theme connected with the idea of guilt, and amply present
in the New Testament, is that of the absolute holiness of God. The God
of Jesus is the God of Israel (cf. Jn 4:22), invoked as “Holy
Father” (Jn 17:11), and called “the Holy One”
in 1 Jn 2:20 (cf. Acts 6:10). The triple proclamation
of God as “holy” in Is 6:3 returns in Acts 4:8, while
1 Pt 1:16 insists on the fact that Christians must be holy “for
it is written: ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (cf. Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). All this reflects the Old Testament notion
of the absolute holiness of God; however, for Christian faith the divine
holiness has entered history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The
Old Testament notion has not been abandoned but developed, in the sense
that the holiness of God becomes present in the holiness of the incarnate
Son (cf. Mk 1:24; Lk 1:35; 4:34; Jn 6:69; Acts 3:14; 4:27,30; Rev 3:7), and the holiness of the Son
is shared by “his own” (cf. Jn 17:16-19), who are made sons
in the Son (cf. Gal 4:4-6; Rom 8:14-17). There can be
no aspiration to divine sonship in Jesus unless there is love for one’s
neighbor (cf. Mk 12:29-31: Mt 22:37-38; Lk 10:27-28).
Love of neighbor, absolutely central in the teaching of Jesus, becomes
the “new commandment” in the Gospel of John; the disciples
should love as he has loved (cf. Jn 13:34-35; 15:12,17), that
is, perfectly, “to the end” (Jn 13:1). The Christian
is called to love and to forgive to a degree that transcends every human
standard of justice and produces a reciprocity between human beings,
reflective of the reciprocity between Christ and the Father (cf. Jn 13:34f; 15:1-11; 17:21-26). In this perspective, great emphasis
is given to the theme of reconciliation and forgiveness of faults. Jesus
asks his disciples to be always ready to forgive all those who have
offended them, just as God himself always offers his forgiveness: “Forgive
us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”
(Mt 6:12; 6:12-15). He who is able to forgive his neighbor shows
that he has understood his own need for forgiveness by God. The disciple
is invited to forgive the one who offends him “seventy times seven,”
even if the person may not ask for forgiveness (cf. Mt 18:21-22).
With regard to someone who has been injured by another, Jesus insists
that the injured person should take the first step, canceling the offense
through forgiveness offered “from the heart” (cf. Mt 18:35; Mk 11:25), aware that he too is a sinner before God,
who never refuses forgiveness sincerely entreated. In Mt 5:23-24,
Jesus asks the offender to “go and reconcile himself with his brother
who has something against him” before presenting his offering at
the altar. An act of worship on the part of one who has no desire beforehand
to repair the damage to his neighbor is not pleasing to God. What matters
is changing one’s own heart and showing in an appropriate way that
one really wants reconciliation. The sinner, however, aware that his
sins wound his relationship with God and with his neighbor (cf. Lk 15:21), can expect pardon only from God, because only God is
always merciful and ready to cancel our sins. This is also the significance
of the sacrifice of Christ who, once and for all, has purified us of
our sins (cf. Heb 9:22; 10:18). Thus, the offender and the offended
are reconciled by God who receives and forgives everyone in his mercy.
In this context, which could be expanded through an analysis of the
Letters of Paul and the Catholic Epistles, there is no indication that
the early Church turned her attention to sins of the past in order to
ask for forgiveness. This might be explained by the powerful sense of
the radical newness of Christianity, which tended to orient the community
toward the future rather than the past. There is, however, a more broad
and subtle insistence pervading the New Testament: in the Gospels and
in the Letters, the ambivalence of the Christian experience is fully
recognized. For Paul, for example, the Christian community is an eschatological
people that already lives the “new creation” (cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), but this experience, made possible by the death
and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 8:1-11;
1 Cor 15:54-57), does not free us from the inclination to sin
present in the world because of Adam’s fall. From the divine intervention
in and through the death and resurrection of Jesus, it follows that
there are now two scenarios possible: the history of Adam and the history
of Christ. These proceed side by side and the believer must count on
the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus (cf., for example, Rom 6:1-11; Gal 3:27-28; Col 3:10; 2 Cor 5:14- 15) to be part of the history in which “grace overflows”
(cf. Rom 5:12-21).
A similar theological re-reading of the paschal event of Christ shows
how the early Church had an acute awareness of the possible deficiencies
of the baptized. One could say that the entire “corpus paulinum” recalls believers to a full recognition of their dignity, albeit in
the living awareness of the fragility of their human condition. “For
freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to
the yoke of slavery” (Gal 5:1). An analogous reason can
be found in the Gospel narratives. It arises decisively in Mark where
the frailties of Jesus’ disciples are one of the dominant themes
of the account (cf. Mk 4:40-41; 6:36-37, 51-52; 8:14-21,31-33;
9:5-6,32-41; 10:32-45; 14:10-11, 17- 21, 27-31,50; 16:8). Even if understandably
nuanced, the same motif recurs in all of the Evangelists. Judas and
Peter are respectively the traitor and the one who denies the Master,
though Judas ends up in desperation for his act (cf. Acts 1:15-20),
while Peter repents (cf. Lk 22:61) and arrives at a triple profession
of love (cf. in Jn 21:15-19). In Matthew, even during the final
appearance of the risen Lord, while the disciples adore him, “some
still doubted” (Mt 28:17). The Fourth Gospel presents the
disciples as those to whom an incommensurable love was given even though
their response was one of ignorance, deficiencies, denial, and betrayal
(cf. Jn 13:1-38).
This constant presentation of Jesus’ disciples, who vacillate
when it comes to yielding to sin, is not simply a critical re-reading
of the early history. The accounts are framed in such a way that they
are addressed to every other disciple of Christ in difficulty who looks
to the Gospel for guidance and inspiration. Moreover, the New Testament
is full of exhortations to behave well, to live at a higher level of
dedication, to avoid evil (cf., for example, Jas 1:5-8, 19-21;
2:1-7; 4:1-10; 1 Pt 1:13-25; 2 Pt 2:1-22; Jude 3:13; 1 Jn 5-10; 2:1-11; 18-27; 4:1-6; 2 Jn 7-11; 3 Jn 9-10). There is, however, no explicit call addressed to the
first Christians to confess the faults of the past, although the recognition
of the reality of sin and evil within the Christian people – those
called to the eschatological life proper to the Christian condition
– is highly significant (it is enough to note the reproaches in
the letters to the seven Churches in the Book of Revelation). According
to the petition found in the Lord’s Prayer, this people prays:
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against
us” (Lk 11:4; cf. Mt 6:12). Thus, the first Christians
show that they are well aware that they could act in a way that does
not correspond to their vocation, by not living their Baptism into the
death and resurrection of Jesus.
2.3. The Biblical Jubilee
An important biblical precedent for reconciliation and overcoming of
past situations is represented by the celebration of the Jubilee, as
it is regulated in the Book of Leviticus (Ch. 25). In a social
structure made up of tribes, clans, and families, situations of disorder
were inevitably created when struggling individuals or families had
to “redeem” themselves from their difficulties by consigning
their land, house, servants, or children to those who had more means
than they had. Such a system resulted in some Israelites coming to suffer
intolerable situations of debt, poverty, and servitude in the same land
that had been given to them by God, to the advantage of other children
of Israel. All this could result in a territory or a clan falling into
the hands of a few rich people for greater or lesser periods of time,
while the rest of the families of the clan came to find themselves in
a condition of debt or servitude, compelling them to live in total dependence
upon a few well-off persons.
The legislation of Leviticus 25 constitutes an attempt to overturn
this state of affairs (such that one could doubt whether it was ever
put into practice fully!). It convened the celebration of the Jubilee
every fifty years in order to preserve the social fabric of the People
of God and restore independence even to the smallest families of the
country. Decisive for Leviticus 25 is the regular repetition of Israel’s
profession of faith in God who had liberated his people in the Exodus.
“I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt
to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God” (Lv 25:38;
cf. vss 42,45). The celebration of the Jubilee was an implicit admission
of fault and an attempt to re-establish a just order. Any system which
would alienate an Israelite – once a slave but now freed by the
powerful arm of God – was in fact a denial of God’s saving
action in and through the Exodus.
The liberation of the victims and sufferers becomes part of the much
broader program of the prophets. Deutero-Isaiah, in the Suffering Servant
songs (Is 42:1-9; 49:1-6; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12) develops these
allusions to the practice of the Jubilee with the themes of ransom and
of freedom, of return and redemption. Isaiah 58 is an attack on ritual
observance that has no regard for social justice; it is a call for liberation
of the oppressed (Is 58:6), centered specifically on the obligations
of kinship (v.7). More clearly, Isaiah 61 uses the images of the Jubilee
to depict the Anointed One as God’s herald sent to “evangelize”
the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives, and to announce the year
of grace of the Lord. Significantly, it is precisely this text, with
an allusion to Isaiah 58:6, that Jesus uses to present the task of his
life and ministry in Luke 4:17-21.
2.4. Conclusion
From what has been said, it can be concluded that John Paul II’s
appeal to the Church to mark the Jubilee Year by an admission of guilt
for the sufferings and wrongs committed by her sons and daughters in
the past, as well as the ways in which this might be put into practice,
do not find an exact parallel in the Bible. Nevertheless, they are based
on what Sacred Scripture says about the holiness of God, the intergenerational
solidarity of God’s people, and the sinfulness of the people. The
Pope’s appeal correctly captures the spirit of the biblical Jubilee,
which calls for actions aimed at re-establishing the order of God’s
original plan for creation. This requires that the proclamation of the
“today” of the Jubilee, begun by Jesus (cf. Lk 4:21),
be continued in the Jubilee celebration of his Church. In addition,
this singular experience of grace prompts the People of God as a whole,
as well as each of the baptized, to take still greater cognizance of
the mandate received from the Lord to be ever ready to forgive offenses
received.(39)
3. Theological Foundations
“Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity
draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious
of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history
when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead
of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values
of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms
of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of
her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance.
Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful
sons and daughters.”(40) These words of John Paul II emphasize
how the Church is touched by the sin of her children. She is holy in
being made so by the Father through the sacrifice of the Son and the
gift of the Spirit. She is also in a certain sense sinner, in really
taking upon herself the sin of those whom she has generated in Baptism.
This is analogous to the way Christ Jesus took on the sin of the world
(cf. Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; 1 Pt 2:24).(41) Furthermore, in her most profound self-awareness in time,
the Church knows that she is not only a community of the elect, but
one which in her very bosom includes both righteous and sinners, of
the present as well as the past, in the unity of the mystery which constitutes
her. Indeed, in grace and in the woundedness of sin, the baptized of
today are close to, and in solidarity with, those of yesterday. For
this reason one can say that the Church – one in time and space
in Christ and in the Spirit – is truly “at the same time holy
and ever in need of purification.”(42) It is from this paradox,
which is characteristic of the mystery of the Church, that the question
arises as to how one can reconcile the two aspects: on the one hand,
the Church’s affirmation in faith of her holiness, and on the other
hand, her unceasing need for penance and purification.
3.1. The Mystery of the
Church
“The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends
it. It is only ‘with the eyes of faith’ that one can see her
in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality
as bearer of divine life.”(43) The ensemble of her visible and
historical aspects stands in relation to the divine gift in a way that
is analogous to how, in the incarnate Word of God, the assumed humanity
is sign and instrument of the action of the divine Person of the Son.
The two dimensions of ecclesial being form “one complex reality
resulting from a human and a divine element,”(44) in a communion
that participates in the Trinitarian life and brings about baptized
persons’ sense of being united among themselves despite historical
differences of time and place. By the power of this communion, the Church
presents herself as a subject that is absolutely unique in human affairs,
able to take on the gifts, the merits, and the faults of her children
of yesterday and today.
The telling analogy to the mystery of the incarnate Word implies too,
nevertheless, a fundamental difference. “Christ, ‘holy, innocent,
and undefiled’ (Heb 7:26), knew no sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), but came only to expiate the sins of the people (cf. Heb 2:17). The Church, however, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the
same time holy and always in need of purification and incessantly pursues
the path of penance and renewal.”(45) The absence of sin in the
Incarnate Word cannot be attributed to his ecclesial Body, within which,
on the contrary, each person – participating in the grace bestowed
by God – needs nevertheless to be vigilant and to be continually
purified. Each member also shares in the weakness of others: “All
members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that
they are sinners (cf. 1 Jn 1:8-10). In everyone, the weeds of
sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the
end of time (cf. Mt 13:24-30). Hence the Church gathers sinners
already caught up in Christ’s salvation but still on the way to
holiness.”(46)
Already Paul VI had solemnly affirmed that the Church “is holy,
though she includes sinners in her bosom, for she herself has no other
life but the life of grace... This is why she suffers and does penance
for these faults, from which she has the power to free her children
through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.”(47)
The Church in her “mystery” is thus the encounter of sanctity
and of weakness, continually redeemed, and yet always in need of the
power of redemption. As the liturgy – the true “lex credendi” – teaches, the individual Christian and the community of the saints
implore God to look upon the faith of his church and not on the sins
of individuals, which are the negation of this living faith: “Ne
respicias peccata nostra, sed fidem Ecclesiae Tuae”! In the
unity of the mystery of the Church through time and space, it is possible
to consider the aspect of holiness, the need for repentance and reform,
and their articulation in the actions of Mother Church.
3.2. The Holiness of the
Church
The Church is holy because, sanctified by Christ who has acquired her
by giving himself up to death for her, she is maintained in holiness
by the Holy Spirit who pervades her unceasingly: “We believe that
the Church…is indefectibly holy. For Christ, the Son of God, who
with the Father and the Spirit is praised as being ‘alone holy,’
loved the Church as his bride and gave himself up for her, so that she
might be made holy (cf. Eph 5: 25), and has united her to himself
as his body and has filled her with the gift of the Holy Spirit, to
the glory of God. For this reason, everyone in the Church…is called
to holiness.”(48) In this sense, from the beginning, the members
of the Church are called the “saints” (cf. Acts 9:13;
1 Cor 6:1; 16:1). One can distinguish, however, the holiness
of the Church from holiness in the Church. The former
- founded on the missions of the Son and Spirit – guarantees the
continuity of the mission of the People of God until the end of time
and stimulates and aids the believers in pursuing subjective personal
holiness. The form which holiness takes is rooted in the vocation that
each one receives; it is given and required of him as the full completion
of his own vocation and mission. Personal holiness is always directed
toward God and others, and thus has an essentially social character:
it is holiness “in the Church” oriented towards the good of
all.
Holiness in the Church must therefore correspond to the holiness of the Church. “The followers of Christ, called by God not
according to their works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
and justified in the Lord Jesus, have been made truly children of God
in the Baptism of faith and sharers in the divine nature, and thus are
really made holy. They must therefore hold on to and perfect in their
lives that sanctification which they have received from God.”(49)
The baptized person is called to become with his entire existence that
which he has already become by virtue of his baptismal consecration.
And this does not happen without the consent of his freedom and the
assistance of the grace that comes from God. No one becomes himself
so fully as does the saint, who welcomes the divine plan and, with the
help of grace, conforms his entire being to it! The saints are in this
sense like lights kindled by the Lord in the midst of his Church in
order to illuminate her; they are a prophecy for the whole world.
3.3 The Necessity
of Continual Renewal
Without obscuring this holiness, we must acknowledge that due to the
presence of sin there is a need for continual renewal and for constant
conversion in the People of God. The Church on earth is “marked
with a true holiness,” which is, however, “imperfect.”(50)
Augustine observes against the Pelagians: “The Church as a whole
says: Forgive us our trespasses! Therefore she has blemishes and wrinkles.
But by means of confession the wrinkles are smoothed away and the blemishes
washed clean. The Church stands in prayer in order to be purified by
confession and, as long as men live on earth it will be so.”(51)
And Thomas Aquinas makes clear that the fullness of holiness belongs
to eschatological time; in the meantime, the Church still on pilgrimage
should not deceive herself by saying that she is without sin: “To
be a glorious Church, with neither spot nor wrinkle, is the ultimate
end to which we are brought by the Passion of Christ. Hence, this will
be the case only in the heavenly homeland, not here on the way of pilgrimage,
where ‘if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves’...”(52)
In reality, “though we are clothed with the baptismal garment,
we do not cease to sin, to turn away from God. Now, in this new petition
[‘forgive us our trespasses’], we return to him like the prodigal
son (cf. Lk 15:11-32) and, like the tax collector, recognize
that we are sinners before him (cf. Lk 18:13). Our petition
begins with a ‘confession’ of our wretchedness and his mercy.”(53)
Hence it is the entire Church that confesses her faith in God through
the confession of her children’s sins and celebrates his infinite
goodness and capacity for forgiveness. Thanks to the bond established
by the Holy Spirit, the communion that exists among all the baptized
in time and space is such that in this communion each person is himself,
but at the same time is conditioned by others and exercises an influence
on them in the living exchange of spiritual goods. In this way, the
holiness of each one influences the growth in goodness of others; however,
sin also does not have an exclusively individual relevance, because
it burdens and poses resistance along the way of salvation of all and,
in this sense, truly touches the Church in her entirety, across the
various times and places. This distinction prompts the Fathers to make
sharp statements like this one of Ambrose: “Let us beware then
that our fall not become a wound of the Church.”(54) The Church
therefore, “although she is holy because of her incorporation into
Christ, … does not tire of doing penance: Before God and man, she
always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters”(55)
of both yesterday and today.
3.4. The Motherhood of
the Church
The conviction that the Church can make herself responsible for the
sin of her children by virtue of the solidarity that exists among them
through time and space because of their incorporation into Christ and
the work of the Holy Spirit, is expressed in a particularly effective
way in the idea of “Mother Church” (“Mater Ecclesia”), which “in the conception of the early Fathers of the Church sums
up the entire Christian aspiration.”(56) The Church, Vatican II
affirms, “by means of the Word of God faithfully received, becomes
a mother, since through preaching and baptism she brings forth children
to a new and immortal life, who have been conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of God.”(57) Augustine, for example, gives voice to the
vast tradition, of which these ideas are an echo: “This holy and
honored mother is like Mary. She gives birth and she is a virgin, from
her you were born - she generates Christ so that you will be members
of Christ.”(58) Cyprian of Carthage states succinctly: “One
cannot have God as a father who doesn’t have the Church as a mother.”(59)
And Paulinus of Nola sings of the motherhood of the Church like this:
“As a mother she receives the seed of the eternal Word, carries
the peoples in her womb and gives birth to them.”(60)
According to this vision, the Church is continually realized in the
exchange and communication of the Spirit from one believer to another,
as the generative environment of faith and holiness, in fraternal communion,
unanimity in prayer, solidarity with the cross, and common witness.
By virtue of this living communication, each baptized person can be
considered to be at the same time a child of the Church, in that he
is generated in her to divine life, and Mother Church, in that, by his
faith and love he cooperates in giving birth to new children for God.
He is ever more Mother Church, the greater is his holiness and the more
ardent is his effort to communicate to others the gift he has received.
On the other hand, the baptized person does not cease to be a child
of the Church when, because of sin, he separates himself from her in
his heart. He may always come back to the springs of grace and remove
the burden that his sin imposes on the entire community of Mother Church.
The Church, in turn, as a true Mother, cannot but be wounded by the
sin of her children of yesterday and today, continuing to love them
always, to the point of making herself responsible in all times for
the burden created by their sins. Thus, she is seen by the Fathers of
the Church to be the Mother of sorrows, not only because of persecutions
coming from outside, but above all because of the betrayals, failures,
delays, and sinfulness of her children.
Holiness and sin in the Church are reflected therefore in their
effects on the entire Church, although it is a conviction of faith that
holiness is stronger than sin, since it is the fruit of divine grace.
The saints are shining proof of this, and are recognized as models and
help for all! There is no parallelism between grace and sin, nor even
a kind of symmetry or dialectical relationship. The influence of evil
will never be able to conquer the force of grace and the radiance of
good, even the most hidden good! In this sense the Church recognizes
herself to be holy in her saints. While she rejoices over this holiness
and knows its benefit, she nonetheless confesses herself a sinner, not
as a subject who sins, but rather in assuming the weight of her children’s
faults in maternal solidarity, so as to cooperate in overcoming them
through penance and newness of life. For this reason, the holy Church
recognizes the duty “to express profound regret for the weaknesses
of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing
her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme
witness of patient love and humble meekness.”(61)
This expression of regret can be done in a particular way by those
who by charism and ministry express the communion of the People of God
in its weightiest form: on behalf of the local Churches, Bishops may
be able to make confessions for wrongs and requests for forgiveness.
For the entire Church, one in time and space, the person capable of
speaking is he who exercises the universal ministry of unity, the Bishop
of the Church “which presides in love,”(62) the Pope. This
is why it is particularly significant that the invitation came from
him that “the Church should become more fully conscious of the
sinfulness of her children” and recognize the necessity “to
make amends for… [the sins of the past], and earnestly beseech
Christ’s forgiveness.”(63)
4. Historical Judgement and Theological Judgement
The determination of the wrongs of the past, for which amends are to
be made, implies, first of all, a correct historical judgement, which
is also the foundation of the theological evaluation. One must ask:
What precisely occurred? What exactly was said and done? Only when these
questions are adequately answered through rigorous historical analysis
can one then ask whether what happened, what was said or done, can been
understood as consistent with the Gospel, and, if it cannot, whether
the Church’s sons and daughters who acted in such a way could have
recognised this, given the context in which they acted. Only when there
is moral certainty that what was done in contradiction to the Gospel
in the name of the Church by certain of her sons and daughters could
have been understood by them as such and avoided, can it have significance
for the Church of today to make amends for faults of the past.
The relationship between “historical judgement” and “theological
judgement” is therefore as complex as it is necessary and determinative.
For this reason, it is necessary to undertake it without falsehoods
on one side or the other. Both an apologetics that seeks to justify
everything and an unwarranted laying of blame, based on historically
untenable attributions of responsibility, must be avoided. John Paul
II, referring to the historical-theological evaluation of the work of
the Inquisition, stated: “The Church’s Magisterium certainly
may not intend to perform an act of natural ethics, which the request
for pardon is, without first being exactly informed concerning the situation
of that time. But, at the same time, neither may it rely on images of
the past steered by public opinion, since these are frequently highly
charged with passionate emotion which impedes serene and objective diagnosis…
This is the reason why the first step consists in asking the historians,
not to furnish a judgement of natural ethics, which would exceed the
area of their competence, but to offer help toward a reconstruction,
as precise as possible, of the events, of the customs, of the mentality
of the time, in the light of historical context of the epoch.”(64)
4.1. The Interpretation
of History
What are the conditions for a correct interpretation of the past from
the point of view of historical knowledge? To determine these, we must
take account of the complexity of the relationship between the subject
who interprets and the object from the past which is interpreted.(65)
First, their mutual extraneousness must be emphasized. Events or words
of the past are, above all, “past.” As such they are not completely
reducible to the framework of the present, but possess an objective
density and complexity that prevent them from being ordered in a solely
functional way for present interests. It is necessary, therefore, to
approach them by means of an historical-critical investigation that
aims at using all of the information available, with a view to a reconstruction
of the environment, of the ways of thinking, of the conditions and the
living dynamic in which those events and those words are placed, in
order, in such a way, to ascertain the contents and the challenges that
- precisely in their diversity - they propose to our present time.
Second, a certain common belonging of interpreter and interpreted
must be recognized without which no bond and no communication could
exist between past and present. This communicative bond is based on
the fact that every human being, whether of yesterday or of today, is
situated in a complex of historical relationships, and in order to live
these relationships, the mediation of language is necessary, a mediation
which itself is always historically determined. Everybody belongs to
history! Bringing to light this communality between interpreter and
the object of interpretation – which is reached through the multiple
forms by which the past leaves evidence of itself (texts, monuments,
traditions, etc.) – means judging both the accuracy of possible
correspondences and possible difficulties of communication between past
and present, as indicated by one’s own understanding of the past
words and events. This requires taking into account the questions which
motivate the research and their effect on the answers which are found,
the living context in which the work is undertaken, and the interpreting
community whose language is spoken and to whom one intends to speak.
For this purpose, it is necessary that the pre-understanding –
which is part of every act of interpretation – be as reflective
and conscious as possible, in order to measure and moderate its real
effect on the interpretative process.
Finally, through the effort to know and to evaluate, an osmosis (a “fusion of horizons”) is accomplished between the interpreter
and the object of the past that is interpreted, in which the act of
comprehension properly consists. This is the expression of what is judged
to be the correct understanding of the events or words of the past;
it is equivalent to grasping the meaning which the events can have for
the interpreter and his world. Thanks to this encounter of living worlds,
understanding of the past is translated into its application to the
present. The past is grasped in the potentialities which it discloses,
in the stimulus it offers to modify the present. Memory becomes capable
of giving rise to a new future.
This fruitful osmosis with the past is reached through the interwovenness
of certain basic hermeneutic operations, which correspond to the stages
of extraneousness, communality, and understanding true and proper. In
relation to a “text” of the past (understood in a general
sense as evidence which may be written, oral, monumental, or figurative),
these operations can be expressed as follows: “1) understanding
the text; 2) judging how correct one’s understanding of the text
is; and 3) stating what one judges to be the correct understanding of
the text.”(66) Understanding the evidence of the past means reaching
it as far as possible in its objectivity through all the sources that
are available. Judging the correctness of one’s own interpretation
means verifying honestly and rigorously to what extent it could have
been oriented or conditioned in any way by one’s prior understanding
or by possible prejudices. Stating the interpretation reached means
bringing others into the dialogue created with the past, in order both
to verify its importance and to discover other possible interpretations.
4.2. Historical Investigation and Theological Evaluation
If these operations are present in every hermeneutic act, they must
also be part of the interpretative process within which historical judgement
and theological judgement come to be integrated. This requires, in the
first place, that in this type of interpretation, maximum attention
be given to the elements of differentiation and extraneousness between
past and present. In particular, when one intends to judge the possible
wrongs of the past, it must be kept in mind that the historical periods
are different, that the sociological and cultural times within which
the Church acts are different, and so, the paradigms and judgements
proper to one society and to one era might be applied erroneously in
the evaluation of other periods of history, producing many misunderstandings.
Persons, institutions, and their respective competencies are different;
ways of thinking and conditioning are different. Therefore, responsibility
for what was said and done has to be precisely identified, taking into
account the fact that the Church’s request for forgiveness commits
the single theological subject of the Church in the variety of ways
and levels in which she is represented by individual persons and in
the enormous diversity of historical and geographical situations. Generalization
must be avoided. Any possible statement today must be situated in the
contemporary context and undertaken by the appropriate subject (universal
Church, Bishops of a country, particular Churches, etc.).
Second, the correlation of historical judgement and theological judgement
must take into account the fact that, for the interpretation of the
faith, the bond between past and present is not motivated only by the
current interest and by the common belonging of every human being to
history and its expressive mediations, but is based also on the unifying
action of the Spirit of God and on the permanent identity of the constitutive
principle of the communion of the faithful, which is revelation. The
Church - by virtue of the communion produced in her by the Spirit of
Christ in time and space – cannot fail to recognize herself in
her supernatural aspect, present and operative in all times, as a subject
in a certain way unique, called to correspond to the gift of God in
different forms and situations through the choices of her children,
despite all of the deficiencies that may have characterized them. Communion
in the one Holy Spirit also establishes a communion of “saints”
in a diachronic sense, by virtue of which the baptized of today feel
connected to the baptized of yesterday and - as they benefit from their
merits and are nourished by their witness of holiness - so likewise
they feel the obligation to assume any current burden from their faults,
after having discerned these by attentive historical and theological
study.
Thanks to this objective and transcendent foundation of the communion
of the People of God in its various historical situations, interpretation
done by believers recognizes in the Church’s past a very particular
significance for the present day. The encounter with the past, produced
in the act of interpretation, can have particular value for the present,
and be rich in a “performative” efficaciousness that cannot
always be calculated beforehand. Of course, the powerful unity between
the hermeneutic horizon and the Church as interpreting agent exposes
the theological vision to the risk of yielding to apologetic or tendentious
readings. It is here that the hermeneutic exercise aimed at understanding
past events and statements and at evaluating the correctness of their
interpretation for today is more necessary than ever. For this reason,
the reading undertaken by believers will avail itself of all possible
contributions by the historical sciences and interpretative methods.
The exercise of historical hermeneutics should not, however, prevent
the evaluation of faith from questioning the texts according to its
own distinctive vision, thus making past and present interact in the
conscience of the one fundamental subject involved in these texts, the
Church. This guards against all historicism that would relativize the
weight of past wrongs and make history justify everything. As John Paul
II observes, “an accurate historical judgement cannot prescind
from careful study of the cultural conditioning of the times... Yet
the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church
from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of
so many of her sons and daughters...”(67) The Church is “not
afraid of the truth that emerges from history and is ready to acknowledge
mistakes wherever they have been identified, especially when they involve
the respect that is owed to individuals and communities. She is inclined
to mistrust generalizations that excuse or condemn various historical
periods. She entrusts the investigation of the past to patient, honest,
scholarly reconstruction, free from confessional or ideological prejudices,
regarding both the accusations brought against her and the wrongs she
has suffered.”(68) The examples offered in the following chapter
may furnish a concrete demonstration.
5. Ethical Discernment
In order for the Church carry out an appropriate historical examination
of conscience before God with a view to her own interior renewal and
growth in grace and holiness, it is necessary that she recognize the
“forms of counter-witness and of scandal” that have taken
place in her history, especially in the past millennium. It is not possible
to undertake such a task without being aware of its moral and spiritual
significance. This entails defining some key terms, as well as making
some necessary ethical clarifications.
5.1. Some Ethical Criteria
On the level of morality, the request for forgiveness always presupposes
an admission of responsibility, precisely the responsibility
for a wrong committed against others. Usually, moral responsibility refers to the relationship between the action and the person who does
it. It establishes who is responsible for an act, its attribution to
a certain person or persons. The responsibility may be objective or subjective. Objective responsibility refers to the moral value
of the act in itself, insofar as it is good or evil, and thus refers
to the imputability of the action. Subjective responsibility concerns
the effective perception by individual conscience of the goodness or
evil of the act performed. Subjective responsibility ceases with the
death of the one who performed the act; it is not transmitted through
generation; the descendants do not inherit (subjective) responsibility
for the acts of their ancestors. In this sense, asking for forgiveness
presupposes a contemporaneity between those who are hurt by an action
and those who committed it. The only responsibility capable of continuing
in history can be the objective kind, to which one may freely adhere
subjectively or not. Thus, the evil done often outlives the one who
did it through the consequences of behaviors that can become a heavy
burden on the consciences and memories of the descendants.
In such a context, one can speak of a solidarity that unites
the past and the present in a relationship of reciprocity. In certain
situations, the burden that weighs on conscience can be so heavy as
to constitute a kind of moral and religious memory of the evil done,
which is by its nature a common memory. This common memory gives
eloquent testimony to the solidarity objectively existing between those
who committed the evil in the past and their heirs in the present. It
is then that it becomes possible to speak of an objective common
responsibility. Liberation from the weight of this responsibility
comes above all through imploring God’s forgiveness for the wrongs
of the past, and then, where appropriate, through the “purification
of memory” culminating in a mutual pardoning of sins and offenses
in the present.
Purifying the memory means eliminating from personal and collective
conscience all forms of resentment or violence left by the inheritance
of the past, on the basis of a new and rigorous historical-theological
judgement, which becomes the foundation for a renewed moral way of acting.
This occurs whenever it becomes possible to attribute to past historical
deeds a different quality, having a new and different effect on the
present, in view of progress in reconciliation in truth, justice, and
charity among human beings and, in particular, between the Church and
the different religious, cultural, and civil communities with whom she
is related. Emblematic models of such an effect, which a later authoritative
interpretative judgement may have for the entire life of the Church,
are the reception of the Councils or acts like the abolition of mutual
anathemas. These express a new assessment of past history, which is
capable of producing a different characterization of the relationships
lived in the present. The memory of division and opposition is purified
and substituted by a reconciled memory, to which everyone in the Church
is invited to be open and to become educated.
The combination of historical judgement and theological judgement in
the process of interpreting the past is connected to the ethical repercussions
that it may have in the present and entails some principles corresponding,
on the moral plane, to the hermeneutic foundation of the relationship
between historical judgement and theological judgement. These are:
a. The principle of conscience. Conscience, as “moral judgement”
and as “moral imperative,” constitutes the final evaluation
of an act as good or evil before God. In effect, only God knows the
moral value of each human act, even if the Church, like Jesus, can and
must classify, judge, and sometimes condemn some kinds of action (cf. Mt 18:15-18).
b. The principle of historicity. Precisely inasmuch as every
human act belongs to the subject who acts, every individual conscience
and every society chooses and acts within a determined horizon of time
and space. To truly understand human acts or their related dynamics,
we need therefore to enter into the world of those who did them. Only
in such a way can we come to know their motivations and their moral
principles. This must be said without prejudice to the solidarity that
binds the members of a specific community through the passage of time.
c. The principle of “paradigm change.” While before
the Enlightenment there existed a sort of osmosis between Church and
State, between faith and culture, morality and law, from the eighteenth
century onward this relationship was modified significantly. The result
was a transition from a sacral society to a pluralist society, or, as
occurred in a few cases, to a secular society. The models of thought
and action, the so-called “paradigms” of actions and evaluation,
change. Such a transition has a direct impact on moral judgements, although
this influence does not justify in any way a relativistic idea of moral
principles or of the nature of morality itself.
The entire process of purification of memory, however, insofar as it
requires the correct combination of historical evaluation and theological
perception, needs to be lived by the Church’s sons and daughters
not only with the rigor that takes account of the criteria and principles
indicated above, but is also accompanied by a continual calling upon
the help of the Holy Spirit. This is necessary in order not to fall
into resentment or unwarranted self-recrimination, but to arrive instead
at the confession of the God whose “mercy is from age to age”
(Lk 1:50), who wants life and not death, forgiveness and not
condemnation, love and not fear. The quality of exemplarity which
the honest admission of past faults can exert on attitudes within the
Church and civil society should also be noted, for it gives rise to
a renewed obedience to the Truth and to respect for the dignity and
the rights of others, most especially, of the very weak. In this sense,
the numerous requests for forgiveness formulated by John Paul II constitute
an example that draws attention to something good and stimulates the
imitation of it, recalling individuals and groups of people to an honest
and fruitful examination of conscience with a view to reconciliation.
In the light of these ethical clarifications, we can now explore some
examples – among which are those mentioned in Tertio millennio
adveniente(69) – of situations in which the behavior of the
sons and daughters of the Church seems to have contradicted the Gospel
of Jesus Christ in a significant way.
5.2. The Division of Christians
Unity is the law of the life of the Trinitarian God revealed to the
world by the Son (cf. Jn 17:21), who, in the power of the Holy
Spirit, loving until the end (cf. Jn 13:1), communicates this
life to his own. This unity should be the source and the form of the
communion of mankind’s life with the Triune God. If Christians
live this law of mutual love, so as to be one “as the Father and
the Son are one,” the result will be that “the world will
believe that the Son was sent by the Father” (Jn 17:21)
and “everyone will know that these are his disciples” (Jn 13:35). Unfortunately, it has not happened this way, particularly in
the millennium which has just ended and in which great divisions appeared
among Christians, in open contradiction to the explicit will of Christ,
as if he himself were divided (cf. 1 Cor 1:13). Vatican Council
II judges this fact in this way: “Certainly such division openly
contradicts the will of Christ, is a scandal to the world, and damages
that most holy cause, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature.”(70)
The principal divisions during the past millennium which “affect
the seamless garment of Christ”(71) are the schism between the
Eastern and Western Churches at the beginning of this millennium, and
in the West - four centuries later - the laceration caused by those
events “commonly referred to as the Reformation.”(72) It is
true that “these various divisions differ greatly from one another
not only by reason of their origin, place, and time, but above all by
reason of the nature and gravity of questions concerning faith and the
structure of the Church.”(73) In the schism of the eleventh century,
cultural and historical factors played an important role, while the
doctrinal dimension concerned the authority of the Church and the Bishop
of Rome, a topic which at that time had not reached the clarity it has
today, thanks to the doctrinal development of this millennium. In the
case of the Reformation, however, other areas of revelation and doctrine
were objects of controversy.
The way that has opened to overcome these differences is that of doctrinal
development animated by mutual love. The lack of supernatural love,
of agape, seems to have been common to both the breaches. Given
that this charity is the supreme commandment of the Gospel, without
which all the rest is but “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”
(1 Cor 13:1), such a deficiency needs to be seen in all its
seriousness before the Risen One, the Lord of the Church and of history.
It is by virtue of the recognition of this lack that Pope Paul VI asked
pardon of God and of the “separated brethren,” who may have
felt offended “by us” (the Catholic Church).(74)
In 1965, in the climate produced by the Second Vatican Council, Patriarch
Athenagoras, in his dialogue with Paul VI, emphasized the theme of the
restoration (apokatastasis) of mutual love, so essential after
a history laden with opposition, mutual mistrust, and antagonism.(75)
It was a question of a past that, through memory, was still exerting
its influence. The events of 1965 (culminating on December 7, 1965,
with the abolition of the anathemas of 1054 between East and West) represent
a confession of the fault contained in the earlier mutual exclusion,
so as to purify the memory of the past and generate a new one. The basis
of this new memory cannot be other than mutual love or, better,
the renewed commitment to live it. This is the commandment ante omnia (1 Pt 4:8) for the Church in the East and in the West. In such
a way, memory frees us from the prison of the past and calls Catholics
and Orthodox, as well as Catholics and Protestants, to be the architects
of a future more in conformity with the new commandment. Pope Paul VI’s
and Patriarch Athenagoras’ testimony to this new memory is in this
sense exemplary.
Particularly problematic for the path toward the unity of Christians
is the temptation to be guided – or even determined – by cultural
factors, historical conditioning, and those prejudices which feed the
separation and mutual distrust among Christians, even though they do
not have anything to do with matters of faith. The Church’s sons
and daughters should sincerely examine their consciences to see whether
they are actively committed to obeying the imperative of unity and are
living an “interior conversion,” because “it is from
newness of attitudes of mind (cf. Eph 4:23), from self-denial
and generous love, that desires for unity take their rise and grow toward
maturity.”(76) In the period from the close of the Council until
today, resistance to its message has certainly saddened the Spirit of
God (cf. Eph 4:30). To the extent that some Catholics are pleased
to remain bound to the separations of the past, doing nothing to remove
the obstacles that impede unity, one could justly speak of solidarity
in the sin of division (cf. 1 Cor 1:10-16). In this context
the words of the Decree on Ecumenism could be recalled: “With humble
prayer we ask pardon of God and of the separated brethren, as we forgive
those who trespass against us.”(77)
5.3. The
Use of Force in the Service of Truth
To the counter-witness of the division between Christians should be
added that of the various occasions in the past millennium when doubtful
means were employed in the pursuit of good ends, such as the proclamation
of the Gospel or the defense of the unity of the faith. “Another
sad chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church
must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence
given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the
use of force in the service of truth.”(78) This refers to forms
of evangelization that employed improper means to announce the revealed
truth or did not include an evangelical discernment suited to the cultural
values of peoples or did not respect the consciences of the persons
to whom the faith was presented, as well as all forms of force used
in the repression and correction of errors.
Analogous attention should be paid to all the failures, for which the
sons and daughters of the Church may have been responsible, to denounce
injustice and violence in the great variety of historical situations:
“Then there is the lack of discernment by many Christians in situations
where basic human rights were violated. The request for forgiveness
applies to whatever should have been done or was passed over in silence
because of weakness or bad judgement, to what was done or said hesitantly
or inappropriately.”(79)
As always, establishing the historical truth by means of historical-critical
research is decisive. Once the facts have been established, it will
be necessary to evaluate their spiritual and moral value, as well as
their objective significance. Only thus will it be possible to avoid
every form of mythical memory and reach a fair critical memory capable
- in the light of faith - of producing fruits of conversion and renewal.
“From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for
the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle
stated by the Council: ‘The truth cannot impose itself except by
virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness
and power.’”(80)
5.4. Christians and Jews
The relationship between Christians and Jews is one of the areas requiring
a special examination of conscience.(81) “The Church’s relationship
to the Jewish people is unlike the one she shares with any other religion.”(82)
Nevertheless, “the history of the relations between Jews and Christians
is a tormented one... In effect, the balance of these relations over
two thousand years has been quite negative.”(83) The hostility
or diffidence of numerous Christians toward Jews in the course of time
is a sad historical fact and is the cause of profound remorse for Christians
aware of the fact that “Jesus was a descendent of David; that the
Virgin Mary and the Apostles belonged to the Jewish people; that the
Church draws sustenance from the root of that good olive tree onto which
have been grafted the wild olive branches of the Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:17-24); that the Jews are our dearly beloved brothers, indeed in
a certain sense they are ‘our elder brothers.’”(84)
The Shoah was certainly the result of the pagan ideology that was Nazism,
animated by a merciless anti-Semitism that not only despised the faith
of the Jewish people, but also denied their very human dignity. Nevertheless,
“it may be asked whether the Nazi persecution of the Jews was not
made easier by the anti-Jewish prejudices imbedded in some Christian
minds and hearts... Did Christians give every possible assistance to
those being persecuted, and in particular to the persecuted Jews?”(85)
There is no doubt that there were many Christians who risked their lives
to save and to help their Jewish neighbors. It seems, however, also
true that “alongside such courageous men and women, the spiritual
resistance and concrete action of other Christians was not that which
might have been expected from Christ’s followers.”(86) This
fact constitutes a call to the consciences of all Christians today,
so as to require “an act of repentance (teshuva),”(87)
and to be a stimulus to increase efforts to be “transformed by
renewal of your mind” (Rom 12:2), as well as to keep a “moral
and religious memory” of the injury inflicted on the Jews. In this
area, much has already been done, but this should be confirmed and deepened.
5.5 Our
Responsibility for the Evils of Today.
“The present age in fact, together with much light, also presents
not a few shadows.”(88) First among the latter, we might mention
the phenomenon of the denial of God in its many forms. What is particularly
apparent is that this denial, especially in its more theoretical aspects,
is a process that emerged in the western world. Connected to the eclipse
of God, one encounters then a series of negative phenomena, like religious
indifference, the widespread lack of a transcendent sense of human life,
a climate of secularism and ethical relativism, the denial of the right
to life of the unborn child sanctioned in pro-abortion legislation,
and a great indifference to the cry of the poor in entire sectors of
the human family.
The uncomfortable question to consider is in what measure believers
are themselves responsible for these forms of atheism, whether theoretical
or practical. Gaudium et spes responds with well-chosen words:
“Believers themselves often share some responsibility for this
situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not something original,
but rather stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction
against religious belief and in some places against the Christian religion
in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with
the genesis of atheism.”(89)
The true face of God has been revealed in Jesus Christ, and thus, Christians
are offered the incommensurable grace to know this face. At the same
time, however, Christians have the responsibility to live in
such a way as to show others the true face of the living God. They are
called to radiate to the world the truth that “God is love (agape)”
(1 Jn 4:8,16). Since God is love, he is also a Trinity of Persons,
whose life consists in their infinite mutual communication in love.
It follows from this that the best way Christians can radiate the truth
that God is love is by their own mutual love. “By this all will
know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (Jn 13:35). For this reason, it can be said of Christians that often “to
the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach
erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social
life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic
face of God and of religion.”(90)
Finally, it must be emphasized that the mentioning of these faults
of Christians of the past is not only to confess them to Christ the
Savior, but also to praise the Lord of history for his merciful love.
Christians, in fact, do not believe only in the existence of sin, but
also, and above all, in the forgiveness of sins. In addition,
recalling these faults means accepting our solidarity with those who,
in good and bad, have gone before us on the way of truth. It offers
to those of the present a powerful reason to convert to the requirements
of the Gospel, and it provides a necessary prelude to the request for
God’s forgiveness that opens the way for mutual reconciliation.
6. Pastoral and Missionary Perspectives
In the light of these considerations, it is now possible to
ask the question: What are the pastoral aims of the Church’s taking
responsibility for past faults committed in her name by her sons and
daughters, and for which she makes amends? What are its implications
for the life of the People of God? And what are the consequences in
relation to the Church’s missionary effort and her dialogue with
various cultures and religions?
6.1 The Pastoral Aims
The following are some of the pastoral reasons for acknowledging the
faults of the past.
First, these acts tend towards the purification of memory, which
– as noted above – is a process aimed at a new evaluation
of the past, capable of having a considerable effect on the present,
because past sins frequently make their weight felt and remain temptations
in the present as well. Above all, if the causes of possible resentment
for evils suffered and the negative influences stemming from what was
done in the past can be removed as a result of dialogue and the patient
search for mutual understanding with those who feel injured by words
and deeds of the past, such a removal may help the community of the
Church grow in holiness through reconciliation and peace in obedience
to the Truth. “Acknowledging the weaknesses of the past,”
the Pope emphasizes, “is an act of honesty and courage which helps
us to strengthen our faith, which alerts us to face today’s temptations
and challenges, and prepares us to meet them.”(91) To that end,
it is good that the remembering of faults also includes all possible
omissions, even if only some of these are mentioned frequently today.
One should not forget the price paid by many Christians for their fidelity
to the Gospel and for their service to their neighbor in charity. (92)
A second pastoral aim, closely connected to the first, is the promotion
of the continual reform of the People of God. “Therefore,
if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in
moral conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the way in which doctrine
is expressed (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit
of the faith itself), these should be appropriately rectified at the
proper moment.”(93) All of the baptized are called to “examine
their fidelity to the will of Christ concerning the Church, and as required,
strenuously undertake the work of renewal and reform.”(94) The
criterion of true reform and of authentic renewal must be fidelity to
the will of God regarding his people(95) that presupposes a sincere
effort to free oneself from all that leads away from his will, whether
we are dealing with present faults or the inheritance from the past.
A further aim can be seen to be the witness that the Church
gives to the God of mercy and to his liberating and saving Truth, from
the experience which she has had and continues to have of him in history.
There is also the service which the Church in this way gives
to humanity to help overcome current evils. John Paul II states that
“many Cardinals and Bishops expressed the desire for a serious
examination of conscience above all on the part of the Church today.
On the threshold of the new millennium Christians need to place themselves
humbly before the Lord and examine themselves on the responsibility
which they too have for the evils of our day”(96) in order to help
overcome them in obedience to the splendor of saving Truth.
6.2 Ecclesial Implications
What are the implications for the life of the Church of an ecclesial
request for forgiveness? A number of aspects can be mentioned.
It is necessary above all to take into account the different processes
of reception of acts of ecclesial repentance, because these will
vary according to religious, cultural, political, social, and personal
contexts. In this light, one needs to consider that events or words
linked to a contextualized history do not necessarily have a universal
significance, and vice versa, that acts conditioned by a determined
theological and pastoral perspective have had powerful consequences
for the spread of the Gospel (one thinks, for example, of the various
historical models of the theology of mission). Furthermore, there needs
to be an evaluation of the relationship between the spiritual benefits
and the possible costs of such acts, taking into account also the undue
accentuation which the media may give to certain aspects of the Church’s
statements. One should always remember the apostle Paul’s admonition
to welcome, consider, and support the “weak in faith” with
prudence and love (cf. Rom 14:1). In particular, attention must
be given to the history, the identity, and the current situation of
the Eastern Churches and those Churches which exist in continents or
countries where the Christian presence is a minority.
It is necessary to specify the appropriate subject called to
speak about the faults of the past, whether it be local Bishops, considered
personally or collegially, or the universal Pastor, the Bishop of Rome.
In this perspective, it is opportune to take into account - in recognizing
past wrongs and the present day subjects who could best assume responsibility
for these - the distinction between Magisterium and authority in the
Church. Not every act of authority has magisterial value, and so behavior
contrary to the Gospel by one or more persons vested with authority
does not involve per se the magisterial charism, which is assured
by the Lord to the Church’s Bishops, and consequently does not
require any Magisterial act of reparation.
It is necessary to underscore that the one addressed by any
request for forgiveness is God and that any human recipients –
above all, if these are groups of persons either inside or outside the
community of the Church – must be identified with appropriate historical
and theological discernment, in order to undertake acts of reparation
which are indeed suitable, and also in order to give witness to them
of the good will and the love for the truth of the Church’s sons
and daughters. This will be accomplished to the extent that there is
dialogue and reciprocity between the parties, oriented toward a possible
reconciliation connected with the recognition of faults and repentance
for them. However, one should not forget that reciprocity - at times
impossible because of the religious convictions of the dialogue partner
– cannot be considered an indispensable condition, and that the
gratuity of love often expresses itself in unilateral initiatives.
Possible gestures of reparation must be connected to the recognition
of a responsibility which has endured through time, and may therefore
assume a symbolic-prophetic character, as well as having value for effective
reconciliation (for example, among separated Christians). It is also
desirable that in the definition of these acts there be joint research
with those who will be addressed, by listening to the legitimate requests
which they may present.
On the pedagogical level, it is important to avoid perpetuating
negative images of the other, as well as causing unwarranted self-recrimination,
by emphasising that, for believers, taking responsibility for past wrongs
is a kind of sharing in the mystery of Christ, crucified and risen,
who took upon himself the sins of all. Such an interpretation, rooted
in Christ’s Paschal Mystery, is able in a particular way to produce
fruits of liberation, reconciliation, and joy for all those who, with
living faith, are involved in the request for forgiveness – both
the subjects and those addressed.
6.3 The
Implications for Dialogue and Mission
On the level of dialogue and mission, the foreseeable implications
of the Church’s acknowledgement of past faults are varied.
On the level of the Church’s missionary effort, it is important
that these acts do not contribute to a lessening of zeal for evangelization
by exacerbating negative aspects. At the same time, it should be noted
that such acts can increase the credibility of the Christian message,
since they stem from obedience to the truth and tend to produce fruits
of reconciliation. In particular, with regard to the precise topics
of such acts, those involved in the Church’s mission ad gentes should take careful account of the local context in proposing these,
in light of the capacity of people to receive such acts (thus, for example,
aspects of the history of the Church in Europe may well turn out to
have little significance for many non-European peoples).
With respect to ecumenism, the purpose of ecclesial acts of
repentance can be none other than the unity desired by the Lord. Therefore,
it is hoped that they will be carried out reciprocally, though at times
prophetic gestures may call for a unilateral and absolutely gratuitous
initiative.
On the inter-religious level, it is appropriate to point out
that, for believers in Christ, the Church’s recognition of past
wrongs is consistent with the requirements of fidelity to the Gospel,
and therefore constitutes a shining witness of faith in the truth and
mercy of God as revealed by Jesus. What must be avoided is that these
acts be mistaken as confirmation of possible prejudices against Christianity.
It would also be desirable if these acts of repentance would stimulate
the members of other religions to acknowledge the faults of their own
past. Just as the history of humanity is full of violence, genocide,
violations of human rights and the rights of peoples, exploitation of
the weak and glorification of the powerful, so too the history of the
various religions is marked by intolerance, superstition, complicity
with unjust powers, and the denial of the dignity and freedom of conscience.
Christians have been no exception and are aware that all are sinners
before God!
In the dialogue with cultures, one must, above all, keep in
mind the complexity and plurality of the notions of repentance and forgiveness
in the minds of those with whom we dialogue. In every case, the Church’s
taking responsibility for past faults should be explained in the light
of the Gospel and of the presentation of the crucified Lord, who is
the revelation of mercy and the source of forgiveness, in addition to
explaining the nature of ecclesial communion as a unity through time
and space. In the case of a culture that is completely alien to the
idea of seeking forgiveness, the theological and spiritual reasons which
motivate such an act should be presented in appropriate fashion, beginning
with the Christian message and taking into account its critical-prophetic
character. Where one may be dealing with a prejudicial indifference
to the language of faith, one should take into account the possible
double effect of an act of repentance by the Church: on the one hand,
negative prejudices or disdainful and hostile attitudes might be confirmed;
on the other hand, these acts share in the mysterious attraction exercised
by the “crucified God.”(97) One should also take into account
the fact that in the current cultural context, above all of the West,
the invitation to a purification of memory involves believers and non-believers
alike in a common commitment. This common effort is itself already a
positive witness of docility to the truth.
Lastly, in relation to civil society, consideration must be
given to the difference between the Church as a mystery of grace and
every human society in time. Emphasis must also be given, however, to
the character of exemplarity of the Church’s requests for forgiveness,
as well as to the consequent stimulus this may offer for undertaking
similar steps for purification of memory and reconciliation in other
situations where it might be urgent. John Paul II states: “The
request for forgiveness…primarily concerns the life of the Church,
her mission of proclaiming salvation, her witness to Christ, her commitment
to unity, in a word, the consistency which should distinguish Christian
life. But the light and strength of the Gospel, by which the Church
lives, also have the capacity, in a certain sense, to overflow as illumination
and support for the decisions and actions of civil society, with full
respect for their autonomy… On the threshold of the third millennium,
we may rightly hope that political leaders and peoples, especially those
involved in tragic conflicts fuelled by hatred and the memory of often
ancient wounds, will be guided by the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation
exemplified by the Church and will make every effort to resolve their
differences through open and honest dialogue.”(98)
Conclusion
At the conclusion of this reflection, it is appropriate to stress yet
again that in every form of repentance for the wrongs of the past, and
in each specific gesture connected with it, the Church addresses herself
in the first place to God and seeks to give glory to him and to his
mercy. Precisely in this way she is able to celebrate the dignity of
the human person called to the fullness of life in faithful covenant
with the living God: “The glory of God is man fully alive; but
the life of man is the vision of God.”(99) By such actions, the
Church also gives witness to her trust in the power of the truth that
makes us free (cf. Jn 8:32). Her “request for pardon must
not be understood as an expression of false humility or as a denial
of her 2,000-year history, which is certainly rich in merit in the areas
of charity, culture, and holiness. Instead she responds to a necessary
requirement of the truth, which, in addition to the positive aspects,
recognizes the human limitations and weaknesses of the various generations
of Christ’s disciples.”(100) Recognition of the Truth is a
source of reconciliation and peace because, as the Holy Father also
states, “Love of the truth, sought with humility, is one of the
great values capable of reuniting the men of today through the various
cultures.”(101) Because of her responsibility to Truth, the Church
“cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without encouraging
her children to purify themselves, through repentance, of past errors
and instances of infidelity, inconsistency and slowness to act. Acknowledging
the weaknesses of the past is an act of honesty and courage…”(102)
It opens a new tomorrow for everyone.
(1) Incarnationis mysterium, 11.
(2) Ibid. In numerous prior statements, in particular, number
33 of the Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente (TMA),
the Pope has indicated to the Church the path forward for purifying
her memory regarding the faults of the past and for giving an example
of repentance to individuals and civil societies.
(3) Lumen gentium, 8.
(4) Cf. Extravagantes communes, lib. V, tit. IX, c. 1 (A. Friedberg,
Corpus iuris canonici, t. II, c. 1304).
(5) Cf. Clement XIV, Letter Salutis nostrae, April 30, 1774,
§ 2. Leo XII in the Letter Quod hoc ineunte, May 24, 1824,
§2 speaks of the “year of expiation, forgiveness and redemption,
of grace, remission and of indulgence.”
(6) This is the sense of the definition of indulgence given by Clement
VI when in 1343 he instituted the practice of having a Jubilee every
fifty years. Clement VI sees in the Church’s Jubilee “the
spiritual accomplishment” of the “Jubilee of remission and
of joy” in the Old Testament (Lv 25).
(7) “Each of us must examine [his conscience] with respect to
what he has fallen into and examine himself even more rigorously than
God will on the day of his wrath” in Deutsche Reichstagsakten,
new series, III, 390-399 (Gotha, 1893).
(8) Unitatis redintegratio, 7.
(9) Gaudium et spes, 36.
(10) Ibid., 19.
(11) Nostra aetate, 4.
(12) Gaudium et spes, 43 §6.
(13) Lumen gentium, 8; cf. Unitatis redintegratio, 6:
“Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that
continual reform of which she always has need, insofar as she is a human
institution here on earth.”
(14) Nostra aetate, 4.
(15) Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(16) Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Apostolorum limina, May 23,
1974 (Enchiridion Vaticanum 5, 305).
(17) Paul VI, Exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia, December
8, 1974 (Enchiridion Vaticanum 5, 526-553).
(18) Cf. Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, May 25, 1995, 88: “To
the extent that we are responsible for these, I join my predecessor
Paul VI in asking forgiveness.”
(19) For example, the Pope, addressing himself to the Moravians, asked
“forgiveness, on behalf of all Catholics, for the wrongs caused
to non-Catholics in the course of history” (cf. Canonization of
Jan Sarkander in the Czech Republic, May 21, 1995). The Holy Father
also wanted to undertake “an act of expiation” and ask forgiveness
of the Indians of Latin America and from the Africans deported as slaves
(Message to the Indians of America, Santo Domingo, October 13,
1992, and General Audience Discourse of October 21, 1992). Ten
years earlier he had already asked forgiveness from the Africans for
the way in which they had been treated (Discourse at Yaoundé,
August 13, 1985).
(20) Cf. TMA, 33-36.
(21) Cf. ibid., 33.
(22) Ibid., 33.
(23) Cf. ibid., 36.
(24) Cf. ibid., 34.
(25) Cf. ibid., 35.
(26) This final aspect appears in TMA only in number 33, where
it is said that the Church “before God and man” acknowledges
as her own her sinful sons and daughters.
(27) John Paul II, Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia,
December 2, 1984, 31.
(28) Ibid., 16.
(29) Cf. Mt 13:24-30; 36-43; St. Augustine, De civitate Dei,
I, 35: CCL 47,33; XI, 1: CCL 48,321; XIX, 26: CCL
48, 696.
(30) On different methods of reading Sacred Scripture, see The Interpretation
of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993).
(31) In this series, for example, are: Dt 1:41 (the generation of the
desert recognizes that it had sinned by refusing to go forward into
the promised land); Jgs 10:10,12 (in the time of the Judges
the people twice say “we have sinned” against the Lord, referring
to their service of the Baals); 1 Sm 7:6 (the people of Samuel’s
time say “we have sinned against the Lord!”); Nm 21:7
(this text is distinctive in that here the people of the generation
of Moses admit that, in complaining about the food, they had become
guilty of “sin” because they had spoken against the Lord and
against their human guide, Moses); 1 Sm 12:19 (the Israelites
of the time of Samuel recognize that – by having asked for a king
– they have added this to “all their sins”); Ezr
10:13 (the people acknowledge in front of Ezra that they had greatly
“transgressed in this matter” [marrying foreign women]);
Ps 65:2-3; 90:8; 103:10; (107:10-11,17); Is 59:9-15; 64:5-9;
Jer 8:14; 14:7; Lam 1:14, 18a, 22 (in which Jerusalem speaks
in the first person); 3:42 (4:13); Bar 4:12-13 (Zion speaks
of the sins of her children which led to her destruction); Ez
33:10; Mi 7:9 (“I”), 18-19.
(32) For example: Ex 9:27 (Pharaoh says to Moses and Aaron:
“This time I have sinned; the Lord is in the right; I and my people
are guilty”); 34:9 (Moses prays “forgive our iniquity and
our sin”); Lv 16:21 (the high priest confesses the sins
of the people on the head of the “scapegoat” on the day of
atonement); Ex 32:11-13 (cf. Dt 9:26-29: Moses); 32:31
(Moses); 1 Kgs 8:33ff (cf. 2 Chr 6:22ff: Solomon prays
that God will forgive the future sins of the people); 2 Chr
28:13 (the leaders of the Israelites acknowledge “our guilt is
already great”); Ezr 10:2 (Shecaniah says to Ezra “We
have broken faith with our God, by marrying foreign women”);
Neh 1:5-11 (Nehemiah confesses the sins committed by the people
of Israel, by himself, and by the house of his father); Est
4:17(n) (Esther confesses: “We have sinned against you and you
have delivered us into the hands of our enemies, because we have given
glory to their gods”); 2 Mc 7:18-32 (the Jewish martyrs
say that they are suffering because of “our sins” against
God).
(33) Among the examples of this type of national confession are: 2
Kgs 22:13 (cf. 2 Chr 34:21: Josiah fears the anger of
the Lord “because our fathers did not heed the words of this book”);
2 Chr 29:6-7 (Hezekiah says “our fathers have been unfaithful”);
Ps 78:8ff (the psalmist recounts the sins of past generations
from the time of the exodus from Egypt). Cf. also the popular saying
cited in Jer 31:29 and Ez 18:2: “The fathers have eaten
sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
(34) As in the following texts: Lv 26:40 (the exiles are called
to “confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers”);
Ezr 9:5b-15 (the penitential prayer of Ezra, v. 7: “From
the days of our fathers to this day we have been deeply guilty”;
cf. Neh 9:6-37); Tb 3:1-5 (in his prayer Tobit prays: “Do
not punish me for my sins and for my errors and those of my fathers”
[v. 3] and continues with the statement: “we have not kept your
commandments” [v. 5]; Ps 79:8-9 (this collective lament implores
God: “do not impute to us the offenses of our fathers…deliver
us and forgive us our sins”); 106:6 (“both we and our fathers
have sinned”); Jer 3:25 (“…we have sinned against
the Lord our God… we and our fathers”); Jer 14:19-22
(“We acknowledge our iniquity and the iniquity of our fathers,”
v. 20); Lam 5 (“Our fathers sinned and they are no more,
and we bear the penalty for their iniquities” [v. 7] – “woe
to us for we have sinned” [v. 16b]; Bar 1:15 – 3:18
(“we have sinned against the Lord” [1:17, cf. 1:19, 21; 2:5,24]
– “Remember not the iniquities of our fathers” [3:5,
cf. 2:33; 3:4,7]); Dn 3:26-45 (the prayer of Azariah: “With
truth and justice you have inflicted all this because of our sins”:
v. 28); Dn 9:4-19 (“on account of our sins and the iniquity
of our fathers, Jerusalem […has] become the reproach…,”
v. 16).
(35) These include failing to trust God (for example; Dt 1:41;
Nm 14:10), idolatry (as in Jgs 10:10-15), requesting
a human king (1 Sm 12:9), marrying foreign women contrary to
the law of God (Ezr 9-10). In Is 59:13b the people say
of themselves that they are guilty of “talking oppression and revolt,
conceiving lying words and uttering them from the heart”.
(36) Cf. the analogous case of the repudiation of foreign wives described
in Ezr 9-10, with all the negative consequences which this would
have had for these women. The question of a request for forgiveness
addressed to them (and/or to their descendents) is not treated, since
their repudiation is presented as a requirement of God’s law (cf.
Dt 7:3) in all these chapters.
(37) In this context, the case of the permanently strained relationship
between Israel and Edom comes to mind. The Edomites as a people –
despite the fact that they were Israel’s “brother” –
participated and rejoiced in the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians
(cf., for example, Ob 10-14). Israel, as a sign of outrage for this
betrayal, felt no need to ask forgiveness for the killing of defenseless
Edomite prisoners of war by King Amaziah as recounted in 2 Chr
25:12.
(38) John Paul II, General Audience Discourse of September 1,
1999; in L’Osservatore Romano, eng. ed., September 8, 1999,
7.
(39) Cf. TMA, 33-36.
(40) TMA, 33.
(41) One thinks of the reason why Christian authors of various historical
periods reproached the Church for her faults. Among these, one of the
most representative examples is the Liber asceticus by Maximus
the Confessor: PL 90, 912-956.
(42) Lumen gentium, 8.
(43) Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 770.
(44) Lumen gentium, 8.
(45) Ibid. Cf. also Unitatis redintegratio, 3 and 6.
(46) CCC, 827.
(47) Paul VI, Credo of the People of God (June 30, 1968), n.
19 (Enchiridion Vaticanum 3, 264f).
(48) Lumen gentium, 39.
(49) Ibid., 40.
(50) Ibid., 48.
(51) St. Augustine, Sermo 181, 5,7: PL 38; 982.
(52) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. III q. 8 art. 3 ad 2.
(53) CCC, 2839.
(54) St. Ambrose, De virginitate 8,48; PL 16,278D: “Caveamus
igitur, ne lapsus noster vulnus Ecclesiae fiat.” Lumen gentium
11 also speaks of the wound inflicted on the Church by the sins of her
children.
(55) TMA, 33.
(56) Karl Delahaye, Ecclesia Mater chez les Pères des trois
premiers siècles, (Paris, 1964), 128; Cf. also Hugo Rahner,
SJ, Mater Ecclesia: Lobpreis der Kirche aus dem ersten Jahrtausend
christlicher Literatur, (Einsiedeln, 1944).
(57) Lumen gentium, 64.
(58) St. Augustine, Sermo 25, 8: PL 46, 938: “Mater
ista sancta, honorata, Mariae similis, et parit et Virgo est. Ex illa
nati estis et Christum parit: nam membra Christi estis.”
(59) St. Cyprian, De Ecclesiae Catholicae unitate 6: CCL
3, 253: “Habere iam non potest Deum patrem qui ecclesiam non
habet matrem.” St. Cyprian also states: “Ut habere
quis possit Deum Patrem, habeat ante ecclesiam matrem” (Epist.
74, 7; CCL 3C, 572). St. Augustine: “Tenete ergo, carissimi,
tenete omnes unanimiter Deum patrem, et matrem Ecclesiam” (In
Ps 88, Sermo 2,14: CCL 39, 1244).
(60) St. Paulinus of Nola, Carmen 25, 171-172; CSEL 30,243:
“Inde manet mater aeterni semine verbi / concipiens populos
et pariter pariens.”
(61) TMA, 35.
(62) St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Romanos, Prooem.: SC 10,124
(Th. Camelot, Paris 1958²).
(63) TMA, 33, 34.
(64) Discourse to the participants in the International Symposium
of study on the Inquisition, sponsored by the Historical-Theological
Commission of the Central Committee of the Jubilee, n. 4; October 31,
1998.
(65) Cf. for what follows, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode,
2nd ed. (Tübingen, 1965); Eng. trans. Truth and Method
(London: Sheed and Ward, 1975).
(66) Bernard Lonergan, SJ, Method in Theology, (London, 1972)
155.
(67) TMA, 35.
(68) John Paul II, General Audience Discourse of September 1,
1999; in L’Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., September 8, 1999,
7.
(69) Cf. TMA, 34-36.
(70) Unitatis redintegratio, 1.
(71) Ibid., 13. TMA 34 states that “In the course
of the thousand years now drawing to a close, even more than in the
first millenium, ecclesial communion has been painfully wounded…”
(72) Unitatis redintegratio, 13.
(73) Ibid.
(74) Cf. Opening Speech of the Second Session of the Second
Vatican Council (September 29, 1964): Enchiridion Vaticanum 1,
[106], n. 176.
(75) Cf. the documentation from the dialogue of charity between the
Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in Tómos
Agápes: Vatican – Phanar (1958-1970), (Rome – Istanbul,
1971).
(76) Unitatis redintegratio, 7.
(77) Ibid.
(78) TMA, 35.
(79) John Paul II, General Audience Discourse of September 1,
1999; in L’Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., September 8, 1999,
7.
(80) TMA, 35. The citation from the Second Vatican Council is
from Dignitatis humanae, 1.
(81) The argument is rigorously treated in the Declaration of the Second
Vatican Council, Nostra aetate.
(82) Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, We Remember:
A Reflection on the Shoah, Rome (March 16, 1998), I, in Information
Service of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,
n. 97, 19. Cf. John Paul II, Discourse at the Synagogue of Rome,
April 13, 1986; AAS 78 (1986), 1120.
(83) This is the judgement of the recent document of the Commission
for Religious Relations with the Jews, We Remember: A Reflection
on the Shoah, Rome (March 16, 1998), III, in Information Service
of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, n. 97, 19.
(84) Ibid., V, 22.
(85) Ibid., IV, 20, 21.
(86) Ibid., IV, 21.
(87) Ibid., V, 22.
(88) TMA, 36.
(89) Gaudium et spes, 19.
(90) Ibid.
(91) TMA, 33.
(92) One need only think of the sign of martyrdom: cf. TMA,
37.
(93) Unitatis redintegratio, 6. It is the same text which states
that “Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to
that continual reform (ad hanc perennem reformationem) of which
she always has need, insofar as she is a human institution here on earth.”
(94) “…opus renovationis nec non reformationis…”:
ibid., 4.
(95) Ibid., 6: “Every renewal of the Church consists essentially
in the increase of faithfulness to her vocation.”
(96) TMA, 36.
(97) This particular strong formulation comes from St. Augustine, De
Trinitate I, 13, 28: CCL 50,69,13; Epist. 169, 2:
CSEL 44, 617; Sermo 341A, 1: Misc. Agost. 314,
22.
(98) John Paul II, Discourse to the participants in the International
Symposium of study on the Inquisition, sponsored by the Historical-Theological
Commission of the Central Committee of the Jubilee, n. 5; October 31,
1998.
(99) “Gloria Dei vivens homo: vita autem hominis visio Dei”:
St. Ireneus of Lyon, Adversus haereses IV, 20, 7: SC 100/2,
648.
(100) John Paul II, General Audience Discourse of September
1, 1999; in L’Osservatore Romano, eng. ed., September 8,
1999, 7.
(101) Discourse at the Centre de l’Organisation europeénne
pour la recherche nucléaire, Geneva (June 15, 1982) in Insegnamenti
di Giovanni Paolo II, V, 2, (Vatican, 1982), 2321.
(102) TMA, 33.
Source: The Vatican |