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.
|