 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
 Another Apology from
John Paul II
by Nic Samojluk
A few days ago John Paul II did again what he has done, according to one count, over one hundred times already: apologize for the past sins of the Catholic church, and if is true that "practice makes perfect," then you can bet that this latest expression of "nostra culpa" turned out to be the most elaborate, the most solemn, and the most formal theological statement dealing with the past failings of the mother church, because it was expressed by means of a liturgical papal mass entitled "Memory and Reconciliation." Very likely, this Polish Pope will go down in history as the most penitent church leader in history.
What Did The Church do Wrong? Apologizing publicly is not a favorite Christian virtue of church leaders, much less if we are talking about offenses engaged in by people who existed long before you were even born. Why should you make somebody else's guilt your own? Therefore, why did the pope apologize again, and again, and again? What did the Catholic church do wrong? The answer is: plenty. The church is guilty of many sins, but the most offensive are the ones connected with the infamous Crusades and the abominable Inquisition. Some Jewish Rabbis would add the church's failure to use its influence to protect the Jews from the Nazi genocide half a century ago. In the case of the Crusades, which was organized and sponsored by the church, the participants engaged in some mischievous behavior along their way, like practice killings of Jews, as they winded their way towards Jerusalem, where the real carnage took place. And the questionable methods of evangelizing those who rejected the catholic forced conversions under threat of torture and burning at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition needs no special comments, since the facts are well known and documented in church history.
What About Protestants?
The logical question at this point would be: What about past sins of the Protestant denominations? Are those who separated from Rome, and eventually split into an ever-increasing number of denominations, free from guilt? Did they also engage in behavior unworthy of the Christian name? The answer is obvious. We do not need to go far back in history to discover that this is a fact. We have some examples even in our own "land of the free" like the burning of heretic "witches" at Salem only a couple of centuries ago. Is anybody going to apologize for this? What about the anti-Catholic labels Protestants attached to Rome following the Reformation under Martin Luther, such as "The Beast of Revelation"?
Is such an apocalyptic label descriptive of the current character of Rome? If not, then why is my own denomination still selling the book "The Great controversy" even today in their bookstores without some explanation clarifying the fact that Rome is not currently engaged in "beastly behavior" like it did during the infamous Middle Ages? Why don't the editors include some comments stating that the original apocalyptic meaning of said phrase pointed directly at Pagan Rome under its most cruel emperor: Nero?
The question is: Does the label appropriately apply today? To use a Biblical illustration, if a "lamb" can slowly turn into a ferocious "beast," shouldn't we allow the reverse transformation? And if the original application was intended for pagan Rome under Nero, and later on the Reformers applied the same apocalyptic symbol to the Papal power in Rome, why can't the label be appropriately point to other despotic and persecuting powers like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Aren't Christians persecuted right now in China?
A Moral Example for All I believe that John Paul has set a moral example for all. Apologizing for past questionable behavior is in line with Christian ethics. And it is good public relations as well. It purifies the soul, and it builds a bridge for the eventual reconciliation of those alienated from us. Even President Clinton apologized more than once after he was caught misbehaving in the oval office. On one occasion he stated that he was becoming an expert in saying "I am sorry." Some critics argue that his apology was rather self-serving and that it didn't go far enough, but an incomplete apology is always better than no apology at all. By the way, if you are planning to apologize for your past mistakes, make sure you do it decades, or even centuries, after the facts. Otherwise, you run the risk of being sued for damages. You want to cleanse your soul. Not your pocketbook!
If saying "I am sorry" is beneficial to all concerned, then why are Christians so unwilling to do what the current Pope did? Will I ever hear my own church apologize for its past mistakes? Will SDA's ever publicly acknowledge that it was unfair to invent the "shut door doctrine" for those who rejected the un-biblical prediction of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ back in 1844? Will my own church ever recognize that the Investigative dogma was merely a face-saving device to cover the fact that we had made a terrible blunder a century and a half ago in our prophetic interpretation? Our "Great Disappointment" is still a cause for reasonable disappointment if we choose to bury our heads in the sand unable to recognize what is quite clear to those who observe us with greater clarity.
Reasons for Both Pride and Shame John Paul II could have included reasons for which the Catholic Church can be proud of. He elected not to. He apologized without offering reminders of the positive contribution of the church to western civilization. He did not make an attempt at balancing the sheet. Nevertheless, it is our task to do precisely that. We must give credit where credit is due. In a world slowly sinking into a moral chaos, where family values are no longer held in esteem, where drug use is rampant, where it is no longer safe to walk the streets at night, where metal detectors are needed in our public schools, where pregnant teenagers can get an abortion without their parent's knowledge or approval, where premarital sex is justified and condoned by an increasingly permissive society, where abortions almost exceed normal births, where it is legally acceptable to puncture the skull of an unwanted baby in the process of being born, we must credit John Paul II for being like a moral fortress in the middle of a decadent modern society. We must credit Rome for standing like a rock amid the moral storm. No compromises on abortion. Life is sacred for John Paul II from the moment of conception. He may be promoting the observance of the wrong day of worship, but he is right on the respect human life is entitled to. Few lives have been lost as a result of worshipping God on the wrong day of the week, but thirty five million innocent babies were sacrificed in our country alone since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion. What was their crime? Their poor choice of parents! Had they made a different choice, they would be alive and breathing today.I wish my own church would stand firm in defense of human life. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Its official position is pro-choice. The excuse is that "Jesus died to make us free." I cannot accept this! I do not think that Jesus Christ offered his life to make us free to kill our own children. He declared that he had come that we "might have life, and have it more abundantly." How can you have it more abundantly, if you are torn into pieces before you have a chance to be born? Half a century ago, Pope Pius XII failed to stand firm against the Nazi regime while six million Jews were exterminated. What nobody is saying is that the same is true about the Protestant churches, and that includes my own church. The only Christian organization that had the courage to firmly oppose Hitler was that of the Jehovah Witnesses, and many of them paid for this with their life.
My own church has done quite well for the protection of the health of people, but you have to be among those lucky ones who have been allowed to be born to receive such benefit. Adventists have a long history of anti-smoking and smoking cessation ministries, because the habit shortens the life span of smokers. I wish we would also stand firm against abortion, which deprives the unborn of their entire life span. We have plenty of financial resources to preach, teach, and publish a plethora of articles in defense of sacred time, the Sabbath. I wish we would also be concerned about the sacredness of human life. Jesus stated that the "Sabbath was made for man," which to me means that life is at least as sacred as the time God blessed in Eden.
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
