Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

Elena Fonseca

It seems that the right hand does not know what the left one is
doing: on the one hand the Pope implores pardon for the sins of the Church, and on the other the Vatican does the same things that it was being repented for. Where are we?

The Pope begs forgiveness, President De la Rúa begs forgiveness; some of the military beg forgiveness for acts of torture; the President of Indonesia begs forgiveness for having oppressed Eastern Timor, etc., etc. To beg forgiveness is in fashion. Wiping the slate clean? It is not quite that easy. And it is not that easy either for the thousands of Christians who want a Church with a conscience. The Pope's forgiveness lacks it.

The Pope, whom in his homeland, Poland, must have learnt his catechism well, knows that on confessing your sins, one of the five requisites is the resolve not to offend again, which is really not to "fall" into the same sin. And as the normal human being that he is, he also knows that in matters of ethics "culpability is not extinguished by the simple fact of having asked for pardon - you have to make amends to the victims for the wrong inflicted on them." (1) Let us imagine for one minute the lengthy list of plaintiffs and think about the long awaited auction of the Church's goods to compensate the victims.

John Paul II begged for a very special kind of pardon, because it is extensive to all the sins committed by the Church throughout the whole of its history, generalizing. Here he forgets another point of catechism: sins must be named, one by one. If not there is no "Go in peace ..."

This "light" form of asking for pardon was made evident in spite of the pomp and ceremony when, a step before any possible evil thinkers - there are always some about - he had to make clear that he was not begging pardon for reasons of image or with any second intention, nor was he referring to the sins of the Church as a hierarchy. He was referring to all its children, men and women, pointing out that "he did not have personal responsibility for the sins mentioned." Pontius Pilot was a babe in arms by comparison, and the little Fatima shepherds were thankful, because otherwise the project for beatifying the Pope later on would have been troubled.

Of course, this attitude has an explanation. The Pope could not admit the Pontiffs may have made mistakes or have committed wrongdoings, as by dogma they are infallible and to touch on dogma would be to open up a crack for heresy. Therefore, to condemn the sons and daughters of the Church is less risky. And thus, forgiven and willing to forgive, the 2000 Jubilee Church has entered the Third Millenium with a lighter load. Not so the sons and daughters of the Church.

Seven, they were seven

The ceremony held on March 12, when John Paul II, flanked by seven cardinals celebrated the Day of Pardon at the Basilica of Saint Peter, had all the media theatrics that so characterize this travelling and televised Pope. The solemn ceremony started with the Pope on his knees, in front of Michelangelo's Pieta (the mother always forgives).

The seven Cardinals from different ethnic origins read the list of seven sins (the seven capital sins?) and asked for forgiveness for those committed by the sons and daughters of the Church:

- for those who used non-evangelical methods in the service of faith; - for sins against the people of the Alliance: Israel; - for sins committed in actions against love; - for those committed against peace and the rights of the peoples; - for sins against respect for cultures and religions;
- for sins against the dignity of woman and unity of the human race; - for sins against the fundamental rights of the person: child abuse, social exclusion of the poor, suppression of the unborn in their mother's womb, including those used for research.

Then each of the seven cardinals went up to a crucifix and kissed it as a sign of love and of imploring forgiveness.

Some unknown quantities

Much is still a mystery. What sins were they referring to? When they mention Israel, are they referring to the Holocaust or to the passiveness shown by Pope Pious XII towards Hitler, or to the expulsion of the Jews by the very Catholic Ferdinand and Isabel or to ancestral Catholic anti-Semitism because of the death of Jesus?

When talking of non-evangelical methods, are they referring to the compulsive and bloody conversion imposed on the American Indian or to the thousands of Valdensians, Albigensians, Catharians, killed because they proclaimed their beliefs, or the 12 million (mostly women) tortured and burnt alive during the Inquisition, or to scientists such as Galileo who said that the World spun round the Sun? And when they talk of the sins committed against fundamental rights, are they referring to homosexuals, persecuted, disqualified, humiliated, and deprived of their rights even today by the Church itself? Non-evangelical methods, are they those that were used by the Chaplains in the armies of the Southern Cone (Cono Sur), when the military, blessed by them, caused thousands of men and women to disappear?

John Paul thought that a simple enumeration of "sins" (it would have
been better to call them by their name: crimes), would wash the Catholic Church, as an institution, of its historical culpability. The Pope of Rome is mistaken. He omits, he generalizes and he trivializes. But more important, what use to anyone is this aseptic pardon that provides a sort of legitimacy to the horrors committed? As if they were "not so bad."

We still have the chapter on women's dignity. This viscerally misogynist Church feels itself free from culpability for having fettered feminine sexuality for centuries. And on this famous Day of Pardon, no mention is made of one of the deepest offenses against feminine identity: the Byzantine discussions during the Council of Trent on whether women had souls or not (if not, we would belong to the animal reign). The Pope did not beg forgiveness for the fact that, up to today, women are denied access to the priesthood. And when they so freely ask forgiveness for "sins against the dignity of women" are they referring to the Old Testament? Because the Decalogue included among a man's goods, his house, his wife, his ass and his ox.

The other side of the coin

At the same time - this man of eighty - past retirement age for bishops (75) and cardinals (at 80 they can no longer attend Conclaves to elect a new Pontiff), is head of a religious community that plays hard at politics, with a strong presence at any international conference, attempting to obstruct decisions on international public policies on education on sex, access to family planning, legal abortion, even opposing the right to abortion of women raped during wars or when they run the risk of loosing their lives.

Through its status as "Non-Member State and Permanent Observer" under the name of the Holy See, it marks its policy, preventing voting, attempting to have agreements that have been adopted revoked, putting pressure on governments or having issues or terms that are not approved by the Church of Rome's doctrine put between brackets (in anticipation of a decision) and imposing on the international community principles that are only upheld by Catholic dogma.

Behind this denomination, the Holy See hides the fact that it is the only religion to fill this place in the United Nations. Other religions with representation in the UN, such as the World Council of Churches, participate at conferences as non-governmental organizations. Why doesn't the Vatican have the same status as the other religions of the Planet?

Some jewels in the Vatican Crown

The policy of the Catholic Church / Holy See / Vatican is aimed at conserving the traditional family and although reality shows that there are many kinds of families and of unions, it is opposed to plural families, considering them as dissolving.

Vatican representatives such as Ms. Gail Quinn consider that the Beijing 95 Platform for Action reflects a radical feminist program and that gender equity, a key word and target of her hatred, has promoted women to work outside their homes, "a human tragedy." Or Ms. Vollmer who is against any kind of contraceptive because since they have been used, "men have lost respect for women." Or Monsignor Peter Elliot who says that "marriages are weakened by the use of contraceptives because they take away God's role as creator of life."

In the midst of the AIDS pandemic, they oppose the use of condoms for the same reasons and demonize legalization of abortion, even promoting violence against clinics where it is practiced and killing doctors who perform it.

Or the representatives of Guatemala and Honduras such as Mercedes Arzú or Marta Lorena who proclaim that a new hostile mentality has removed women from their homes and led to an identity crisis. They detest and show their hostility against homosexuals because "they hate nature." No comments are needed.

In fact - to return to forgiveness - the real act of contrition that the Vatican could make would be to recognize plurality, the richness and diversity of its sons and daughters and to cease its dogmatic attitudes that have done so much damage.

(1) Gladys Parentelli, Somos Iglesia Movement, Venezuela.

Elena Fonseca is a Uruguayan feminist and member of the Editorial Collectivity of Cotidiano Mujer.

This article was prepared with information obtained from Catholic Women for the Right to Decide, "We are the Church" and Astete Catechism.

Translation from Spanish by Victoria Swarbrick

Lol@ 1        email