Wednesday, February 18, 2015

On Papal Apologies

Irish Thomist and others reminded me that Pope John Paul II has a substantial list of apologies to his name. In fact, I dare say I either never knew, or likely forgot, the sheer number of apologies PJPII gave.

He apologized for the treatment of Galileo.
For Catholics' involvement in the slave trade.
For the conquest of "Mesoamerica".
For burnings at the stake, etc, during the Protestant Reformation.
"Injustices against women".
"The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust".
The execution of Jan Hus in the 1400s, which probably led to most people asking "Who the fuck is Jan Hus?"
"For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions"."
"For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204."

And, capping it all off, apologies for the Catholic sex scandals, the "stolen generations of Aboriginal children", and to China during its colonial era behavior.

I do not deny the Pope's sainthood. Nor do I deny I hold him in esteem. He accomplished much good in his lifetime.

But the above is not an example of that good. They are, for the most part, marks on his record.

There's a lot I can say here, but I'm going to zero in on a single point.

Is there such a thing as collective guilt, or isn't there?

I can understand organizational guilt. Insofar as the Church, as its whole body, was involved in atrocities during the Protestant Reformation, I can understand an apology on the part of the Church. Galileo was an official action, but there's nothing to apologize for there, and Galileo was (like his opponents) ultimately wrong anyway.

But when he's apologizing for 'the sins of Catholics', and he's apologizing on behalf of 'Catholics', period? It does not fly. Rather, it only flies under one condition: the condition that there is such a thing as collective guilt.

In which case, Black America owes everyone else an apology for the crimes of black males.
Women worldwide owe everyone an apology for the number of dead infants that have been butchered in their wombs.
Atheists at large are required to apologize for the sins of everyone from Stalin to Mao to even the far more inconsequential Madelyn Murray O'Hare.

And that's not just owed. If collective guilt is a real thing, such that someone can literally apologize (or demand an apology) on behalf of an entire and diverse people - then I demand those apologies in turn.

If the logic, however, is that there's no such thing as collective guilt, but hey, bad things happened and this 'was a nice gesture' and 'helped encourage dialog', I will say two things: to hell with 'nice feelings' for their own sake, and the Pope's apologies clearly yielded nothing, and therefore didn't even lead to results on the pleaded practical end. In fact, they did damage by perpetuating the idea that Christians should be bending over left and right apologizing, without ever expecting a 'thank you' for their collective acts of greatness - and there are many.

No. Not even Pope John Paul II's endorsement of these things can make them right. The man made mistakes.

And the best part is, he wouldn't deny it. He'd just apologize.

30 comments:

BenYachov said...

Crude

I took the liberty of looking up the "Apologies". Specifically the links to your list that contain JP2's actual words.


"Apology" is a broad term it seems.

QuOTEhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

"Speaking after the ceremony to the crowd in St Peter's Square, the Pope stressed he was seeking forgiveness not from those who had been wronged, but from God. "Only he can do that."

Might I suggest you are majorly misreading what is going on here?

By definition saint or not. St John Paul II or Pope Francis or even Pope Lando it can't be a mark on JP2's record.

Since by definition repenting to God even collectively is Catholic teaching.

So I think you have misread what is going on here.
It has nothing to do with Obama's wacko equivocation between the Crusades and the modern Jihadist.

BenYachov said...

additional:

Crude

I don't know who you are or anything about you & I realize that is the point nor do I have a desire to find out anything about you since I respect your privacy.

But if hypothetically you belong to a group of people that have ever been wronged by Scots or Italians then well obviously I really don't owe you an apology for that.

As the good book says I am not guilty of the sins of my ancestors.

OTOH original sin and familial sin offend God so I do owe it to God to ask his forgiveness of my ancestors if they ever hypothetically ever hurt yours.

>In which case, Black America owes everyone else an apology for the crimes of black males.

Rather given JP2's actual words they owe repentance to God for this situation. They don't owe you or me an apology.


>Women worldwide owe everyone an apology for the number of dead infants that have been butchered in their wombs

Ibid.

.
>Atheists at large are required to apologize for the sins of everyone from Stalin to Mao to even the far more inconsequential Madelyn Murray O'Hare.

Ibid(thought getting them to believe in God so they can ask forgiveness from God i the big hurtal.

I think this is a case of reading JP2 threw the lens of the media narrative not reading his actual words.


Things haven't changed with Francis eh?

Cheers brother.

Crude said...

Rather given JP2's actual words they owe repentance to God for this situation. They don't owe you or me an apology.

Say they owe God an apology. Do you think that improves matters? Do you think it would be regarded as any less insulting to suggest? Are you any more willing to suggest it?

I think this is a case of reading JP2 threw the lens of the media narrative not reading his actual words.

He SPOKE to the media! He didn't ask this apology at the foot of his bed, kneeling in the privacy of his own home. The whole POINT was he was talking to the media, from a stage! If the media can't be trusted to communicate the proper meaning of what he's saying the way he's saying it, that just underlines what a mistake it was to say it!

malcolmthecynic said...

If the media can't be trusted to communicate the proper meaning of what he's saying the way he's saying it, that just underlines what a mistake it was to say it!

Paging Pope Francis, come in Pope Francis...

Craig said...

I seem to recall that JP2 viewed this as a sort of examination of conscience and expression of penitence on behalf of the entire Church. By which he didn't mean the institution as you seem to define it, but the entire body of believers: the Body of Christ, within which we are all members.

It is really true that the Church, as a collective, has a sort of reality that other agglomerations of people do not. So I don't think there's any inconsistency here, even if you conclude that there's an error somewhere along the way from the premises to making all those apologies.

BenYachov said...

@Crude


I confess I don't understand your response? Maybe I have misunderstood your objection?

Anyway let me just put this out there a formal definition of "Apology".

QUOTE" a statement saying that you are sorry about something : an expression of regret for having done or said something wrong

apologies : an expression of regret for not being able to do something

: something that is said or written to defend something that other people criticize END QUOTE




>Say they owe God an apology. Do you think that improves matters? Do you think it would be regarded as any less insulting to suggest? Are you any more willing to suggest it?

But I am not offering an apology for my hypothetical ancestors who injured yours. Nor am I even suggesting my hypothetical ancestors owe you an apology.

I am seeking pardon from God for their wrong doing?

Do you see the difference?

(Mind you this is all predicated on me reading your objection correctly)

>He SPOKE to the media!

He clearly clarified what he meant to do as far as I can see. Are you suggesting the Popes never speak to the media ever again? I don't know if that is wise or practical?

> He didn't ask this apology at the foot of his bed, kneeling in the privacy of his own home. The whole POINT was he was talking to the media, from a stage! If the media can't be trusted to communicate the proper meaning of what he's saying the way he's saying it, that just underlines what a mistake it was to say it!

The Pope sought forgiveness from God as an prayer intercessor and it is the ancient practice & command of God to do so.

Crude this is coming off as an over-reaction. We cannot do a media blackout of the Church nor can we serve the Gospel if we fail to engage the world.

Nor is it reasonable to expect any Pope to measure his words to they are beyond misinterpretation.

First because no Pope can have such forsight without divine intervention and second liars are going to lie that doesn't mean we must no speak the truth publically.

But again this response assumes I have understood you correctly.

Cheers friend.

BenYachov said...

Just to be clear....

>I am seeking pardon from God for their wrong doing.

Meaning I am seeking that God might pardon them.

Crude said...

Ben, let me tell you a story. I read this a while ago - who knows how true it is. I recall it being verified, but for the purposes of this discussion, that doesn't matter.

It turns out there was a group of gay Catholic priests who had their own little message board online. Private, or so they thought. Suffice to say, they were not fans of PJP2. Among other comments about him was one talking about how he just can't wait for the old bastard to hurry up and die.

So, this comes out, some of the priests are identified. And what happens?

The priest turns around and says he was misunderstood. See, he meant that the poor, beloved Pope John Paul II was so clearly fragile, so suffering, that he wanted to see the good pontiff's pain come to an end, so as to spare him from further suffering.

Now, from THAT perspective, the priest said nothing rotten. Why, it was noble, in fact.

But to accept that perspective as correct, someone needs head trauma. I do not find it to be a mark of holiness to simulate head trauma so as to excuse a man. Not even a Pope. Not even a /beloved/ Pope.

Sometimes, Popes do stupid things. Rotten things, even. Saint Peter is a Saint, but he sure acted like a shit in the Bible multiple times. Such is life.

What you're telling me is that if you squint your eyes and turn your head at the right angle, the Pope wasn't even apologizing on behalf of anyone. No, he was asking God for forgiveness for some people. There was no collective implication of guilt or wrongdoing. No self-effacing whatsoever. No, just the Holy Father asking for mercy for some sinners. People interpreted that as an apology, an implication of collective guilt? That's a misunderstanding!

Sorry, but no. I'm not going to play that game, and I question whether you accept this explanation.

I do not accept this from scientists, when they try to whitewash scientists' actions entirely by saying oh, it's that darn media that miscommunicates everything, whereas scientists know about the limitations of their own field, or this or that. No, that explanation goes far, but only so far. Go beyond it, and a mistake was made. PJP2 made mistakes, and Francis is making them too.

Let me put it another way: I take seriously the idea that there are people who are suffering in our culture, who are ignored and abused. The problem is, I think people aren't properly locating these people. Even the Popes ignore them at times.

msgrx said...

I don't think that apologising on someone else's behalf is necessarily wrong, provided that you have a genuine connexion with the person whose actions are in question and aren't just using it as an opportunity for moral grandstanding. If, say, my mother were to get drunk and throw stones through all your windows, I might very well apologise on her behalf and offer to make restitution, even though I don't personally bear any blame for what happened.

Also, it's not as if asking for forgiveness on behalf of other people doesn't have a good Biblical pedigree: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

Crude said...

If, say, my mother were to get drunk and throw stones through all your windows, I might very well apologise on her behalf and offer to make restitution, even though I don't personally bear any blame for what happened.

Well, you may well be mistaken to apologize on her behalf. What if she didn't think what she did was wrong? Remove the drunk aspect - let's say she did it for fun. Can you still apologize on her behalf? While she's screaming over your shoulder "I am NOT sorry!"?

Now, paying for the damages? Sure, you can pay for whoever's damages you like. Try telling a woman on the street that 'women' owe an apology, and money, to whoever's property was damaged.

Also, it's not as if asking for forgiveness on behalf of other people doesn't have a good Biblical pedigree: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

See, that's way too broad. Too general. Because all it takes is a moment's imagination, or even some glancing at the media, to realize that it's beyond easy to use apologies like that as an insult, as a weapon, or even in a way that's wholly inappropriate and discordant with Christ's meaning.

If I say 'Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do'... about people who have NOT sinned? I'm not just improperly motivated. I am literally doing them harm. I'm casting them as sinners, despite their not being sinners.

There is no shortage of people who do this sort of thing either. I recall that one of Mark Shea's favorite moves is to say 'God bless you' to someone who's strongly criticizing him. Mark is not calling upon God to bless them in those cases. (In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a case of literally taking the Lord's name in vain.) It's just a sanctimonious 'Fuck you' from someone worried about their image, and everyone knows it. It's a taunt, a 'nyah nyah'.

Put another way: manipulating scripture for ends contrary to scripture, even unintentionally, also has a good Biblical pedigree.

BenYachov said...

@Crude

I don’t think we are going to agree here but I am going to tell you why I think you are wrong.


>It turns out there was a group of gay Catholic priests who had their own little message board online. Private, or so they thought………’

I am familiar with that situation & as I recall one of the pervert Priests was boasting he had an underage teenage boyfriend. So I don’t
think they are given their character persons who could be regarded as honest and thus I doubt when they said they hoped that JP2
would hurry up and die that it came from a motivation of Christian charity. They whee likely spinning.

>But to accept that perspective as correct, someone needs head trauma. I do not find it to be a mark of holiness to simulate head trauma so as to excuse a man. Not even a Pope. Not even a /beloved/ Pope.

>Sometimes, Popes do stupid things. Rotten things, even. Saint Peter is a Saint, but he sure acted like a shit in the Bible multiple times. Such is life.

Here is the thing thought. It was stupid of JP2 to not aggressively weed out perverts in the Church & sanction enabling bishops. But based on the evidence you provided I see no reason to believe it was in anyway a mistake for the Pope to intercede before God on behalf of the sins Catholics committed in the past. I don’t see how I can without denying the faith (not that I am accusing you of doing that)?


>What you're telling me is that if you squint your eyes and turn your head at the right angle, the Pope wasn't even apologizing on behalf of anyone. No, he was asking God for forgiveness for some people. There was no collective implication of guilt or wrongdoing. No self-effacing whatsoever. No, just the Holy Father asking for mercy for some sinners. People interpreted that as an apology, an implication of collective guilt? That's a misunderstanding!

Crude I am going by the information provided by your own links. Read the articles footnoted on that article you linked too.

Here is one.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

"Speaking after the ceremony to the crowd in St Peter's Square, the Pope stressed he was seeking forgiveness not from those who had been wronged, but from God. "Only he can do that.”

I don’t see how the Pope can be compared to a secret message board of pervs who have been living a lie? His character says otherwise.
JP2 was negligent in going after pervs largely in part because when serving as Cardinal Archbishop of Kracow he witnessed the
Communists first hand attack innocent priests by falsely accusing them of homosexuality. So he had an aversion to believing charges of
homosexuality against priests. But even I will admit that it is likely possible he wasn’t always innocent in his denial and might have between the time of his death and Pope Francis formally canonizing him have undergone Purgatory for that.

BenYachov said...

part two
But…...

I am sorry Crude but I am not here to whitewash Pope JP2. I am here for justice & in my opinion your charge against the Pope for “apologizing” seems to be factually wrong. Not that you can’t bring up legitimate charges of mistakes and wrongs done by JP2 even thought he is a Saint.

But IMHO with all due respect this is not one of them.


>PJP2 made mistakes, and Francis is making them too.

And the guy who comes after Francis retires or passes beyond will make them too. I do not dispute that. But I do believe for the reasons I’ve stated your example of the Pope’s “apologies” isn’t one of them.

>Let me put it another way: I take seriously the idea that there are people who are suffering in our culture, who are ignored and abused. The problem is, I think people aren't properly locating these people. Even the Popes ignore them at times.

On the face of it i see no reason to disagree. But I do believe based on the evidence here you provided JP2 was clearly asking for mercy from God for sinners from the past & forgiveness for the sins we commit today, He wasn’t “apologizing” in the manner Obummer was apologizing for the “crimes” of the United States.

Peace.

BenYachov said...

On another note.

I remember seeing an HBO special about simon wiesenthal played by ben kingsley called “Murderers among us” so long ago.
There was a rather powerful scene where a German soldier who was badly burned in bandages lying in his bed dying has
Simon brought to him & asks him to forgive him for his participation in Germany’s crimes against Jews and for all the Jews
he delivered to the camps to die. Wiesenthal brushes his hand away and leaves him sobbing while refusing to “forgive” him.
As one watches this scene one wonders why he couldn’t be the better man and forgive this poor guy on behalf of all Jews?
(not that given the circumstances I couldn't understand why) Well this is explained in the movie. Jewish teaching says you
can forgive someone an offense they have done to you but you cannot forgive on behalf of others. He cannot offer this man
the forgiveness of all Jews. It is not simon wiesenthal's to give.

JP2 participated in religious dialog with Jews. He no doubt realizes that he in a like manner cannot offer repentance on behalf of all Christians or
expect to be forgiven by Jews on behalf of other Jews. So he seeks forgiveness not from those who had been wronged, but from God. "Only he can do that.” It is clear from his own words that is what he means. To return to the pathetic example of the badly burned German soldier. He asked
forgiveness from the wrong Jew. The only Jew he could ask who could forgive him on behalf of all Jews was not Wiesenthal but BenMiriam.
Otherwise know as Rav Yeshua Ben Miriam.

Peace or should I say Shalom.

Crude said...

Crude I am going by the information provided by your own links.

You're not reading them accurately. Hence:

"Speaking after the ceremony to the crowd in St Peter's Square, the Pope stressed he was seeking forgiveness not from those who had been wronged, but from God. "Only he can do that."

Who is granting the forgiveness is irrelevant. What's relevant is who is being cast as wrong.

There was a rather powerful scene where a German soldier who was badly burned in bandages lying in his bed dying has
Simon brought to him & asks him to forgive him for his participation in Germany’s crimes against Jews and for all the Jews
he delivered to the camps to die. Wiesenthal brushes his hand away and leaves him sobbing while refusing to “forgive” him.
As one watches this scene one wonders why he couldn’t be the better man and forgive this poor guy on behalf of all Jews?


Because Wiesenthal doesn't speak for all the jews. He can go to Wiesenthal for his forgiveness. Not a whole goddamn people's.

To repeat: the problem here is not simply the fact that X is being asked for forgiveness, but that Y is being collectively judged as in the wrong and needing forgiveness.

Go ahead and follow my example: ask, on behalf of black people, that all the black criminals be forgiven. Qualify it that you're asking God for forgiveness, not white people. Let me know if that goes over well. Let me know if you think it -should- go over well.

BenYachov said...

>You're not reading them accurately.

I am going to need an explanation how I am misreading them? Mere assertion isn’t going to move me my brother.

>Who is granting the forgiveness is irrelevant. What's relevant is who is being cast as wrong.

Well sinners against the Gospel by definition are wrong are they not? I don’t get you here?


>Because Wiesenthal doesn't speak for all the jews. He can go to Wiesenthal for his forgiveness. Not a whole goddamn people’s.

Yup.

>To repeat: the problem here is not simply the fact that X is being asked for forgiveness, but that Y is being collectively judged as in the wrong and needing forgiveness.

I don’t get it Crude? The Scripture is clear anyone who says they are without sin is a liar and the truth of God is not in him?
With the obvious exceptions of Jesus and Mary for the obvious reasons all of us are collectively guilty before God.
That is just a brute Catholic Truth.

You can’t be criticizing THAT so I am going to default to my original speculation I am not understanding YOU.
(Thought just to be clear I maintain I have read the links accurately).

>Go ahead and follow my example: ask, on behalf of black people, that all the black criminals be forgiven. Qualify it that you're asking God for forgiveness, not white people. Let me know if that goes over well. Let me know if you think it -should- go over well.

Well even thought for reasons I won’t go into I might have some black ancestry I look very very white. So yeh it would not go over well.
But I do know quite a few Black Preachers and ministers who have preached against the collective sins of blacks & called on their brethren
to seek repentance and ask God’s mercy in leading them all to Jesus. I don’t recall their 99% black congregations booing them.

I think I should read everything you wrote in this post and in this comm box again because I must be missing something?

cheers.

Crude said...

I am going to need an explanation how I am misreading them? Mere assertion isn’t going to move me my brother.

With respect, Ben - I already explained myself. It's up to you to understand and respond.

I don’t get it Crude? The Scripture is clear anyone who says they are without sin is a liar and the truth of God is not in him?

So, you're saying that my argument is that these people are immaculately conceived? Really?

Well even thought for reasons I won’t go into I might have some black ancestry I look very very white. So yeh it would not go over well.

Oh? So that's a good reason not to do it?

I don’t recall their 99% black congregations booing them.

Really? They condemned their sins against white people? I want evidence. I want to see these reactions.

But, really, I can tell where this will go. 'They condemned their sins in the broadest sense possible! They didn't mention white people but some white people are guilty of crimes so those were implied and...'

You know what, Ben? We have a problem in western civilization. We have cultivated a generation of Christians who are downright self-loathing. In the name of 'humility' and a warped sense of 'being Christ-like' we've made them feel ashamed of identifying as Christian. We've identified their influence with 'subjugating people' (many of whom were, let's face it - part of a culture where human sacrifice was all the rage), and 'oppressing women' (because God forbid we draw the line at child-killing) and more. We have leadership who advise shame and self-effacement in the face of every insult. Even if someone lies about or distorts history, we bend over backwards to interpret the tiniest kernel of truth into their lies so we STILL have something to apologize for.

This isn't Christ-like. This isn't humility. This is sickness. And if a Pope encourages it, he's sick too, to whatever degree.

I am done with it. I want to be left out of these collective apologies, this perpetual and ever-selective shaming. I don't think it's Christ-like. I do not think it's holy.

If a Pope sobs and gets on his knees, washing the feet of a sexually active gay couple - or trio - kissing their feet in front of cameras, sobbing and talking about how sorry he is for the Church turning his back on the love of gay people throughout the millenia, I leave it to others to talk about how inspiring this is, or bending over backwards to interpret him as talking about their chaste, platonic love, not their sexual activity, which is what every newspaper the fucking world over is reporting it as. I will simply regard him as pathetic, a Pope we have to endure, not follow the lead of.

Yes, I will know, if I look at it in a certain way - rather, if I smash my forehead against a cinder block such that a large gash is formed, dropping my IQ by 50 points - I can see a benign interpretation of such. I will not be doing that, thank you.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

If JP2 weren't asking for forgiveness from those actually harmed by the "sins" noted in his apology, then there's no basis of wrongdoing. If "the Church" had "sinned against" group X, it might make sense to say, in a historical reparations way, that the Church now is sorry for the damages caused to group X, and is prepared to make amends. If, however, the aim is not to apologize to group X, the implication is that it is because they were not sinned against (only God was). But if group X is not worthy of an apology, then group X has no basis for a grievance which God might forgive.

Further, I'm unclear what "the sins of Catholics" are. The sins of alcoholics are pretty easy to enumerate (violence, abuse, reckless driving, puking on the Christmas tree, etc.), because they flow from a fairly consistent disorder. Alcoholism is a disorder which *tends to* result in certain kinds of sins, whereas homosexuality is a disorder which *tends to* result in other kinds of sins. The sins of those subject to these disorders flow from the nature of the disorders themselves.

By contrast, Catholic-ism is not a disorder which, of its very nature, *tends to* result in any specific sins. If anything, the sins of Catholics are the sins of fallen humans who arguendo failed to adhere to Catholic-ism. If this is left unstated, then the troubling suggestion is that "the sins of Catholics" are things like strongly defending to the truth, zealously seeking the repentance of sinners, majoring on Catholic orthopraxis even if means a few multicultural eggs get cracked, and so on.

The fact of the matter is, Catholics themselves--and thus the Church in her humanly liturgical voice (ecclesial ditheletism!)--*do* apologize for "their" sins at every Mass. JP2 showed that he was a "caring" man, to be sure, but it's far from clear that he furthered the cause of the Church and the world's openness to the Gospel. If anything, such papal verklempting only confirms what non-Catholics already believe: the Church *as a collective reality* is just as socially corrupt and morally compromised as any other social "tribe".

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Meanwhile, the irony lost amidst all this is that, if the Catholic Church as a people (biblically: a chosen race, a holy nation) can be and are guilty of their ancestors' sins, then the Jews can be guilty of the same thing. Anyone who rejects Christ is an enemy of God, and the painful shadow of NT salvation history is that the Jews, as a people, despite particular personal exceptions over the centuries, have rejected the Messiah given them. But you can bet your soiled Christmas tree that JP2, nor any post-Conciliar pope, would go near that logical entailment with a fifty foot barge pool ("on a stick"). #caring

Crude said...

I do want to be clear on one thing here.

I think Pope John Paul II was a great teacher. Intellectually, I am in his debt. His talk about the Culture of Death, his upholding and propagation of various teachings, his position of the Church, intellectually, against the modern culture... all those were as Catholic as can be, as near as I can tell. Well-executed, well-delivered. I like him, a lot. I think his impact was on the whole positive.

But I also think he made mistakes, and the apologies he gave had a negative effect, and were misconceived in many ways to begin with.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

I agree. His writings were crucial in my journey into the Church.

He was a good man, but only a pope, after all. Or something to that effect. ;)

BenYachov said...

Let us cut to the chase.
>With respect, Ben - I already explained myself. It's up to you to understand and respond.

But I clearly didn’t understand you so I would hope for a re-statement and or clarification if
you have the time. If not I won’t bagger you.

But the Pope "stressed he was seeking forgiveness not from those who had been wronged, but from God. "Only he can do that.”

I am not sure how that is an “apology” in the same sense Obama has apologized on behalf of America? Or in any of your examples?

Crude you said "He accomplished much good in his lifetime.

But the above[i.e. his so called apologies] is not an example of that good. They are, for the
most part, marks on his record.”

I maintain after reading JP2 own words I conclude that you have misread, misunderstood and are misapplying his actions here.

(NOT out of any malice of course or evil intent)

I say that with all due respect.

What he said and did IMHO was nothing like Black America apologizing for the crimes of black males. Since by his own cited explanation he was not seeking forgiveness from the wronged but from God. Your example has Black America
collectively seeking forgiveness from white america. Not someone asking God to forgive members of black america who have sinned.

So I agree with your sentiment which appears like that of Wiesenthal which is why I brought it up. I agree that collective guilt is wrong. But we would have to define that as my family or race are collectively guilty and owe restitution collectivity to other families and races that some of our individual members may have harmed.

But I don’t see the Pope doing that here? I see the Pope pleading with God for forgiveness of the sins committed by some of us against others. I see him showing his regret this evil was committed. But I don’t see him endorsing collective guilt.

>If a Pope sobs and gets on his knees, washing the feet of a sexually active gay couple - or trio - kissing their feet in front of cameras, sobbing and talking about how sorry he is for the Church turning his back on the love of gay people throughout the millenia, I leave it to others to talk about how inspiring this is, or bending over backwards to interpret him as talking about their chaste, platonic love, not their sexual activity, which is what every newspaper the fucking world over is reporting it as. I will simply regard him as pathetic, a Pope we have to endure, not follow the lead of.

Except even in his worst moments I don’t even think Francis has ever been guilty of this to date much less JP2.

I have stated openly what I thought JP2 shortcomings where & I maintain his “apologies” & that seems to me to be an equivocal use of the term aren’t any of them IMHO.

Peace.

BenYachov said...

Additional:

Just so there is no misunderstanding or hard feelings…

>So, you're saying that my argument is that these people are immaculately conceived? Really?

I kinda implied it looked like that but then I defaulted to the more likely scenario that I was misunderstanding
you.

>Oh? So that's a good reason not to do it?

Well it is better my Father correct me then the Father of my friend from next door.

>Really? They condemned their sins against white people? I want evidence. I want to see these reactions.

I really have no way to make my memories solid. You are just going to have to take my word for it.

>You know what, Ben? We have a problem in western civilization. We have cultivated a generation of Christians who are downright self-loathing. In the name of 'humility' and a warped sense of 'being Christ-like' we've made them feel ashamed of identifying as Christian. We've identified their influence with 'subjugating people' (many of whom were, let's face it - part of a culture where human sacrifice was all the rage), and 'oppressing women' (because God forbid we draw the line at child-killing) and more. We have leadership who advise shame and self-effacement in the face of every insult. Even if someone lies about or distorts history, we bend over backwards to interpret the tiniest kernel of truth into their lies so we STILL have something to apologize for.

You will get no argument from me Crude on that other than I don’t think the example of JP2 “apologies” where examples of that
detestable behavior & false humility.

>I am done with it. I want to be left out of these collective apologies, this perpetual and ever-selective shaming. I don't think it's Christ-like. I do not think it's holy.

I am not saying that has never occurred or might never occur. But the examples of JP2’s “apologies” don’t match that MO. They are clear
intercessions to God to ask for his pardon because we are as a human race guilty before him.

>Yes, I will know, if I look at it in a certain way - rather, if I smash my forehead against a cinder block such that a large gash is formed, dropping my IQ by 50 points - I can see a benign interpretation of such. I will not be doing that, thank you.

I merely took JP2 words at face value.

BenYachov said...

@Elliot

You said some things that interest me thus I will comment.

>Meanwhile, the irony lost amidst all this is that, if the Catholic Church as a people (biblically: a chosen race, a holy nation) can be and are guilty of their ancestors' sins, then the Jews can be guilty of the same thing.

Actually if you ever talked to Messianic Jews or Hebrew Catholics they would tell you the tendency to collectively blame Jews for their unbelief and or apply the curses in the Holy Writ for covenant breaking to them alone is unjust because they could also be applied to the Church when christians sin.

They rightly protest the double standards of so called "Christian" anti-Semites in that regard IMHO.

OTOH you do furnish a good argument as to why the concept of collective guilt is wrong.

>Anyone who rejects Christ is an enemy of God, and the painful shadow of NT salvation history is that the Jews, as a people, despite particular personal exceptions over the centuries, have rejected the Messiah given them.

Accept that would only apply to the individual Jews who where non-believers by opposition not the ones who are non-believers by negation. The later are the invincibly ignorant and by definition can't be held guilty for their material unbelief. Speaking of unbelievers in general Pius IX said we can't know who among the non-believer falls into either category or use the existence of the later one as an excuse not to preach the gospel.

> But you can bet your soiled Christmas tree that JP2, nor any post-Conciliar pope, would go near that logical entailment with a fifty foot barge pool ("on a stick").

Well V2 said anyone knowing the Catholic Church is the fullness of Truth who refused to enter or remain in her could not be saved.

Logically we can say any and all Jews(& Gentiles) who qualify as non-believes by opposition are guilty of the Blood of Jesus & are enemies of God.

The thing is we can't know for certain which Jews fall into that category nor can we use the example of Jews who are innocent because of invincible ignorance as a pretense not to preach them the Gospel.

OTOH forget Vatican II go with the CCT.

CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, "Reasons Why Christ Suffered" (1566)

"In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him."

Love that Trent!!!!

Cheers.

I wish you a good lent Elliot.

BenYachov said...


Additional to Crude.

>I do want to be clear on one thing here.

>I think Pope John Paul II was a great teacher. Intellectually, I am in his debt.....

I believe you completely & in spite of my strong disagreement on some of the particulars I absolutely believe you sincere and you have no malice against the late Pope.

We will have to agree to disagree on the particulars and be happy where we do agree on the main principle.


>But I also think he made mistakes,

No argument.

> and the apologies he gave had a negative effect, and were misconceived in many ways to begin with.


I maintain he was not "apologizing" in the sense you took him too but yeh his words where misconceived by others. But the rabble and the media do that to the words of Jesus himself so what hope does the Pope have those influence by the powers of darkness are going to be gentler with him?

It is our duty to shout the truth!

Cheers brothers and pray for me a sinner.

BenYachov said...

Last post.


Here is the full text of one of JP2’s so called “apologies”’ found in Crude’s list.


http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HLYSN.HTM


Judge for yourselves. I offer it for now without commentary.

msgrx said...

"See, that's way too broad. Too general. Because all it takes is a moment's imagination, or even some glancing at the media, to realize that it's beyond easy to use apologies like that as an insult, as a weapon, or even in a way that's wholly inappropriate and discordant with Christ's meaning."

Of course it is, just like it's possible for a passive-aggressive person to shame other people for not being conversant with the finer points of etiquette. People can abuse all sorts of things, but that doesn't make the things themselves inherently bad.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

@BenY:

"...the tendency to collectively blame Jews for their unbelief and or apply the curses in the Holy Writ for covenant breaking to them alone is unjust because they could also be applied to the Church when christians sin."

That was the point of my reductio. Making collective apologies for "Catholic sins" logically entails "Jewish sins" and so on.

BenYachov said...

@Elliot

Yes and it was a good point.

I give credit where credit is due.

"....you do furnish a good argument as to why the concept of collective guilt is wrong...etc".

Cheers.

Crude said...

I'm going to try and make another post about this, to explain things further.

BenYachov said...

You da man Crude.

Cheers.