"The men who make up the Church are made from the clay of Adam and they can and often are sinners. The Church is holy in its structures, and can be a sinner in its human membrane; it is holy in search of holiness...it is holy in itself, infirm in the men who belong to it." These words of Paul VI can directly introduce us in the vexata quaestia which in the last few months, has grown into consistent proportions, becoming the object of discussions not only amongst believers, but also amongst the men of culture, who at times have expressed themselves in daily newspapers of the international media.

To tell the truth, the major point of the problem has not been grasped. The relationship between the sanctity of the Church and the presence of sin in it is a question that, because of the strong theological connotations that it carries, requires a clear detachment which is capable of entering into the core of some distinctions which could be difficult for some people to follow if they are not part of the inner workings. Only a detached and uninterested look, away from the theological questions, can, perhaps, with a bit of tendentiousness, entitle "the mea culpa of the Church," without understanding that a similar expression is full of ambiguities and can lead to an error in Christian doctrine and to the misunderstanding of the facts. The real problem is not the fact that the Church asks forgiveness; rather it is that the holy Church gathers in itself all the sinners who are and remain its children notwithstanding the sin and these people continue to be loved by the Church with sincerity despite the permanence of sin.

The Background to the Jubilee

Before directly addressing the theological problematic, it is still useful to try to verify why the live debate is taking place today and for what reason some of the faithful feel confused and incapable of understanding in depth the reason why they must always ask forgiveness for things that they have not done and without feeling the presence of at least a reciprocity in this confession; after all, when their is a fault, common knowledge justly sees that it usually requires two people! To better understand, it is necessary to reach the context in which this theme is developed. We enter, therefore in the horizon of the Jubilee of the year 2,000.

The Jubilee is born as a unique moment of asking forgiveness. To take this dimension away from that holy year would be equivalent to destroying its primary meaning. Even a quick look at the history of the past 25 Jubilees, shows the incontestable and historical proof that the Holy Year has always been seen as a particular moment of grace for the remission of sins. From the first Bull by Boniface VIII, Antiquorum habet up to the last one of Paul VI, Ad limina Apostolorum, it is possible to verify a common denominator: the Church concedes the indulgence for the forgiveness of the guilt of its children. In order for this to happen, it is necessary for them to ask for the forgiveness of their own sins. So, the context of the Jubilee, is born, it is develops and preserves in itself the idea of a moment in which the most significant word is forgiveness.

In his letter, Tertio Millennio adveniente, John Paul II does not only preserve this scenario, but he also has extracted a more original meaning and certainly a more difficult one. The combination of these two elements, which contain a strong prophetic force, have created a major awareness of conscience with regards to some of the things the Pope wanted to express and highlight in his letter. What exactly does John Paul II say? The beginning is of course the Jubilee stage, which, on this occasion, corresponds with the beginning of the Church in the third millennium of its history. Certainly, we must not emphasis the date more than necessary, but the inequivocable fact remains: the Church is called to reflect on its history and on its witnesses of faith, which this millennium has given to the world: "It is fitting that the Church should make this passage with a clear awareness of what has happened to her during the last ten centuries. She 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." (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 33).

As we note, the first call to action is that we become aware of the Church's responsibility towards the world. If we like, it is the call to that same mission of the Church: being "light" of the world and "salt" of the earth. It is in the strength of this responsibility that it cannot hide "under the bushel," but it must remain "at the top of the mountain" in order to be seen by everyone; by the same token, it is not allowed to lose flavor, because "if salt loses its flavor it serves no purpose other than being thrown away." The Church, therefore, must always remember its mission; there are moments however, in which it is asked to take on more of an awareness, in order to fix deadlines or to get closer to cases that deal with it in the first person.

The first requirement asked, as we have said, is that there be anexamination of conscience. In other words, the Pope asks that there be a moment of silence, of reflection, of study and of prayer so that there is understanding of that which is our history of witness in the world. These years of preparation to the Jubilee enter into the sphere of the examination of conscience. It is subject to examination and indispensable; it cannot be identified, therefore, tout court, neither with a recognition of guilt, nor with a request of forgiveness. We are still in the phase of verification to establish "if" there was guilt, "why" there was guilt and "how" it came to be. What is urgent, in the first place, is that the historical facts are analyzed, and that there be, a serious historical judgement which conforms to the facts. Beginning with this, it is then possible to establish how to ask forgiveness. It seems important up to now, however, to express a personal judgement regarding this. If there was guilt it is right and a duty to ask forgiveness. this requires our faith, even if the act can be subjected to inevitable exploitation and misunderstandings. The message which is given and the witness which is imposed will be in greater lengths, stronger and more efficient that exploitation.

The Dilemma of History

These precessions open the path to another problem which deals with history and its interpretation,. It is useless to negate that our century lives in the light of the discovery of the importance of history. History is the criteria to effectively guide our discoveries and their values. Even in its ambiguities and its mysteries which still permeate, we know that we cannot get around history; we must face it and must always make comparisons with the objective results which science attains. In this case, we will always be faced with a conflict between "fact" and its "interpretation" and it will never and the pretense of those who want to impose their prophetic reading into it as the sole and certain truth of facts will be worth less. History, therefore, must never be forgotten, its figure is like Janus: on one side he laughs, on the other he cries; good and evil will always contrast themselves and they will always rediscover themselves without allowing a clear vision of the events. Certainly, the historian will be called, to use the expression of Leo XIII, to "not affirm anything that is false and to not let silence pass over anything that is true," but, despite this, we are always children of a pre-understanding, and we are never truly free from compromises. In front of an historical fact, we will always be with and only with the conscience of "approximation" because we will never be able to reach the globality of the acts which are at the base of historical events.

It is sufficient to site a "neutral" example to immediately verify all that I try to describe. If we speak of catacombs, everyone immediately thinks of those places where Christians hid themselves for fear of the evil Romans! We know perfectly well that the catacombs did not in absolute, have only this role and that they served solely as normal cemeteries of the burial of Christians. If the theme were to pass under the theme of the inquisition, the passage is no longer so innocuous. Whoever utters the word inquisition immediately thinks of the rogues and innocent witches and of the occult of the Middle Ages...even with all the good will of expert historians, who will have to work diligently to modify the collective mind set.

The examples serve only to explain the necessity of a series examination of conscience which is able to reach a historical judgement based on facts which are considered as the "guilt" of the Church, in order to verify if the interpretation which is reached is truly coherent with the facts as they evolved. It is this reason that pushed the Historical-Theological Commission of the Jubilee - under the indications set out by John Paul II in Tertio Millennio Adveniente - to find and verify the events which deal with our history: the relationship with our origins and the controversial tie between truth and charity.

Forgiveness: A Christian Word

Now we should return to the more theological theme which spurred our reflection. It is made up of some questions which must find an answer: who needs to ask for forgiveness? To whom do we ask forgiveness? Why do we ask forgiveness? Answering this last question will help us find the way.

For the Church to ask forgiveness does not mean relying solely on the good will of individuals. It is a task which must absolve the strength of its being through the forgiveness of God for men. Every day, the Church ask forgiveness every time in celebration when the moment culminates in all its Sacramental existence, through the Eucharist - and this is reason enough. The apostle, in his first letter to the Corinthians makes a significant contribution to this end: "I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. now these things are warnings for us...and they were written as a warning to us" (1 Corinthians 10, 1-11). Paul clearly shows his interpretation of the history of the ancient peoples: a story of salvation through the intervention of God, and, at the same time, a story of sin because of the lack of faith. He, then, sees the presence of Christ already in the desert - "the Rock which followed them was Christ" - this means that for Christians that story becomes a warning to not commit the same errors and sins. If our gaze, then, rests on some neo-testament texts, it can immediately be noted that the first community did not have fear of pointing out some acts of real sin: the weakness of Peter and his betrayal, the ambition of the sons of Sebedeio, the incredulity of Thomas, the lies of Anania and Saffira, the divisions and the jealousies in the community of Corinth, not to mention all that is reproached in the book of the Apocalypse to the "seven Churches"...The Church has, always, therefore known its history and precisely because it trusts in the mercy of God it does not fear recognizing the sins of its children; Paul's warning is enough: "Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God" (1 Corinthians 10, 32). But, far from us, the typical "romantic" temptation of idealizing the primitive community and the Church of the early centuries is damaging to the Church of today. "Church of martyrs," "Church of the poor," "Church of the catacombs" sometimes seems to want to contrast with the Church of today. It is an inauspicious attempt, because up until now the same identical Church continues, which, as in ancient times carries in its bosom saints and sinners, the just and heretics, lapsi and martyrs. But this consideration is not enough.

I Believe in the Holy Church

In the Profession of Faith, we affirm: "I believe in the Church, a holy, Catholic and apostolic one." These four "notes" are constitutive for the definition of the Church as "Church of Christ" and they allow for the recognition of all those who were baptized. The holiness was the first characteristic that was recognized by the Church. Beginning from the II century in the Epistola Apostolorum we find the diction: the "holy Church;" and beginning from here, the texts of the Fathers repeatedly and incessantly define the Church "holy" up to the point where they institute the Nicean-Constantinoplen profession of faith.

The biblical foundation of this denomination, on the other hand, does not leave any doubts to its regards. Jesus, the "saint of God" is the center of the new community chosen and consecrated to elevate a true spiritual cult to God. This Church is the "holy temple of God" and the death of Christ renders it saintly and immaculate. Those who are baptized are simply called the "saints" in order to indicate their belonging to God and the consecration which happened through the water of Baptism. The celebration of the Eucharist highlights amongst all believers the state of holiness in which they participate and are called; it is such a real situation that it forced the apostle to write that he would undergo a series examination of conscience before getting close to the banquet of celebration (1 Corinthians 11, 30-32).

The holiness of the Church is founded on the presence and the action of the Holy Spirit in it. Therefore, it is original holiness which does not find an analogy in the preceding history, it is objective, full, the source and river of every other personal holiness which is born and developed. If the Church was not holy, it could not proclaim "saints" those people who give witness to true evangelical life. The history of the Church, is therefore first and foremost a history of holiness. It is not possible to postpone and not acknowledge this dimension without speaking of the sacred texts and two thousand years of history of the Church. If the Church is holy, then, it cannot by its nature sin or have sins. Here, therefore, is another problem which must be faced: the presence of sinners.

The Council has repeatedly expressed this concept. Some texts in this regard are explicit even if in some moments they seem to create contrasts among them. Here, we can simply site the reference to "The Church in whose mystery the sacred council is exposed and for faith, unfailingly believes holy" from number 39 of Lumen Gentim with number 48 of the same constitution: "The Church is distinguished with true holiness here on earth, even if in an imperfect way." The two expressions lead to the well known and often mis-interpreted text of Lumen Gentium 8: "The holy Church always needs to be purified." These expressions bring us to immediately consider who makes up the Church. Only in this horizon is the meaning, which the council intended to give to preceding affirmations clear.

Therefore, some words on the nature of the Church will not clash. The Church is a sacramental mystery. This tem indicates its real nature and its constitution: it possesses in it a visible part which leads to an invisible realty: "The Church is in Christ like a sacrament" and it is with these words the constitution Lumen Gentium begins. That which needs to be surpassed when describing the Church is the hinted danger of dualism which would like to see, on the one hand, a visible Church, and on the other, an invisible Church. It is not so. The Church is one and together visible and invisible: "they must not be considered a<s two different things, but they form a sole and complex reality which is the result of the double element, human and divine." (LG 8). Its sacramental nature is that which allows it to offer to the world and to men its concrete visibility and which leads it to the invisible dimension which belongs to it and which constitutes it like the Body of Christ.

We see the Church as visible and we see its development in history through the events of history. It is in this way that the Church comes into contact with different peoples and cultures, and which "adapts" to them and from these structures takes on the same forms through which it organizes its life. In this, its visibility, the existence of those who are baptized and who form the full title of the Church in Christ come together. Here, history shows its face: an history of holiness and a history of sins. It is pointless to negate. Like it or not, our history is disseminated of lives of saints and blessed and of the lacerating existence of sin. On the other hand, not one of us can forget the condemnation of the error donatista, which wanted the members of the Church to be solely pure and solely saints. The parables which Jesus told in this regard about the growth in the same field of wheat and of discord or of the fishermen who captures good and bad fish in his net, should help us to remember the reality to which we belong and who we personally are. Only in Mary, finally, can we see accomplished that which for us is still a long path to walk along.

The Necessary Purification

It is in the strength of this dimension, therefore, that the Church lives also a story of purification which is both an history of mercy and of forgiveness. We are "saints" in the strength of baptism, but we are called to "be perfect like the Father in heaven" (Mathew 5, 48). We are loved, but often prevailing in us is the rejection of love in order to take hold of our existence in the light of our vision of the world, turning our backs on God, and seeing only ourselves. We are ca<lled to live "as is fitting among saints" (Ephesians 5, 3), but often we do not bear the fruit of the Spirit rather we dwell in the realm of the body (cf. Gal 5, 19-26). Therefore, Jacob the apostle is right when he reminds us that "all of us are lacking/sinning in many things" (Jacob 3, 2); for this reason in the prayer which Jesus taught us, we ask every day: "Forgives us our sins." As a conclusion we look at the quote of Father de Lubac: "When the first centuries of Christians, having adopted a biblical and Pauline terminology, spoke of the 'Church of saints' they did not forge the proud concept of a Church, small or large as it was, founded exclusively on the pure; or when they spoke of the "celestial Church," they did not misunderstand the conditions of its existence on earth....they affirmed with this that all those who entered the Church were consecrated by God. They witnessed their faith in the fruits of baptism and they expressed their convictions that the entire life of the Christian, which is "holy in order to be called divine," must be the logical development. They proclaimed that the Christian condition called for holiness...they knew well that the Church, in itself, is "without sin," and that it is not ever, in its members "without sinners" (Meditations on the Church, 70-71).

Sin, then, even anchoring us to the holiness of baptism, does not allow us to remain in the Charity of Christ, and therefore, furthers from us the grace which helps us grow in holiness (sanctifying grace). It is precisely this dimension which even touches the Church. Just as there is a mystical force which keeps grace and love united, so is this a reflection on the Church and in the sins of its children in the Church. I would say that in this scenario, the term "umbrage" of the holiness of the Church is understood. The life of sin of its children, who remain children in the Church always and until the end of time, obscures the holiness of the Church, for those who can know the Church only in its visible reality. My sin obstructs the passage to obtain the invisibility of the holiness and grace which the Church possesses.

We can add that from these considerations, a first conclusion is the following: he who sins is always and the sole and single believer and will bear the weight and guilt and responsibility of his sin. No one replace the individual sinner in the commitment to recognizing that guilt and asking forgiveness. He, however, is always a son of the Church even if a sinner. In our vision of faith, he is never left only to himself and with the weight of his sin. For this, the Church "fills itself with the sins of its children" and in their name asks forgiveness. It can and must do this, because it is the place of reconciliation between God and men. No one can reach the forgiveness of God alone; everyone receives it always and only through the mediation of the Church. That which happens with the request of forgiveness is therefore the work of mediation which the Church fulfills; Christ entrusted this on the Church: it is its unique mission which it must carry out in its history and from which it is not exempted by punishment of no longer being the Church of Christ. Therefore, this pushes it to distinguish itself between "asking forgiveness" and being "responsible for the guilt." We must remember that he who asked for forgiveness is not necessarily responsible for the guilt. My son could break my neighbor's window and cause a great damage. I, as father ask forgiveness of my neighbor for my son and ask to pay the debt, but I am not guilt for the act of my son. The Church, then is holy and without sin, but, being strong in its mission, it takes on the sins of its children without ever being guilty and invokes forgiveness.

Here, the ambiguity is born and the substantial difference which exists on the theological level is not grasped. Much depends on the bad use of our language, without being careful to verify the semantic value which it possesses. It is sufficient to enter in Church and recite a prayer just to say "I went to Church," or to have spoken with a priest and conclude "I received confession..."The Church undergoes an "examination of conscience" and becomes "full of the sins of its children" and immediately we say the Church "asks forgiveness for its sins." The ambiguity of our language is often the source of misunderstandings and leaves a side uncovered to those who want to play and bring discredit to it instead of debate and creating culture.

The holy Church, then, asks forgiveness. In the first instance to God. Sin is always the rejection of his paternity and of his life of grace. When the Church asks forgiveness it must first aim its prayer at the Father, because only he is the source of forgiveness and only his love was rejected. But there is a second subject to whom we must ask forgiveness, and it is the Church. There is no contradiction in this: the men of the Church ask forgiveness to the Church for having obscured its holiness with their counter-witness. This is not a secondary element in the moment in which the sacramental character of the Church is attested. The forms of "scandal" (TMA 33) which we have given have impeded the closeness to the holiness of the Church and have created an obstacle to its mission of evangelization in the world. We must take act of this and ask forgiveness. Finally, we ask forgiveness even to those men who were offended by our actions. We cannot ask forgiveness of God, who we cannot see, and reject asking it of our brother, who we do see and against who we committed a sin.

At this point, many will invoke reciprocity, but uselessly. The Christian vision of forgiveness is born as a consequence of ultimate love. Only those who truly love can reach forgiveness, that is up to the point of forgetting the offence received. Christian love does not live on reciprocity, rather it lives of the pureness of giving without expecting to receive. This is the love which leads to the nailing on the cross for pure love, knowing that it is impossible to exchange that intensity. This love becomes a paradigm of every loving belief in which altruism is not an accessory, but nature itself. Therefore, even forgiveness requires the same unilaterally.

The Passage of the Witness

John Paul II is right, therefore, when he writes: "Acknowledging the weakness of the past 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" (TMA 33). The confession of one's own sins, in the end, is for believers to witness the joy of forgiveness. Conversion is always a moment of a return to the Father, and therefore is an experience of his mercy and love. It is an experience to which everyone is called, at least to experiment the joy of hope. It's a shame at this point, to note that some passages of the Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente were forgotten by the observers. In the first instance, the Holy Father asks that the examination of conscience should being with the heads of nations: "After 1989 however there arose new dangers and threats. In the countries of the former Eastern bloc, after the fall of Communism, there appeared the serious threat of exaggerated nationalism, as is evident from events in the Balkans and other neighboring areas. This obliges the European nations to make a serious examination of conscience, and to acknowledge faults and errors, both economic and political, resulting from imperialist policies carried out in the previous and present centuries vis-a-vis nations whose rights have been systematically violated." (TMA 27). It does not seem to me that this passage has ever found an echo amongst the many people who are committed to chase after the guilt of Christians, asking in a laud voice that the Church recognizes its sins. It is systematic of these people to not feel even slightly embarrassed in front of similar violations of texts. To each, however, his own responsibility.

The request for forgiveness for the errors of the past, therefore, must not let Christians lose sight of the life of the present. Purifying the memory is equal to attaining a truth which helps living in the present. The gaze of the believer must be aims also at the different shadows which darken our time: religious indifference, ethic relativism, secularism, the reception of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the different forms of marginalization and of injustice, the violation of the fundamental rights of people...the list could easily be lengthened. That which is important to consider is if our lack of commitment can correspond to an objective responsibility for the spreading of cultures that no longer have any confirmation with our faith.

In the next few months, during the celebration of the Jubilee, which by its nature recalls in the first place the joy of conversion and the forgiveness of sins, I think the Pope can make a gesture of significant value with regards to the necessity of forgiveness. John Paul II is not a stranger to gestures of great prophetic meaning; he has already made several in the course of his pontificate and each one of them has always resulted in marvel. Faith, therefore, is still capable of stupefying and opening new doors. A prophetic sing, on the other hand, is always the criteria of discernment, but together it is a sign of contradiction. More than ever, it is subject to criticism and incomprehension of those who prefer to remain closed in themselves and refuse to open up to new things. The challenge, is aimed then at those who want to live, still today, a great Christian adventure, the fruit of grace and of personal decisions. The millennium which is in front of us does not invoke the commitment of future generations, it asks in a compelling way that we, today, grasp the witness of faith of the past and, reinvigorated by the Spirit, we can present it as a true witness in the relay of history which races towards the Lord, "sole Savior of the world, yesterday, today and always."