Who Apologizes for the Pope?
Pope John Paul II’s Embrace of Indigenous Culture
& the need for a better Catholic Media response

-- by: Bro. Joshua Seidl, SSP

• My appologies, but the former link decribed just below that once occupied this line no longer available.

Click the web ling to read an article put out by the news paper, Indian Country.com . The article is an excellent commentary about the Late Great Pope John Paul II’s trip to Mexico and his acceptance of Indigenous prayer ceremony traditions.

The article also includes commentary about EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network)’s apology to those watching the live coverage. I was not witness to the coverage or program, so I cannot account or comment on the level of importance for EWTN’s apology to the viewers. However, any apology issued by EWTN on behalf of the Pope carries no weight and has no authority.

In fairness to EWTN, I presume the apology was not for the Pope so much as it was for EWTN’s own lacking in inculturation issues when it concerns Native American Catholics and the Church. The Pope accepted a traditional incensing from Aboriginal leadership in Mexico. Ceremonies of this nature have often been referred to as “smudging.” EWTN probably did not expect to see this ceremony and, because of their lack of investigation of Indigenous customs, were unprepared to give an accounting of the ceremony.

My purpose is not to speak against EWTN; I enjoy and support their programming. My purpose is to demonstrate some of the day-to-day stumbling about by many who are in a position to represent the Church who has done so little (or nothing) in their ministries to include Native American input and education.

First Nations, last

Catholic media sources (magazines, TV, radio, internet, web-forums, music and the list can go on) ought to make it priority one in the coming year to have several members of their staff investigate and become familiar with Native American information sources. Native Americans unwittingly became the Church’s first mission in these lands, but have consistently been relegated to the last place. Yet, more and more as of late, Native American news and involvements are taking the spot light in media coverage. It would go well with Catholic media to take the lead and learn how to cover incidents like the Pope’s acceptance of Native cultural practices from a Native perspective. Stumbling about and issuing an unwarranted apology for the Pope when he is in the right is a glaring reminder of any media source’s ineptitude.

One of the major foreseeable functions of the Congregation of St. James is to amiably work with Diocesan media and other religious media people so that the non-Indigenous journalists can have a better idea of who Native People are from a Native perspective and to become more aware of how the non-indigenous institutes are sometimes perceived by the groups they wish to report on. This, I believe, will have an over all good affect and bring about a more positive relationship in all levels and types of pastoral ministries.

Pope Benedict XVI’s May 13, 2007 Speech in Brazil

The opening remarks by Benedict XVI in Brazil, on that date, are perceived one way by non-Indigenous pastoral or teaching leadership and a far different way by many Indigenous people. Those opening lines set a tone as to how the Pope’s additional commentary on Indigenous faith practices and the western Church could be interpreted. Center and right wing Church media and spokespersons jumped at the chance to denounce Indigenous concerns as hysterical and unwarranted. Left wing non-Indigenous Church media did the opposite; they clobbered the Pope for his remarks. I don’t think either side of the media issue got it correct.

The primary and most common response I heard from Native speakers following the May 13th speech was an inquiry about what the Pope said, or why he said what he did about Native People. Regardless of the intention of any speaker, including Shepherds, the perception of the hearers is what really counts in getting a message across.
      The pope’s first line, following his greeting was, “Faith in God has animated the life and culture of these nations [Latin American] for more than five centuries.”
      This is true, but the context and perception by two different audiences relays two potentially different messages. Indigenous faith in God animated life and culture since the dawn of Creation. That is, as the Pope said, “… more than five centuries.”
      The indigenous audience responded to the approximately 514 years of European occupation of these lands and objected on the basis that the statement could suggest that the relationship between Indigenous People and our Creator was only valid during the last 500 or so years because of the European conquest of these lands.
      Any number of non-Indigenous Church pastoral personnel would partially agree. They might accept that there was a pre-Columbian faith in these lands, but take the Pope’s words to imply the more meaningful animation took place after the arrival of Christian missionaries. This can and probably is taken with some level of insult by the First Nations because of the implication of cultural superiority of the conquering Nations.
      Rather than to argue or lambaste one side or the other, it is important to recognize that any population can and will interpret from within their own historical and cultural structures. The responsible and fraternal response should be to hear out the complaint, realize the inquiry or objection comes from the soul and heartbeat of a population and to give it on par credit to the voice of the originating party that delivered the speech. Only then can a respecting and meaningful dialogue result that will mend a relationship, or create a mutually beneficial and respecting affiliation where one might not have existed.

Catholic Media and Information Office Responsibility

The chief moral characteristic of a truly Catholic media source or of a Catholic information office or representative is to bridge differences. Lambasting a secular media outside of official Catholic authorization, or accusing the victim or alleged victims of wrong doing is unprofessional at best. We should have seen this from the recent and still on going Clergy/child sex scandals and cover ups. We can see this as we look north to the cover ups of several Churches and the Canadian government regarding the murder of over 50,000 indigenous school children. The Church does not protect or enhance its image with cover ups or through negative attacks on the minority populations.

      It is very legitimate that many Indigenous people or circles would object or demand a redress and explanation of the May 13th speech. The objections and the request for a redress of issues were raised with all due respect of the Church and of the Papacy. Here and there, of course, will be an angry voice. That is to be expected as there are a lot of generational and current wounds involved. Those words have been used to usurp Native sovereignty, rights, dignity and lives during the same 500 plus time period. Negativity might not be the Pope’s intentions, but these factors for the better or worse are an inherent part of the job.
      The Pope went on to say: “Yet what did the acceptance of the Christian faith mean for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean? For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Savior for whom they were silently longing.”
      Oh the surprise in some prelates’ eyes over the lack of gratitude by Native when those words were received. The words are spread like honey and taste even sweeter to those invaders who expected a warm welcome. From an indigenous stance, the words are a bitter reminder of the many missionaries who enslaved them and beat it into them that this deprivation is for their own good; that they want and need the gifts of the West.
      It’s all in the perception of the given cultural body hearing those words. The scales of justice and peace are tipped if only one cultural perception is granted legitimacy.

Here we have leading Catholic journalists apologizing for John Paul II’s acceptance of Native ritual, and their expressed distain when the next Pope is questioned for what is perceived to be a potential rejection of Native culture. Leading Indigenous spokespersons and Elders, on the other hand, sought a meeting, a discussion and an explanation. They did not speak out against the Pope or the Church. This, however was the perception of the European and the Euro-American church leaders uncomfortable with the inquiries brought up by Native people.
      It has proven to be very difficult for most Natives in a position of Church service to be able to talk with decision making hierarchy about the issues. There are so few places that native people can turn to and expect an on par and mutually respecting meeting on these issues. The indigenous of the Americas have no political clout or real sovereignty that could demand or expect to be heard out as other groups can be heard in cases like this.
      Catholic media is a ministry that could do more to bridge the inequity. The information leaders and media professionals could have asked to meet with Native leaders within the cultural context of the First Nations, hear them out, written up a story, and had the Native spokes persons proof read and review the story and then print or broadcast it. Catholic media and every diocese and most parishes and parochial schools should already have in place qualified personnel who are familiar with Native concerns from the Native perspective. The results would have been more conducive to marks of a Universal Church than the resultant rejection of Native voices as being of little or no account. Both sides and cultural perspectives have a high level of legitimacy and should be mutually respected as such.

The more poignant portions of the speech were the easiest to deal with. Benedict XVI said: “In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbian cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture.”
      Several non-indigenous pastoral persons swiftly and angrily tried to offer explanations suggesting the Pope was right and the objections of Native People were out of line. Ten days later the Pope recanted those lines and said the Church does not reject or makes light of the sufferings of Indigenous People.
Those pastors and media individuals that lambasted the Indigenous objections were left with egg on their faces for having too readily and erroneously accused the Native People of being out of line.
      Many of us are quick to blame media for woes of our own creation rather than becoming in a positive manner, media savvy and responsible. Institutional racism is an unthinking racism. It is seldom brought out with ill intent, but its pointed shards are just as harmful and intentional racism. Catholic media must respect the perspective of all audiences in discerning its approach. The printed and broadcasted word has a lot of power. The actions and training of journalists and reporters set an example for children and adults, even for those non-journalistic adults in positions of greater influence and authority.
      It is way too easy for a common parish pastor or for an influential Bishop to cry foul on the media in part because of the failure of media persons to be better prepared for all their audiences. The angry or antagonistic lessons of a seminary professor or a religious life director in one single class can and often times does influence a new generation of priests, deacons and religious to perpetuate unwarranted cross-cultural biases as if these negatives were a teaching of the Church. The wrong or the good will affect the next seven generations.

____________________________________________________
Vatican web site

•  Click here to go to the Pope's May 13th speech posted on the Vatican web site

POPE ACKNOWLEDGED UNJUSTIFIABLE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED during European colonization of Grand Mother Turtle Island.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, under fire in Latin America for saying the Catholic Church had purified Indians, acknowledged on Wednesday that "unjustifiable crimes" were committed during the colonisation of the Americas. But he stopped short of apologising as demanded by some leaders, including Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Pope Benedict XVI waves as he arrives in Saint Peter's square at the Vatican to lead his weekly general audience May 23, 2007. Pope Benedict, under fire in Latin America for saying the Catholic Church had purified Indians, acknowledged on Wednesday that "unjustifiable crimes" were committed during the colonisation of the Americas. (REUTERS/Max Rossi) "The memories of a glorious past cannot ignore the shadows that accompanied the process of evangelisation of the Latin American continent," the Pope said. "It is, in fact, not possible to forget the suffering, injustices inflicted by the colonisers against the indigenous population, whose human and fundamental rights have often been trampled," said the Pontiff, whose spoken message in Italian was stronger than a previously released text in English.

•  Click here to go to the Pope's clarification on the Brazilian speech - posted on the Vatican web site

____________________________________________________

Click here to return to page ONE of Essays and articles, and to see a complete listing of all essays