The Role of Reconciliation

September 14, 2022 by Guest

M. David Huston lives and works in the Washington DC metro area. He is a husband and father of four who has previously written for poetry, international affairs, and LDS-related publications.

Pope Francis’s visit to Canada in July was a lesson in the importance of acknowledging and accepting responsibility for past missteps as part of moving into world of a new possibilities. As has been widely reported, Pope Francis’s visit was seeking to address the abuse of indigenous/first nation groups at the hands of Christians generally and Catholics specifically. Though news reports earlier this year of the discovery of nearly 170 unmarked graves on the grounds of a residential school for first nation children might have been the catalyst for this specific visit, the history of Christendom’s mistreatment of indigenous peoples (in the Americas, but also in many other parts of the world including Africa) is undisputed. Many Christian colonists and explorers terrorized and subjugated those with whom they came into contact, and often committed these terrible acts on the basis of now-discredited theological ideas.

Now, to be clear, Pope Francis did not directly do the things for which he apologized, nor did the Catholic church over which he now presides. He did not authorize the colonization of Canada by Catholic adherents. He did not dedicate funds to the building of the now-closed boarding schools where the graves were found. All those actions were before his time. And yet Pope Francis still sought reconciliation? Why?

The answer is, I believe, found in the Sermon on the Mount.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is recorded as saying “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:23-24). In these few phrases, Jesus upends common thinking about how we should prioritize religious obligations. Jesus is not saying that ‘sacrifice’ is unimportant—i.e. Jesus is not saying that individuals should stop participating in the designated religious practice of offering animal sacrifices at the altar of the temple—rather Jesus seems to be saying that reconciliation with those who “hath ought against thee” should be done before we do anything else. Reconciliation with our “brother” should precede other religious obligations.

This is what Pope Francis was trying to do in Canada. Rather than just continuing on with the Church’s ‘sacrificial’ efforts (e.g. all the good it does for its parishioners and the good achieved through its variety of charity arms), the Pope recognized that indigenous/first nation people had “ought” against the Catholic Church for the Church’s previous actions. And instead of dismissing these concerns as a relic of the past and encouraging those who voiced concerns to just “move on” (or to “stop being so easily offended”), Pope Francis sought reconciliation. But not just for himself—he sought institutional reconciliation on behalf of the whole church. The Pope openly acknowledged the Catholic church’s complicity in those heinous acts and accepted responsibility for all of it. Part of a prayer he offered made this clear: “In the face of this deplorable evil, the Church kneels before God and implores his forgiveness for the sins of her children” (emphasis added).

Pope Francis actions in this instance brought to my mind Croatian-born theologian and philosopher Miroslav Volf’s description of what reconciliation looks like among people. Volf says reconciliation is an event between human beings, that is divine in nature, which moves individuals from conflict to peace.[1] According to Volf, reconciliation must include the inward and outward acts of repentance, restitution, and reparation.[2] I believe these principles equally apply to institutions. Institutions, through their leaders’ acknowledgment of past missteps and acceptance of responsibility for them, can begin a movement toward reconciliation. Then, by following through with institutional actions geared to remedy the damage that institutional missteps have caused, real reconciliation comes within the view.

To be clear, I am not saying that the Pope nor that the Catholic Church has done everything right in this instance. And, as just noted, the Pope’s visit is only a first step in true reconciliation—nice words that are not followed by real action ring hollow. Time will whether the Catholic Church can make real peace with this part of its past. But it is laudable that the Pope has started the process.

Turning towards our faith, we saw a good example of institutional reconciliation in the LDS church’s efforts to address the wrongs committed by LDS leaders and member in the 1857 “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” Like Jesus commanded, the LDS church took time away from other ‘sacrificial’ activities to begin reconciliation with those who “hath ought” against the LDS church because of its members’ role in this tragedy. President Gordon B. Hinckley’s frank recognition of the incident and the LDS members’ roles, the LDS church’s building of a monument to those who were murdered, and the subsequent Church-funded research and perseveration efforts that followed have helped to bring some healing to those impacted by this terrible incident. The LDS church has taken steps to move toward reconciliation.

These two examples remind us of the power of institutional reconciliation. These examples also highlight the reality that there is more to be done. Within the LDS church there have been other institutional missteps, now in our rearview mirror, for which full reconciliation has not yet occurred. The most obvious example is the LDS church’s treatment of members of African descent via the priesthood/temple ban. The “Race and the Priesthood” Gospel Topic Essay and the 2018 “Be One” event were a start to reconciliation. But we have yet to have LDS leaders acknowledge that the temple/priesthood ban was wrong. One day, I hope to hear an LDS leader say of the LDS church’s difficult history on race: “In the face of this deplorable evil, the Church kneels before God and implores his forgiveness for the sins of her children.” This kind of direct acknowledgement of missteps and acceptance of accountability will continue to move us down the road of reconciliation. And we can apply the same model to other issues, including recent reports of apparent missteps in the church’s handling of child sexual abuse.

Where will these reconciliation efforts lead? According to Volf, reconciliation leads to “embrace” or what he calls the “dynamic peace” that we experience when we are able to fully, and without hindrance, connect with each other and God.[3] Said another way, reconciliation is synonymous with the kinds of conventional relationships that are central to LDS doctrines and practices (2 Corinthians 5:18). This kind of embrace/covenant relationship does not come from forgetting past missteps or simply moving on; rather it is the outcome of a healing process that starts when we (individuals and institutions) acknowledge and accept responsibility for past missteps as part of moving into a world of a new possibilities.

[1] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, Revised and Updated. (Abingdon Press: Nashville TN, 2019): 332-333.

[2] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, Revised and Updated. (Abingdon Press: Nashville TN, 2019): 340-342.

[3] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, Revised and Updated. (Abingdon Press: Nashville TN, 2019): 332.