Deathbed Forgiveness

[joeybaggz]

I wonder if the dying man has any sin for which he needs forgiveness. I mean sin is a willful and deliberate act (at least mortal sin is). I would imagine (though I have no first hand knowledge) that a hit and run situation happens so fast that no one is sitting and deliberately thinking about sin at that moment. Even leaving the scene is probably more of an act of panic than sin.
I would think that speaking consoling words about the nature of the act and attempting to get the dying man to understand that though the civil authorities consider his actions very serious, God is saddened by the occurrence, but not offended as we understand the commission of mortal sin. If the dying man needs consolation, wouldn’t it be in relieving his “religions” fears and his fear of damnation? As to the human emotions of guilt and regret, doubt there is much that could be said.

 

[stpurl]

I’m with Father David on this. To me, the movie upset me very much, because the assumption was that ‘the end justifies the means’. The ‘end’ of the man feeling good about himself again because he thought he was not a murderer meant that the priest was justified by telling the lie.

That is not Catholic teaching. It is the false teaching that we’re warned against in Scripture. It’s the Devil appearing as an Angel of Light and Mercy, honeyed sweetness, 'it’s all for a good cause, the lie is better than the hard, hurtful Truth."

But Jesus Himself is Truth. And denying Truth is denying Him.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m with Father David on this. To me, the movie upset me very much, because the assumption was that ‘the end justifies the means’. The ‘end’ of the man feeling good about himself again because he thought he was not a murderer meant that the priest was justified by telling the lie.

That is not Catholic teaching. It is the false teaching that we’re warned against in Scripture. It’s the Devil appearing as an Angel of Light and Mercy, honeyed sweetness, 'it’s all for a good cause, the lie is better than the hard, hurtful Truth."

But Jesus Himself is Truth. And denying Truth is denying Him.

I think what bothers me most of all is the lost potential here. The movie was very powerful and meaningful. It could have gone a long way in expressing the values of mercy and forgiveness (both on the part of God and the priest as victim).

Instead, it sends the message “it’s ok to lie if you think you have a good reason.”

That’s why I’m disappointed.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I think y’all are reading things in this short film that aren’t there. There was no justification implied for the lying. The priest just lied, it happened- just like the hit and run- he did what he thought was right in that moment. The priest is also a sinner, a liar. He needs forgiveness too. The film is a bit richer than it’s getting credit for here.

 

[stpurl]

With respect, no, it’s not. That’s why evil is so successful in the world, because it’s painted with such color and is so emotionally satisfying. . .at first. Oh how we all want to believe that life is not ‘black and white’. How we all want to believe that all those pesky rules and commandments, in real life can be broken and excused because, “It just happened.” “We all do it”. “The point is that we’re all sinners”.

No, it didn’t ‘just happen’. As with every single solitary action one has the power to choose.

No, we don’t excuse our failings with "everybody ELSE does it’. We acknowledge that humanity has a tendency for self-exculpation and justification as we strive to go ‘above that’. And make no mistake, people DO go above that. That’s why we have saints, and why heroic virtue doesn’t consist of heroically lying in order to make people feel good, but in heroically telling the truth, because ultimately Heaven is not about “how many people I make feel good, even if I have to lie about it”, but in how often I witness to the truth, even if telling the truth makes me look like a rigid old meanie who can’t ‘lighten up’ and tell a lie because “God will forgive me”. . .

I love the way people jump in and assume that it’s never a problem to lie, cheat, steal, have sex, etc because "God will always forgive you’. Well I have news for people, there is a sin called presumption and I’m sorry but a lot of people have been mistaking that presumption as a ‘justification’ for all kinds of evil.

The whole point is not ‘if God will forgive you’, the whole point is trying not to sin. People just gloss over all the wrong and dismiss it as ‘well intentioned, so God will forgive it" just like God is some kind of slot machine, pull the levers, "SIN’, "well intentioned’, “asking for the forgiveness one is CERTAIN one deserves for the kind-heart behind the sin” and poof God is forced to dispense forgiveness because our kindness in sinning deserves reward, a lip service, "Yes, you’re forgiven because you wanted people to feel good’ to the lip service, "Lord forgive me this quote-unquote ‘sin’ because as you know, I’m just so wonderful and kind that those pesky ‘rules’ don’t matter’.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t think you understand what I wrote. That doesn’t surprise me though because I’m not the most articulate person. I don’t think you understand the short film either because what you are saying in your post doesn’t have any bearing on what the film is actually about. It’s not about the stuff that you’ve scare quoted. That’s not the point of the film. But that seems to be what you, and some others, are seeing.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t think you understand what I wrote. That doesn’t surprise me though because I’m not the most articulate person. I don’t think you understand the short film either because what you are saying in your post doesn’t have any bearing on what the film is actually about. It’s not about the stuff that you’ve scare quoted. That’s not the point of the film. But that seems to be what you, and some others, are seeing.

So tell us: what IS the point of the film, as you see it.

Art speaks to different people in different ways. Just as people might look at a painting and one person sees one thing, while another sees something else, the same can happen with a film.

So again, what do you see? Tell us.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So again, what do you see? Tell us.

There are two different incidents that are the focus of the film. One incident is the hit and run. The other is the lie that the priest told. These two separate incidents involve the same three people: the priest, the penitent, and the priest’s father. The penitent did what he thought was best for his own self-preservation by fleeing the scene of the accident…he later realized that that was a mistake, and he sought forgiveness. After hearing the penitents confession, getting angry, and then dropping to his knees realizing that he has to do something to forgive the man, (the realization comes when he finally says the part of the Our Father which states that if we want to be forgiven, we have to forgive) the priest makes the same mistake that the penitent made. The mistake was that they both did what they thought was best in that moment without thinking very clearly about it because the circumstances did not allow for clarity. But the priest did not do what was best for himself like the penitent did, the priest did what he thought was best for the penitent. The priest also later comes to the realization that what he did was wrong and asks his “father” for forgiveness.

That is the basic “picture” that I saw. Thank you Fr. David for mentioning that it is art. And because it is art, I don’t necessarily think that it has a point. It just paints a picture of the human condition.

 

[stpurl]

If that is what we are seeing, then perhaps it’s because that is there to be seen. I did understand you, and I believe I understood the film as well (which I saw in its entirety). If you will, you might have seen the bright ‘image’ of ‘forgiveness’ while I saw the shadow behind that bright, yet false image.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I saw two people seeking and giving forgiveness imperfectly. That is what people do.

I thought it was a rich story, one that I enjoyed very much. I liked the forgiveness theme of it.

I’m still struggling to see why you think that the way people acted in this film was a “false image”. This is the way people act. They strive for good, but do it imperfectly.

 

[RandomAlias]

Did anyone else watch the link Cajun provided?

Yes, I watched it some time ago. It was posted last year in another thread (which I can’t locate at the moment).

I thought the story was great until the priest lied. That ruined the ending for me. The old man and the young priest would both have benefited from facing the truth together, and reconciling themselves and their relationship with the reality of the tragic event.

 

[RandomAlias]

Seeing that it is a Korean film, I wonder if the priest’s lie is seen as a necessity (and a virtue?) in Korean culture. Perhaps this is one way to look charitably on the filmmaker’s choice.

 

[FrDavid96]

I saw two people seeking and giving forgiveness imperfectly. That is what people do.

I thought it was a rich story, one that I enjoyed very much. I liked the forgiveness theme of it.

I’m still struggling to see why you think that the way people acted in this film was a “false image”. This is the way people act. They strive for good, but do it imperfectly.

That’s your perspective of it.

Thanks for sharing.

This is what makes good art. Different people see different things. It isn’t about just one message (like advertising art). It’s about making people think and encouraging discussion.

Naturally, as a confessor, I’m going to have a different perspective of the film than you have. Still, setting that aside we’re likely to have different perspectives simply because we are 2 different people.

My perspective is also very different because I watched the film after reading the first few messages in this thread.

Remember that the OP’s original question was “is it permissible to deceive a person…?”

That shaped my viewing of the film. I was looking specifically for the answer to that question, so naturally, I concentrated my efforts on trying to answer the OPs question.

Had I seed the film without knowing anything about it beforehand, I am sure I would have watched it differently and would have had a different perspective altogether. I might arrive at the same conclusion, but I would certainly have done so from a different perspective.

My very watching of the film was shaped by the fact that I was first a participant in this thread, and did not even know that the question itself was prompted by the film.

So even before the film started, I was looking for something specific (the OPs question). That means I necessarily watched it differently than someone who might simply sit down and watch “some movie, but we won’t tell you what happens.”