Forgiving Donald Trump and Joe Biden

[Vico]

In the parable we find two different attitudes: God’s - represented by the king who forgives a lot, because God always forgives - and the human person’s.

Mercy is necessary.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. …

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

As we read it in Matthew 18:21-35 both the first and second servant was repentant falling down.

26 But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27 And the lord of that servant being moved with pity, let him go and forgave him the debt.

Merriam-Webster
forgive, transitive verb
2. to grant relief from payment of
// forgive a debt

28 But when that servant was gone out, he found one of his fellow-servants that owed him an hundred pence: and laying hold of him, he throttled him, saying: Pay what thou owest. 29 And his fellow-servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
…
32 Then his lord called him: and said to him: Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me: 33 Shouldst not thou then have had compassion also on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee? 34 And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.

 

[OneSheep]

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. …

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

Truly beautiful, Vico.

32 Then his lord called him: and said to him: Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me: 33 Shouldst not thou then have had compassion also on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee? 34 And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.

So, the “torturing” does not demonstrate forgiveness, so the story is confusing even in its own context, immediately following Jesus’ call for us to forgive 77 times. Jesus says forgive an infinite number of times, but then the lord in the story only forgives once!

However, CCC1473 brings it all together, especially these lines:

The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds…

The “torture” referred to in the parable is the temporal punishment, the suffering that we experience when we fail to forgive, just as the suffering we experience with any other sin. As @Tis_Bearself said, forgiveness benefits the forgiver. As Pope Francis says, “God always forgives”.

 

[OneSheep]

Readers: I would love to hear stories of how you were able to forgive either Donald Trump or Joe Biden!

Please feel free to add to this thread.

 

[Vico]

…
The “torture” referred to in the parable is the temporal punishment, the suffering that we experience when we fail to forgive, just as the suffering we experience with any other sin.
…

Saint John Chrysostom comments on this parable, notably:

Do you see again surpassing benevolence? The servant asked only for delay and putting off the time, but He gave more than he asked, remission and forgiveness of the entire debt. For it had been his will to give it even from the first, but he did not desire the gift to be his only, but also to come of this man’s entreaty, that he might not go away uncrowned. For that the whole was of him, although this other fell down to him and prayed, the motive of the forgiveness showed, for moved with compassion he forgave him. But still even so he willed that other also to seem to contribute something, that he might not be exceedingly covered with shame, and that he being schooled in his own calamities, might be indulgent to his fellow-servant.

…

“For He delivered him over till he should pay that which was due,” that is, for ever; for he will never repay. For since you are not become better by the kindness shown you, it remains that by vengeance thou be corrected.

And yet, “The graces and the gifts are without repentance,” but wickedness has had such power as to set aside even this law. What then can be a more grievous thing than to be revengeful, when it appears to overthrow such and so great a gift of God.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200161.htm

 

[OneSheep]

and that he being schooled in his own calamities, might be indulgent to his fellow-servant.

Perhaps. But if we are to forgive 77 times, then the “lord” should have have forgiven the servant for failing to indulge his fellow servant. For this reason, the contradiction remains. The explanation the scripture scholar gave us remains the means toward resolving the contradiction, that the "torture referred to is exactly the “temporal punishment” indicated in CCC1473.

it remains that by vengeance thou be corrected.

The Church has moved away from the image of a vengeful God, Vico. Vengeance is not part of merciful perfection, and our Father is mercifully perfect. Vengeance is a human phenomenon. This does not eliminate circumstances of correction, which is what the servant experienced when he failed to forgive.

And yet, “The graces and the gifts are without repentance,” but wickedness has had such power as to set aside even this law. What then can be a more grievous thing than to be revengeful, when it appears to overthrow such and so great a gift of God.

And here is a good reason why the Church has moved away from the image of a vengeful God. If God is “revengeful”, then vengeance is part of merciful perfection, and a rational human can conclude that vengeance is Godly. A person could carry out revenge, and claim that it is God who has called him to do so. Vengeance is not mercy, and not forgiveness.

It has happened, Vico, many times in history. .

 

[Vico]

…

Re: The graces and the gifts are without repentance,
Actual graces are given to all in advance of any conversion. Also in baptism is as St. John Chrysostom put it “remission and forgiveness of the entire debt”.

Vengeance is still correct word per the English definition of it:
(Oxford) vengeance, noun

punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. …

EDIT: The torture would be eternal punishment from the way St. John Chrysostom phrases it

“For He delivered him over till he should pay that which was due,” that is, for ever; for he will never repay.".

The Church does not forgive serious offenses that require a just action, but issue punishment, for example there are punishments such as excommunication and interdict. Also absolution for sins is conditional.

CIC Can. 1321 §1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

You wrote: “But if we are to forgive 77 times, then the “lord” should have have forgiven the servant for failing to indulge his fellow servant. For this reason, the contradiction remains.”

There is no contradiction, after being once forgiven all debt, he continued to sin, as noted he was very uncivil in the matter when he “took by the throat his fellow-servant, which owed him an hundred pence;”.

Luke 17:3-4

Take heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him. And if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day be converted unto thee, saying, I repent; forgive him.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “But if we are to forgive 77 times, then the “lord” should have have forgiven the servant for failing to indulge his fellow servant. For this reason, the contradiction remains.”

There is no contradiction, after being once forgiven all debt, he continued to sin, as noted he was very uncivil in the matter when he “took by the throat his fellow-servant, which owed him an hundred pence;”.

You did not dispel the contradiction. The “lord” only forgave his servant once, not 77 times. I provided a means to dispel the contradiction, as put forth by the scripture scholar, and in keeping with Pope Francis quote “God always forgives us”

We are called to forgive from the heart Donald Trump and Joe Biden 77 times, an infinite number of times, regardless of whether they repent. Perhaps you could revisit the other poster’s reasoning that I have referred to several times now.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

You wrote: “But if we are to forgive 77 times, then the “lord” should have have forgiven the servant for failing to indulge his fellow servant. For this reason, the contradiction remains.”

There is no contradiction, after being once forgiven all debt, he continued to sin, as noted he was very uncivil in the matter when he “took by the throat his fellow-servant, which owed him an hundred pence;”.

You did not dispel the contradiction. The “lord” only forgave his servant once, not 77 times. I provided a means to dispel the contradiction, as put forth by the scripture scholar, and in keeping with Pope Francis quote “God always forgives us”

We are called to forgive from the heart Donald Trump and Joe Biden 77 times, an infinite number of times, regardless of whether they repent. Perhaps you could revisit the other poster’s reasoning that I have referred to several times now.

On second thought, Saint John Chrysostom states that the servant will never pay, therefore the offense represents final impenitence, and he was referring to God using “He” per the translation. Also he starts early in the commentary with bearing with another that knowing, repents:

How often then ought I to bear with him, being told his faults, and repenting? Is it enough for seven times?

 

[OneSheep]

On second thought, Saint John Chrysostom states that the servant will never pay, therefore the offense represents final impenitence, and he was referring to God using “He” per the translation.

I’m not following you, Vico. Which servant will never pay? What is the basis for asserting that one servant will not pay?

Also he starts early in the commentary with bearing with another that knowing, repents:

How often then ought I to bear with him, being told his faults, and repenting? Is it enough for seven times?

Again, I am not following you. Does Saint John C. add the part about repenting to the scripture itself?

 

[Vico]

…

1) You asked: “I’m not following you, Vico. Which servant will never pay? What is the basis for asserting that one servant will not pay?”

The first servant. Matthew 18:34
“For He delivered him over till he should pay that which was due,” that is, for ever; for he will never repay.".

2) You asked: “Again, I am not following you. Does Saint John C. add the part about repenting to the scripture itself?”

He says it in his commentary for Matthew 18:21, which is not a quote of that scripture: “How often then ought I to bear with him, being told his faults, and repenting? Is it enough for seven times?”

The key phrase is the servant asking “bear with me”.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200161.htm

Didn’t you read the whole commentary to understand it?

 

[OneSheep]

1. You asked : “I’m not following you, Vico. Which servant will never pay? What is the basis for asserting that one servant will not pay?”

The first servant. Matthew 18:34
“For He delivered him over till he should pay that which was due,” that is, for ever; for he will never repay.".

Vico, that is not Matthew 18:34. Here it is:

Matthew 18:34-35

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

34 And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. 35 So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

Again I ask, did St. John C. add something to the scripture itself? Matthew 34 does not say what he said.

Didn’t you read the whole commentary to understand it?

No. Perhaps you could paraphrase the important parts, but sorry, a patriarch who lived in the 4th century is not the teaching authority of scripture nor is it the CCC.

And, for the record, you did not dispel the contradiction. We are called to forgive, always, and the story of the unforgiving servant’s master is not a counterexample, but it does need explanation to dispel the contradiction.

 

[OneSheep]

Now, bringing things back to the topic itself, I think that it is accurate to say that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have said or done things that most Catholics would find unconscionable, and trigger a gut-level reaction within. It is very easy to come to a point of “holding something against” either Joe or Donald, and I admit that I have for both individuals.

Have you also had the same reaction to either of them?

 

[Vico]

… Matthew 34 does not say what he said. …

It was Matthew 18:34, note that there are different translations and likely St. John Chrysostom was using the Greek text (closest perhaps to the King James), but what was quoted in the commentary was:

“For He delivered him over till he should pay that which was due,”

The parable begins stating in Matthew 18 that

23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.

Relating to heaven, the one that is tortured does not ever pay rather has eternal torment instead.

If it has no authority with you then ok. It is a valuable commentary to many including me. Scripture was committed to writing from tradition.

 

[OneSheep]

If it has no authority with you then ok. It is a valuable commentary to many including me. Scripture was committed to writing from tradition.

It had authority for its time, now we have another 1600 years of unfolded revelation, that is why the most recent edition of any catechism is the most accurate.

Do you have anything to add concerning the main topic of the thread?:

I think that it is accurate to say that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have said or done things that most Catholics would find unconscionable, and trigger a gut-level reaction within. It is very easy to come to a point of “holding something against” either Joe or Donald, and I admit that I have for both individuals.

Have you also had the same reaction to either of them?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

If it has no authority with you then ok. It is a valuable commentary to many including me. Scripture was committed to writing from tradition.

It had authority for its time, now we have another 1600 years of unfolded revelation, that is why the most recent edition of any catechism is the most accurate.

Do you have anything to add concerning the main topic of the thread?:

I think that it is accurate to say that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have said or done things that most Catholics would find unconscionable, and trigger a gut-level reaction within. It is very easy to come to a point of “holding something against” either Joe or Donald, and I admit that I have for both individuals.

Have you also had the same reaction to either of them?

The commentary of St. John Chrysostom on Matthew is not different than that in the Catechism.

I do not have an emotional reaction to them, but intellectual, recognizing that their positions that are for or against Catholic teachings.

In order to actualize charity one must not give the impression of approval of objectively bad moral actions. See the Catechism

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way …

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. …

 

[OneSheep]

The commentary of St. John Chrysostom on Matthew is not different than that in the Catechism.

I don’t think you can show me where the CCC modifies Matthew in that way, and as far as I know, the CCC has yet to address the contradiction in the story of the unforgiving servant.

I do not have an emotional reaction to them, but intellectual, recognizing that their positions that are for or against Catholic teachings

Well, then this thread doesn’t really apply to you.

In order to actualize charity one must not give the impression of approval of objectively bad moral actions.

Yes, I agree. “Forgiveness from the heart” does not mean approval of a sin or bad moral action.

However, as Jesus saw that the crowd did not know what they were doing, there is a place for understanding the positions and actions of Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Understanding, also, does not imply approval, as Jesus certainly did not approve of what the crowd was doing, though He did understand.

So, when Joe or Donald do or say something that seems objectively wrong, we are still called, according to CCC 2478, to "avoid rash judgment, [and] be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.

Thanks for adding that section here, Vico, it certainly helps people to forgive when they try to interpret what is said and done in a favorable way. When there does not appear to be a favorable way, then we can pray for enlightenment.

 

[Vico]

…

Yes, we are called to love our neighbor always. That is why rash judgment is incorrect.

You wrote: “there is a place for understanding”
R. Yes, yet understanding is not forgiveness, 2b: to grant relief from payment of (Merriam-Webster)

You wrote: “I don’t think you can show me where the CCC modifies Matthew in that way”
R. I did not say that it did, rather I said that there is no disagreement between what is taught in the Catechism and what Saint John Chrysostom said in his commentary. The is no contradiction.

 

[Vico]

Matthew 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who would take an account of his servants.

• In the parable the king is God and the servants are sinners. The sinner owed much but repented (he asked for more time to pay his debt), when he was rebuked such as in Luke: Luke 17:3-4 “if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

Matthew 18:26 But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

• It was granted, but then finally he was hateful to one that owed him little, …

**Matthew 18:28 **But when that servant was gone out, he found one of his fellow servants that owed him an hundred pence: and laying hold of him, throttled him, saying: Pay what thou owest

• And did not repent of that hate, therefore he was tortured. The finally unrepentant sinner was actually condemned.

Matthew 18:34 And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.

Catechism

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. …

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

 

[OneSheep]

Matthew 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who would take an account of his servants.

• In the parable the king is God and the servants are sinners. The sinner owed much but repented (he asked for more time to pay his debt), when he was rebuked such as in Luke: Luke 17:3-4 “if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

There are other parts of the Gospel that do not show the condition of repentance.

Are you suggesting that people not forgive Donald Trump and/or Joe Biden if they do not repent from what we see as their sins?

And did not repent of that hate, therefore he was tortured. The finally unrepentant sinner was actually condemned.

This is not supported by the CCC, if referring to the parable of the unforgiving servant. It’s not the story Jesus told. Any assertion that the fictional servant was condemned to hell is a private revelation, and such revelations can be legitimately ignored by the faithful.

 

[Vico]

…

As posted before, one should love their neighbor, and that includes any politicians. To love does not exclude having feelings or seeking justice or to give the approval of what is immoral, even if the does is ignorant. It can be that people use the word “forgive” in a way that is not in keeping with the Gospel, since there are multiple meanings of it. Not hating the person is the correct meaning.

You wrote: "There are other parts of the Gospel that do not show the condition of repentance. "

It does not imply that the condition is not there. We know per Catholic dogma that repentance is a necessary condition for the forgiveness of sins, by God.

H.H. Pope Francis said (2015) in Morning Meditation In the Chapel of the
Domus Sanctae Marthae taught about this that one must have the proper disposition (to love one another and God) to receive forgiveness from God: “If I cannot forgive, I cannot ask forgiveness”.

See what is taught in the Baltimore Catechism No 3:

Q. 760. Why cannot some of our mortal sins be forgiven while the rest remain on our souls?
A. It is impossible for any of our mortal sins to be forgiven unless they are all forgiven, because as light and darkness cannot be together in the same place, so sanctifying grace and mortal sin cannot dwell together. If there be grace in the soul, there can be no mortal sin, and if there be mortal sin, there can be no grace, for one mortal sin expels all grace.

You wrote: “This is not supported by the CCC, if referring to the parable of the unforgiving servant. It’s not the story Jesus told. Any assertion that the fictional servant was condemned to hell is a private revelation, and such revelations can be legitimately ignored by the faithful.”

The parable is as written about heaven, so that means, after death. Matthew 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who would take an account of his servants.

Note also the footnote in NABRE for Matthew 18:34

w. Since the debt is so great as to be unpayable, the punishment will be endless.