Has the commandment to forgiveness been abused?

[Qoeleth]

Thinking about this Sunday’s Gospel- Christ says not one iota or tittle of the law shall be removed.

I was thinking, maybe we don’t take this seriously enough. Yes, the Gospel commands forgiveness- but this is forgiveness of sins committed against us personally, not violations of the unchangeable moral law.

So, if someone robs me, or slander me, or whatever- I am free to forgive him (in fact, obliged to do so, if he is sorry).

But is someone is a promoter of contraception, abortion or a homosexual or ‘liberal’- since he (or she) has not so much sinned against me personally, but has contradicted the law of God, I cannot ‘forgive’ them. They have sinned against God and humanity- not just me…

I am thinking of the 2nd Letter of John: “Do not receive such people into your house, nor even greet them”.

Perhaps Catholics need to take a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to all liberals, apostates, heretics, fornicators, homosexuals, etc.? By this I mean we should refuse even to exchange civilities with such people (as the 2nd Epistle of John clearly stipulates).

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This is the problem when you don’t look at the context in which some of these things were said.

Ultimately, we are to love God and to love our neighbor as ourself. How does what you propose do either of those things?

 

[mikekle]

The problem with forgiving them for things like that, Id say majority of them do not think what they are doing is a sin or is wrong in anyway, and are definitely not sorry about it, so for them to be forgiven, they would have to first admit what they are engaging in, is a sin and then to be truly sorry for it.

 

[Qoeleth]

This is the problem when you don’t look at the context in which some of these things were said.

Ultimately, we are to love God and to love our neighbor as ourself. How does what you propose do either of those things?

Well, the 2 John is pretty clear- not to invite them to your house, or even to greet them.

Maybe that’s the best way of loving them- because it reminds them (the apostates/fornicators/heretics/homosexuals, etc.) that what they are doing is wrong.

Maybe were not doing any favours by acting like ‘they’re OK’, since sooner or later they will have to face God’s judgment.

Of course, if we find them beaten up on the side of the road, or starving to death, we should still help them…

 

[1neophyte]

Maybe that’s the best way of loving them- because it reminds them (the apostates/fornicators/heretics/homosexuals, etc.) that what they are doing is wrong.

Not really. It just reminds them that you are a delusional jerk. Unless, of course, you have never committed any serious sin yourself. If that is the case, you should be much more generous with your secret and method of getting through life in perfect obedience. Either way, if you shut yourself into your perfect world of virtue and refuse contact with the sinful disgusting dregs of society, you have, ironically, become a serious sinner yourself.

Whatever you decide to do, don’t you dare use out of context scripture to justify your ridiculous ideas. That’s EXACTLY what some “heretics” and “apostates” do.

 

[Beryllos]

If someone breaks a commandment, is it ours to forgive? Perhaps we should act in a way that is consistent with God’s forgiveness. Act toward them as though God has forgiven them, or will forgive them. Our task then is to provide for their spiritual needs in whatever way we can: by our example, by showing love, by advising or instructing (when the opportunity arises), and so on. Avoiding them, or “zero tolerance,” is probably not the best way to provide for their spiritual needs.

 

[Sky_River]

Is there a nuance between abused and misused, or they mean the same exact thing?

 

[Polycarp1]

Thinking about this Sunday’s Gospel- Christ says not one iota or tittle of the law shall be removed.

I was thinking, maybe we don’t take this seriously enough. Yes, the Gospel commands forgiveness- but this is forgiveness of sins committed against us personally, not violations of the unchangeable moral law.

So, if someone robs me, or slander me, or whatever- I am free to forgive him (in fact, obliged to do so, if he is sorry).

But is someone is a promoter of contraception, abortion or a homosexual or ‘liberal’- since he (or she) has not so much sinned against me personally, but has contradicted the law of God, I cannot ‘forgive’ them. They have sinned against God and humanity- not just me…

I am thinking of the 2nd Letter of John: “Do not receive such people into your house, nor even greet them”.

Perhaps Catholics need to take a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to all liberals, apostates, heretics, fornicators, homosexuals, etc.? By this I mean we should refuse even to exchange civilities with such people (as the 2nd Epistle of John clearly stipulates).

Our obligation is to love and forgive others regardless of how they feel about us or treat us. Remember that love and forgiveness are decisions and not the warm and fuzzies. The warm and fuzzies can be an symptom of love but they are not in themselves love. That they are sorry for what they have done is not a condition of forgiveness, you are to forgive them even if they are not sorry. You decide to forgive them as much as you can at this moment because that is what you know the Lord wants you to do. He can take this offering and perfect it over time. You make the conscious decision to love them and then you pray for them. Again praying for them may not feel good or even sincere at first but that doesn’t matter! I call it praying through clenched teeth. What does matter is that you are bending you will to the Lord’s because that is what He wants you to do! Remember loving someone is not the same as liking them or everything that they do. Loving them is a sincere wish that they may not perish and may come to repentance and conversion.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Thinking about this Sunday’s Gospel- Christ says not one iota or tittle of the law shall be removed.

I was thinking, maybe we don’t take this seriously enough. Yes, the Gospel commands forgiveness- but this is forgiveness of sins committed against us personally, not violations of the unchangeable moral law.

So, if someone robs me, or slander me, or whatever- I am free to forgive him (in fact, obliged to do so, if he is sorry).

But is someone is a promoter of contraception, abortion or a homosexual or ‘liberal’- since he (or she) has not so much sinned against me personally, but has contradicted the law of God, I cannot ‘forgive’ them. They have sinned against God and humanity- not just me…

I am thinking of the 2nd Letter of John: “Do not receive such people into your house, nor even greet them”.

Perhaps Catholics need to take a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to all liberals, apostates, heretics, fornicators, homosexuals, etc.? By this I mean we should refuse even to exchange civilities with such people (as the 2nd Epistle of John clearly stipulates).

First, I really like the topic. The answer is no, we do not need to put up with those actively looking to insult, steal or do us harm. We can see this played out on both sides of the current immigration debate. The one side is saying “bring everyone in”, the other saying “why would you bring people who are hostile to your way of life and whose country shouts ‘death to America’, into your country”?

One clarification on your point I bolded above. Forgiveness is something we do for ourselves rather than as a reaction to another persons repentance. A great measure of forgiveness is when we stop expecting repayment from the other person. Mark 11:26 actually tells us the consequences for not forgiving others is unforgiveness for ourselves by God.

Thanks for the post.

 

[RPRPsych]

2 John is a letter from a bishop to the pastor of a particular church on how to handle Gnostic heretics. I doubt we can over-generalise from it to say “avoid all who break the Divine law”.

 

[casslean]

Perhaps Catholics need to take a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to all liberals, apostates, heretics, fornicators, homosexuals, etc.? By this I mean we should refuse even to exchange civilities with such people (as the 2nd Epistle of John clearly stipulates).

How would you square this approach with Jesus’s instruction to those around him when faced with the adulteress - “Let you who is without sin cast the first stone.”

I’ve just finished reading Pope Francis’s book The Name of God is Mercy. It’s a beautiful read and helps open one’s eyes on why this sort of behaviour is simply not Christian.

 

[PluniaZ]

I think Paul addresses this directly in 1 Corinthians 5:

9 I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators.
10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world.
11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat.

Paul directly says it’s ok to eat with those outside the church, even if they are overt sinners. It is those inside the church we need to excommunicate if they live in unrepentant soon.

 

[Qoeleth]

If someone breaks a commandment, is it ours to forgive? Perhaps we should act in a way that is consistent with God’s forgiveness. Act toward them as though God has forgiven them, or will forgive them. Our task then is to provide for their spiritual needs in whatever way we can: by our example, by showing love, by advising or instructing (when the opportunity arises), and so on. Avoiding them, or “zero tolerance,” is probably not the best way to provide for their spiritual needs.

How would you square this approach with Jesus’s instruction to those around him when faced with the adulteress - “Let you who is without sin cast the first stone.”

I’ve just finished reading Pope Francis’s book The Name of God is Mercy. It’s a beautiful read and helps open one’s eyes on why this sort of behaviour is simply not Christian.

Well, Jesus could forgive any sins, being God, and all sins are somehow against God.

But the ‘average Joe’, could not say to an adulterous woman (whom he doesn’t know), “Your sin is forgiven”, surely. Only the person sinned against (the husband) could do that legitimately.

So, it seems to me that we can only meaningfully forgive sins committed against ourselves- but not sins committed against others, since it is those sinned against who have the moral right/duty to forgive.

To give a very simple example, say someone steals from me. I can say, “You’re forgiven. Let’s forget about it.” But if someone steals from my neighbour, I can’t validly say, “It’s OK, I forgive you. Let’s forget about it.” It’s up to the neighbour to do that.

Now the same principle seems to apply to sins against humanity, God or the Church (heresy, abortion, etc). What right do I have, as a private individual, to forgive such things?

 

[1neophyte]

Well, Jesus could forgive any sins, being God, and all sins are somehow against God.

But the ‘average Joe’, could not say to an adulterous woman (whom he doesn’t know), “Your sin is forgiven”, surely. Only the person sinned against (the husband) could do that legitimately.

So, it seems to me that we can only meaningfully forgive sins committed against ourselves- but not sins committed against others, since it is those sinned against who have the moral right/duty to forgive.

To give a very simple example, say someone steals from me. I can say, “You’re forgiven. Let’s forget about it.” But if someone steals from my neighbour, I can’t validly say, “It’s OK, I forgive you. Let’s forget about it.” It’s up to the neighbour to do that.

Now the same principle seems to apply to sins against humanity, God or the Church (heresy, abortion, etc). What right do I have, as a private individual, to forgive such things?

No one says you have the right to forgive such things. But you also have no right to harbor the delusion that you are are not a sinner as well, and if you hope to be part of the kingdom of God, you have no right to treat other sinners as anything but neighbors.

The theory you present is certainly reasonable. But if you abide by it, you are a member of the kingdom of yourself. Not the kingdom of God. That is certainly your right, but you may not simultaneously publicly proclaim Jesus as your king, because such a deception would be incredibly scandalous.

 

[casslean]

Now the same principle seems to apply to sins against humanity, God or the Church (heresy, abortion, etc). What right do I have, as a private individual, to forgive such things?

I guess following on that, what right do I, as a private individual, have to impose penance on another person by reason of their sins? Isn’t that God’s purview?

 

[Qoeleth]

I guess following on that, what right do I, as a private individual, have to impose penance on another person by reason of their sins? Isn’t that God’s purview?

Exactly- it’s up to God to decide (which sometimes takes place through the Church). Or, in some cases, the State can impose punishments.

This limitation to forgiveness is in the Gospel- “if someone sins against you…” you are to forgive…That’s seems to be the natural limit of our moral jurisdiction in forgiving others.

The same thing implicitly operates in our justice system. The judge (if he is a Christian), cannot simply say “The Gospel says I must forgive others, so I’ll let this criminal go free.” No, because the crime wasn’t committed against him personally, he has no right to extend forgiveness so far.

 

[casslean]

Exactly- it’s up to God to decide (which sometimes takes place through the Church). Or, in some cases, the State can impose punishments.

This limitation to forgiveness is in the Gospel- “if someone sins against you…” you are to forgive…That’s seems to be the natural limit of our moral jurisdiction in forgiving others.

The same thing implicitly operates in our justice system. The judge (if he is a Christian), cannot simply say “The Gospel says I must forgive others, so I’ll let this criminal go free.” No, because the crime wasn’t committed against him personally, he has no right to extend forgiveness so far.

But you seem to be suggesting I should be treating someone differently by reason of the fact that he is a sinner. And again - where do I have the right to do that? I am not without sin, so why am I able to start casting stones?

 

[Qoeleth]

But you seem to be suggesting I should be treating someone differently by reason of the fact that he is a sinner. And again - where do I have the right to do that? I am not without sin, so why am I able to start casting stones?

Yes, I see. Well, we do have the right to ‘choose our friends’. We do also have the right (as thinking citizens) to give our opinion on the actions of others.

Imagine someone who did bad things, maybe a maker of pornographic films or a KKK Grand wizard, or the head of a drug cartel- well would you treat them differently? At the very least, you might decide not to go out of your way to form a friendship with them.

Now, imagine someone was doing something wrong that hurt others (perhaps running a criminal gang, or beating up the homeless, or promoting abortion, or selling slaves, or arguing for same-sex marriage). Now, would you have the moral right (or even responsibility) to speak out against the actions of that person?

 

[casslean]

Yes, I see. Well, we do have the right to ‘choose our friends’. We do also have the right (as thinking citizens) to give our opinion on the actions of others.

Imagine someone who did bad things, maybe a maker of pornographic films or a KKK Grand wizard, or the head of a drug cartel- well would you treat them differently? At the very least, you might decide not to go out of your way to form a friendship with them.

Now, imagine someone was doing something wrong that hurt others (perhaps running a criminal gang, or beating up the homeless, or promoting abortion, or selling slaves, or arguing for same-sex marriage). Now, would you have the moral right (or even responsibility) to speak out against the actions of that person?

I think I can certainly speak out against the ACTIONS of that person, but I don’t get to stop treating them as a PERSON. And that means being merciful. It means giving them the opportunity to repent. And if I ostracize and shut them out, they never have that opportunity.