How do we forgive Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

[OneSheep]

In Tsarnaev’s case, I would pray that he find Christ while in prison and turn his life over to Him and seek forgiveness and pray for his victims souls and their families.

Cool. Consider it done. I’ll pray with you.

Father in heaven,

Open Dzhokhar’s eyes to the humanity of those lives he considers of no value. Please help him to forgive those who have committed atrocities done to other Muslim people all over the world. Help him to see, Lord, that people who commit such acts against Muslim people are blind, and help him also to see that when he did atrocious acts, he too was blinded by resentment.

Bless his family, Lord, and bless and protect all the people he cares for. And may he learn to love and care for all people, that such universal care be enhanced by a willingness to forgive his enemies. Help him to see that God is the God of unlimited Love, and that forgiveness is an act of love.

Lord, help him to be receptive to your love. Open his heart, may his suffering of the slavery to desire for justice lead to a true repentance from the hanging onto grudges and resentment. May he, like all of us, learn to forgive those who wrong the ones we love.

Amen.

Thanks, AKDee.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Love your neighbor as yourself. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is our neighbor and Christ commands us to love him, never mind forgiving him.

 

[Praedicare]

The souls of the just are in the hands of the Lord. Tsarnaev holds no ill appearance in my heart. There is nothing to forgive. All is forgiven and all is healed through Christ. We simply refuse to accept His divine love. Pray that this man – a man precisely like all other men, except perhaps angrier, or more unstable, or less prudent – will be healed. If he is healed, there is no more to hate in him, and no more to want to revenge yourself upon. There is only a brother.

Amen: “the publicans and prostitutes are going into the Kingdom of God before you”. Dare we add the bombers and murderers? It is radical, so very radical. See only mercy, and you will be only merciful.

 

[OneSheep]

The souls of the just are in the hands of the Lord. Tsarnaev holds no ill appearance in my heart. There is nothing to forgive. All is forgiven and all is healed through Christ. We simply refuse to accept His divine love. Pray that this man – a man precisely like all other men, except perhaps angrier, or more unstable, or less prudent – will be healed. If he is healed, there is no more to hate in him, and no more to want to revenge yourself upon. There is only a brother.

Amen: “the publicans and prostitutes are going into the Kingdom of God before you”. Dare we add the bombers and murderers? It is radical, so very radical. See only mercy, and you will be only merciful.

Yes, well, this thread is geared more toward those who either have held or do hold “ill appearances”. People of conscience are going to have ill feelings triggered, even when watching movies.

Yes, it is radical to forgive, especially to forgive those who have not healed. Your mention of “a man precisely like all other men” shows humility, insight and understanding.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Holygirl1992]

I hope he does not get the death penalty just because he is a bomber that killed 3 people and injured 268 people does not mean he should get the death penalty

 

[OneSheep]

I hope he does not get the death penalty just because he is a bomber that killed 3 people and injured 268 people does not mean he should get the death penalty

Hello Holygirl,

The way I look at it, the death penalty would be counterproductive. After all, people involved in terror only destroy what they see as having no value, or negative value.

When we see another person do great evil against people we care about, we naturally feel resentful toward the violator, and we automatically dehumanize the violator. Our own internal drive “not to hate”, which is part of a normal adult conscience, is a reaction to the first reaction, the reaction that compels us to immediate justice, to punish severely those who do great wrong.

So, in carrying out the death penalty, we comply with the part of our nature that has long become obsolete: the part of ourselves that automatically dehumanizes violators when we see injustice. The existence of the death penalty says, “Justice calls for death”, which is exactly what “terrorists” are thinking when they carry out atrocities.

The Tsarnaev boys wanted justice, and they destroyed what they saw was of no value. This is exactly what happened on the Cross, the crowd wanted justice, and they destroyed what they saw as having no value, a negative value.

And The Person they destroyed forgave us. God forgave us, and we are called to do the same.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Deus_tecum]

Forgiveness is simple. It starts with a decision to forgive. In light of this decision, we must then refuse to entertain anger, fear, etc toward the forgiven person. This does not mean the angry thought won’t crop up, but you say to that thought, “No, I have forgiven this person.” You cause the negative emotions to die by not feeding them.

 

[OneSheep]

Forgiveness is simple. It starts with a decision to forgive. In light of this decision, we must then refuse to entertain anger, fear, etc toward the forgiven person. This does not mean the angry thought won’t crop up, but you say to that thought, “No, I have forgiven this person.” You cause the negative emotions to die by not feeding them.

Hello Deus tecum, and thank you for your response.

As a child, such “refusal” worked okay for me, but not as an adult. To me, mature forgiveness is an opportunity to reconcile with our own internal issues while in the process of reconciling with another person.

When I have limited my own forgiveness to “I’m not going to be angry at him”, then the hard feelings are still there, but I am just refusing to address them. There is a deeper reconciliation to be found. I have found that I have reconcilied when I come to the point of understanding the person that I can say “I could have done that, given that person’s awareness of the situation.” I have already prayed for the person, that is part of the process, but Understanding (a gift of the Spirit, available to all) plays a very important part, in my own experience of adult reconciliation.

I am not saying that there is not a place for the type of forgiveness you describe for adults. What you described is the least we should do, but I am only saying that such refusal may not erase the grudge.

Thanks again.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Hello Deus tecum, and thank you for your response.

As a child, such “refusal” worked okay for me, but not as an adult. To me, mature forgiveness is an opportunity to reconcile with our own internal issues while in the process of reconciling with another person.

When I have limited my own forgiveness to “I’m not going to be angry at him”, then the hard feelings are still there, but I am just refusing to address them. There is a deeper reconciliation to be found. I have found that I have reconcilied when I come to the point of understanding the person that I can say “I could have done that, given that person’s awareness of the situation.” I have already prayed for the person, that is part of the process, but Understanding (a gift of the Spirit, available to all) plays a very important part, in my own experience of adult reconciliation.

I am not saying that there is not a place for the type of forgiveness you describe for adults. What you described is the least we should do, but I am only saying that such refusal may not erase the grudge.

Thanks again.

There’s more going on that simple refusal. I did not say to repress your emotion. (“I’m not going to be angry with him.” Be aware of your anger but refuse to entertain vengeful, hateful thoughts. You then deal with the emotion without considering retribution.

 

[Ridgerunner]

we are called to an emotional connection, a love for all people.

No we aren’t. Not in that way. Love, in a Christian sense, is not an emotion. It is an act of the will; the desire to serve the good of another and to act on it if possible. Emotion is just emotion. What is the “good” of Tsarnaev? Well, his ultimate good is union with God, and those things conducive to that ultimate good are “mesne” goods.

So what is “good” in a mesne sense, for Tsarnaev. I don’t know, and can’t know.

I will add, in agreement with a previous poster, that it is presumptious and cheap of me to purport to “forgive” Tsarnaev. He did no harm to me at all. Those who are called upon to forgive are those whom he injured in some manner; whether physically to themselves or emotionally because of the loss of a loved one.

It is otherwise up to those who are charged with the duty of dispensing justice to do so in a civil sense. I am not the state. I am a citizen who trusts the state to act justly, whatever that may be. I might disagree one way or another with what the state does. But I am not, myself, the state or its representative, and have no right to determine what happens to Tsarnaev, nor will I be given the chance to determine it.

So, the question posed by the thread has no real meaning.

 

[OneSheep]

No we aren’t. Not in that way. Love, in a Christian sense, is not an emotion. It is an act of the will; the desire to serve the good of another and to act on it if possible. Emotion is just emotion. What is the “good” of Tsarnaev? Well, his ultimate good is union with God, and those things conducive to that ultimate good are “mesne” goods.

Good morning Ridgerunner!

You have a good point there, and actually when I wrote it I thought to myself, “I should clarify that” but got in a hurry and left it. When I mean “emotional connection” I mean that we are care about the other, which is in my eyes the same as your words, “desire to serve”. If this desire does not involve love, then it is empty. If the “desire to serve” is “so that God does not condemn us”, then this is missing the mark. We are called to love one another, as God loves us.

So what is “good” in a mesne sense, for Tsarnaev. I don’t know, and can’t know.

I had to look up the definition of “mesne”, and it appears to mean “intervention”. This thread is about forgiving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, from the heart, not intervening.

I will add, in agreement with a previous poster, that it is presumptious and cheap of me to purport to “forgive” Tsarnaev. He did no harm to me at all. Those who are called upon to forgive are those whom he injured in some manner; whether physically to themselves or emotionally because of the loss of a loved one.

Actually the verse is not written that way. We are called to forgive those we hold something against. If we were restricted to forgiving only those who harmed the ones we love, then a person could still hold a grudge against another all of their life, which is exactly the enslavement that Jesus seeks to free us from in His call to forgive:

Mark 11:25

New International Version
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

It is otherwise up to those who are charged with the duty of dispensing justice to do so in a civil sense. I am not the state. I am a citizen who trusts the state to act justly, whatever that may be. I might disagree one way or another with what the state does. But I am not, myself, the state or its representative, and have no right to determine what happens to Tsarnaev, nor will I be given the chance to determine it.

So, the question posed by the thread has no real meaning.

I understand what you are saying in terms of “intervention”, but this thread is not about intervention.

The transformation of the heart, Ridgerunner, that takes place when we forgive is very real. I understand your view, but do you agree that forgiveness from the heart has “real meaning”?

Thanks for your response.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Good morning Ridgerunner!

You have a good point there, and actually when I wrote it I thought to myself, “I should clarify that” but got in a hurry and left it. When I mean “emotional connection” I mean that we are care about the other, which is in my eyes the same as your words, “desire to serve”. If this desire does not involve love, then it is empty. If the “desire to serve” is “so that God does not condemn us”, then this is missing the mark. We are called to love one another, as God loves us.

I had to look up the definition of “mesne”, and it appears to mean “intervention”. This thread is about forgiving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, from the heart, not intervening.

Actually the verse is not written that way. We are called to forgive those we hold something against. If we were restricted to forgiving only those who harmed the ones we love, then a person could still hold a grudge against another all of their life, which is exactly the enslavement that Jesus seeks to free us from in His call to forgive:

Mark 11:25

New International Version
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

I understand what you are saying in terms of “intervention”, but this thread is not about intervention.

The transformation of the heart, Ridgerunner, that takes place when we forgive is very real. I understand your view, but do you agree that forgiveness from the heart has “real meaning”?

Thanks for your response.

“Mesne” in this context means something in the middle or along the way. There is but one “ultimate” good in human life, but there are many “mesne” goods.

I’m not sure whether you are still confusing “love” with “emotion” or not. But to reiterate, they are not the same things. One can “love” with no emotional involvement whatever, just as one can have an emotional attachment with another without loving him/her. Oftentimes they can occur simultaneously, but they are not the same thing.

Again, it is not for me to “forgive” Tsarnaev in any manner. He has not harmed me. I cannot forgive a wrong done to another. That shows disdain for that other who was wronged. It is up to them to forgive him. It is up to the judge and jury to punish him in that manner which they think just as provided by law.

As to what may be Tsnarnaev’s mesne good, I couldn’t know, because I know nothing about the state of his soul and what may ultimately lead him to God.

 

[BartholomewB]

Again, it is not for me to “forgive” Tsarnaev in any manner. He has not harmed me. I cannot forgive a wrong done to another. That shows disdain for that other who was wronged. It is up to them to forgive him. It is up to the judge and jury to punish him in that manner which they think just as provided by law.

Agreed. I don’t forgive him and I don’t feel called upon to forgive him. As for suitable punishment, that is, as you say, for the judge and jury to decide. The death penalty would be fully appropriate, IMHO.

 

[OneSheep]

Agreed. I don’t forgive him and I don’t feel called upon to forgive him. As for suitable punishment, that is, as you say, for the judge and jury to decide. The death penalty would be fully appropriate, IMHO.

Thanks for adding this, Bartholomew.

If you read my OP carefully, I guide the thread in terms of the scripture I quoted. If a person holds nothing against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, then he is not called to forgive.

I held something against DT, so I took the steps to pray and understand, and this led to forgiveness. When I forgave, I no longer held anything against him.

If you want DT to die, this could be an indication that you may hold something against him. As far as the death penalty goes, from the CCC (italics mine):
:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,* if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.*

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

God Bless your weekend.

 

[OneSheep]

Again, it is not for me to “forgive” Tsarnaev in any manner. He has not harmed me. I cannot forgive a wrong done to another. That shows disdain for that other who was wronged. It is up to them to forgive him. It is up to the judge and jury to punish him in that manner which they think just as provided by law.

I understand this reason as a hesitation to forgive, but the Gospel does not support this reason. It is true that my forgiveness of DT may seem offensive to someone else, but my intent is only to let go of my own resentment and/or hatred, forgiveness is for the forgiver, not for the forgiven. Jesus does not say “refrain from forgiving if someone is going to feel offended by it.”

Those who are offended by another’s forgiving, if they hold something against the person who forgives, are also called to forgive. They are called to not only forgive the first offender, but also the forgiver.

In the end, those who live the Gospel have forgiven all, and have been forgiven by those who live the Gospel.

Oh, and as I said before, if a person does not hold anything against Dzhokar or his brother, then there is no call to forgive.

Do you see how it all works for the Kingdom?

Have a great weekend, Ridgerunner!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand this reason as a hesitation to forgive, but the Gospel does not support this reason. It is true that my forgiveness of DT may seem offensive to someone else, but my intent is only to let go of my own resentment and/or hatred, forgiveness is for the forgiver, not for the forgiven. Jesus does not say “refrain from forgiving if someone is going to feel offended by it.”

Those who are offended by another’s forgiving, if they hold something against the person who forgives, are also called to forgive. They are called to not only forgive the first offender, but also the forgiver.

In the end, those who live the Gospel have forgiven all, and have been forgiven by those who live the Gospel.

Oh, and as I said before, if a person does not hold anything against Dzhokar or his brother, then there is no call to forgive.

Do you see how it all works for the Kingdom?

Have a great weekend, Ridgerunner!

Never does Jesus tell us to forgive anyone for harming another. It’s not our place to forgive or withhold it, either one.

I don’t “hold anything against Tsarnaev”. I’ll never meet him, I’m sure, and I will never have the opportunity to do anything for him (except perhaps pray for his soul) or against him. If, indeed, he viciously and intentionally and freely killed people and maimed others, then he is what he is, and nothing I think will change that. He is properly in the hands of the duly appointed authorities, and it is up to them to decide what he deserves as punishment and/or what it takes to protect society against him. If he did what he is said to have done (and it seems obvious) then he is properly in the hands of the law.

But I will not disrespect his victims by claiming a superior right to “forgive” him for killing and maiming them.

 

[BartholomewB]

OneSheep

… If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, …

Yes, of course, I have no quarrel with that. But the court may perhaps decide that the need “to protect the safety of persons” entails deterring other prospective Muslim terrorists, and it may possibly further decide that sentencing this particular Muslim terrorist to death is likely to make a positive contribution to such deterrence. I have no idea if the court will, in the event, make that decision. All I can say is that, if I were serving as a member of the jury, I think I would probably be inclined in that direction. It is an overstatement to say that “I want DT to die.” No, I don’t. But, on the other hand, I have no particular reason, either, for wanting him to live. What I want is to save the lives of the potential victims of other Muslim terrorists in the future. If the death penalty seems to be the right way to achieve that aim, then so be it.

 

[BartholomewB]

OneSheep

Having just posted my reply to your earlier comment, I’ve now noticed that the text you are using of No. 2267 differs from mine in one curious way. Mine is taken from the Vatican website (link below) and therefore I can only consider it to be the more authentic of the two.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

 

[OneSheep]

Never does Jesus tell us to forgive anyone for harming another. It’s not our place to forgive or withhold it, either one.

Good Morning Ridgerunner,

I repeat, it is indeed our call to forgive if we hold something against anyone regardless of the circumstances.

I don’t “hold anything against Tsarnaev”.

Then the call to forgive does not apply, just as stated in the OP.

But I will not disrespect his victims by claiming a superior right to “forgive” him for killing and maiming them.

This disrespect is projected. All of us have our individual “rulebooks”, and some victims in this context would take offense, and others not. There is nothing in the CCC or in Catholic teaching that discourages people from forgiving, and to make such a rule like “do not forgive violators you hold something against when you are not directly affected” would be clearly against gospel values. Like I said, if a person takes offense at forgiveness or any act the call is for forgiveness.

If Dzhokhar and his brother had forgiven Americans for their acts overseas, they would not have bombed the event. Can you see the global importance of such forgiveness? We have no evidence that the brothers were directly affected by U.S. action, but they clearly resented U.S. activity against Muslims, and held something against us.

Do you see what I mean? Jesus was not only concerned about individuals and their well-being (forgiveness of those we resent contributes to our well-being), but He was dedicated to a “Kingdom” in which forgiveness is the norm. It is human to resent those who do harm, so we can never stop such resentment from occurring. However, we can certainly encourage and inspire people to forgive.

Please join us, Ridgerunner, in encouraging people to forgive.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

Agreed. I don’t forgive him and I don’t feel called upon to forgive him. As for suitable punishment, that is, as you say, for the judge and jury to decide. The death penalty would be fully appropriate, IMHO.

But if in your opinion the death penalty would be appropriate, haven’t you judged that person, and find something that makes you think death would be appropriate?