How literal is anger = murder?

[chevalier]

As per title. I wonder to what extent the reference to earthly courts is a metaphor or a satire against the Pharisees, and to what extent it actually does have literal meaning. I can’t recall a Christian legal system actually employing similar penalties for angry words or deeds as for actual murder. In fact, it’s more typical to see murder in anger reduced to manslaughter or even entirely justified or excused depending on the cause of the anger. In moral theology anger would fall under the fifth commandment but I have a hard time imagining a confessor ordering a murder-like penance to be done for the sin of anger, the latter generally being considered venial in gravity. So I wonder what’s the actual sense of the anger = murder parable.

Is there a reliable Catholic commentary somewhere online? My own search didn’t really bring spectacular results.

 

[MidnightSun12]

As per title. I wonder to what extent the reference to earthly courts is a metaphor or a satire against the Pharisees, and to what extent it actually does have literal meaning. I can’t recall a Christian legal system actually employing similar penalties for angry words or deeds as for actual murder. In fact, it’s more typical to see murder in anger reduced to manslaughter or even entirely justified or excused depending on the cause of the anger. In moral theology anger would fall under the fifth commandment but I have a hard time imagining a confessor ordering a murder-like penance to be done for the sin of anger, the latter generally being considered venial in gravity. So I wonder what’s the actual sense of the anger = murder parable.

Is there a reliable Catholic commentary somewhere online? My own search didn’t really bring spectacular results.

I think we can compare anger/murder to the example of a thief who sees a wallet in somebody’s car. He notices that the window is rolled down and decides to go for the wallet. As he’s reaching into the car, however, he notices that somebody is in the back seat. Seeing the person in the back seat, he stops reaching for the wallet, steps back and instead waives nervously at the person in the back seat. At the end of the day, would you say that this individual is not a thief at heart? I mean, sure he didn’t actually steal the wallet, but he would have stole it if the circumstances had been different.

It’s the same, also, with lust. If, for example, a married man sees another woman and says to himself: “if I could, I would…”, how is this man not be an aldulterer at heart? If he told his wife about such a desire, would it not be just as damaging to their marriage then if he actually committed the act?

It’s the same with anger, if somebody is so angry with another person that they would be willing to physically harm/kill this person if it wasn’t for that “pesky” legal system, a fear of being shamed by family/friends, or lacking the physical ability to follow through with the act then I believe that this person could still be a murderer at heart.

In the eyes of God, intention is everything. Our reasons for not offending God must be based out of love for God (perfect contrition), or at least a fear of going to hell (imperfect contrition). A fear of temporal consequences (only) I do not believe will hold up on judgment day.

 

[chevalier]

Thanks for responding.

I think we can compare anger/murder to the example of a thief who sees a wallet in somebody’s car. He notices that the window is rolled down and decides to go for the wallet. As he’s reaching into the car, however, he notices that somebody is in the back seat. Seeing the person in the back seat, he stops reaching for the wallet, steps back and instead waives nervously at the person in the back seat. At the end of the day, would you say that this individual is not a thief at heart? I mean, sure he didn’t actually steal the wallet, but he would have stole it if the circumstances had been different.

I think there’s no controversy that far. But what if the angry person wouldn’t have moved on any farther than strong words?

It’s the same, also, with lust. If, for example, a married man sees another woman and says to himself: “if I could, I would…”, how is this man not be an aldulterer at heart? If he told his wife about such a desire, would it not be just as damaging to their marriage then if he actually committed the act?

Well, I think there are two different kinds of “if I could, I would”. The first one is like the thief who was prevented by external circumstances. So, say, there was no opportunity to commit actual adultery. But what about someone who thinks, “I would if it weren’t a sin” or “I would if it weren’t evil”? I’m not sure if admitting to lustful thoughts or looks would be as damaging from a merely psychological point from the spouse’s point of view. I believe it would be much harder for me to take a physically completed adultery from my hypothetical wife than the admission of some sinful desires that didn’t get to completion…

It’s the same with anger, if somebody is so angry with another person that they would be willing to physically harm/kill this person if it wasn’t for that “pesky” legal system, a fear of being shamed by family/friends, or lacking the physical ability to follow through with the act then I believe that this person could still be a murderer at heart.

True. But what about the insults that were mentioned in Matt 5:22? While declining to work on controlling one’s anger could progress from words to deeds and from deeds to murder, I think plenty of people throw insults in anger or even without anger but don’t progress to physical attacks.

In the eyes of God, intention is everything. Our reasons for not offending God must be based out of love for God (perfect contrition), or at least a fear of going to hell (imperfect contrition). A fear of temporal consequences (only) I do not believe will hold up on judgment day.

Yes, I agree. But what I’m trying to narrow down here is not the equality between intention and act but also between what seems like a smaller harm with what seems like a greater harm: for example words and murder, looks and actual physical sexual intercourse. Here is where I wonder to what extent it is metaphorical and to what extent it’s literal. What do you think?

 

[Reuben_J]

As per title. I wonder to what extent the reference to earthly courts is a metaphor or a satire against the Pharisees, and to what extent it actually does have literal meaning. I can’t recall a Christian legal system actually employing similar penalties for angry words or deeds as for actual murder. In fact, it’s more typical to see murder in anger reduced to manslaughter or even entirely justified or excused depending on the cause of the anger. In moral theology anger would fall under the fifth commandment but I have a hard time imagining a confessor ordering a murder-like penance to be done for the sin of anger, the latter generally being considered venial in gravity. So I wonder what’s the actual sense of the anger = murder parable.

Is there a reliable Catholic commentary somewhere online? My own search didn’t really bring spectacular results.

When anger can translate to murder is when it is applied to the spiritual, emotional and psychological aspect of a person and to a lesser extent, the physical.

Just my two-cents.

 

[cap76]

As per title. I wonder to what extent the reference to earthly courts is a metaphor or a satire against the Pharisees, and to what extent it actually does have literal meaning. I can’t recall a Christian legal system actually employing similar penalties for angry words or deeds as for actual murder. In fact, it’s more typical to see murder in anger reduced to manslaughter or even entirely justified or excused depending on the cause of the anger. In moral theology anger would fall under the fifth commandment but I have a hard time imagining a confessor ordering a murder-like penance to be done for the sin of anger, the latter generally being considered venial in gravity. So I wonder what’s the actual sense of the anger = murder parable.

Is there a reliable Catholic commentary somewhere online? My own search didn’t really bring spectacular results.

I don’t think that angry words were punishable by the earthly court. Rather, “judgment, council, and Hellfire” are mentioned by Jesus to teach there are degrees of severity in punishment which will be issued by the court of Heaven, each appropriate to the crime, including our words. Jesus’ following example of the sin of adultery shows that His intent is to expose the heart as the place where sin begins and thereby needs to be dealt with.

 

[fred_conty]

Murder happens only when one thinks about it first.
And what usually makes the person think about it?

ANGER

Just a thought.

 

[MtnDwellar]

So I wonder what’s the actual sense of the anger = murder parable.

Which parable are you referring to?