Must we forgive the unrepentant?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Can you answer the question?

are you saying the unrepentant must be forgiven?

The answer is that people don’t know and have to delve into semantics and rewording and explaining what others have meant to fit the agenda of mercy without justice. A popular topic these days.

Some believe that if a hypothetical priest molests a teenage boy that the boy is now morally accountable for an action he was blameless in. Which can be proved theologically if the priest was repentant. But if he were denying or even worse, unrepentant the innocent victim would be morally judged on offering " forgiveness". Whatever that means…

Personally I think it is quite obviously spelled out biblically and liturgically how forgiveness is achieved and what the requirements are.

I think a large majority of “forgiveness” is either forgetting something or letting something go, not dwelling on it. And that is fine with smaller offenses. It’s even healthy psychologically and spiritually. And we MUST forgive someone who asks for it. That is clearly the essence of Christianity. But requiring forgiveness of an unrepentant evil one is ridiculous…

Like I mentioned earlier, Saturday I am going to listen to a speaker at a catholic men’s conference on this very subject. I will report back.

 

[clem456]

Yet If forgiveness is automatic, (no strings attached) then whether someone wants it or not, that doesn’t matter, because forgiveness is automatically given.

If that’s the case then look again at the questions being presented #175

possibly you are confusing forgiveness between people with sacramental absolution…

No one claimed that forgiveness is automatic. The Chuch certainly says no such thing.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m not having any trouble with the logic involved here; I’m pointing out the difficulty of applying it. The problem with your response is not that the contrapositive is still wrong (he could see the threat and miss the shot), but that it doesn’t address the issue I raised. Your comment about Kyle not being omniscient exposes a similar problem where I agreed the converse of the statement on forgiveness was false (“If we have a duty to forgive then the sinner repents.”)

If the contrapositive is not true then the conditional is also not true. It’s been some time since I saw “American Sniper” but I don’t recall Kyle ever missing. However, we could allow for his human error by restating the conditional as: “If you see someone threatening a marine then you shoot at him.”

To the main issue, do we agree the conditional, “If a serial-sinner repents then you have a duty to forgive” is equivocal to the gospel passage and is therefore true? Its contrapositive must also be true: “If you have no duty to forgive then the serial-sinner has not repented.” However, this statement does not preclude the truth in the statement: “If a serial-sinner does not repent then you may forgive.” Even though I may not have a duty to sacrifice my life to save yours, in charity I may do so.

Here is an example from a site that explains about the converse, inverse, and contrapositive that illustrates my point. The contrapositive of “If it rains, then they cancel school” is *“If they do not cancel school, then it does not rain.”
*I would have argued in this case that while the assertion is true, the contrapositive is false because it makes the rain fall conditional on whether school is canceled. Saying “If they did not cancel school, then it did not rain” would be better, but that’s not what was claimed.

Once again the logic holds: If the contrapositive is false then its conditional is also false and may expose a poorly written conditional.

Perhaps it is just the awkward way the inverse/converse/contrapositive sentences are phrased that is the problem, but if so it is equally problematic for the converse sentence I rejected as false before as the contrapositive statement about the rain that seems false to me now. If you wrote that sentence out of the context of this discussion and asked someone to explain how he understood it, I bet that more than nine out of ten would say it means that not canceling school will prevent rain.
Ender

And they would still be wrong.

We are trying to square Luke’s passage with other passages in the gospel in which Jesus teaches unconditional forgiveness as a requirement for the Christian.

Jesus strongly insists on this theme of fraternal reconciliation: for example, when he invites us to turn the other cheek to the one who strikes us, and to give our cloak too to the one who has taken our coat, or when he instills the law of forgiveness: forgiveness which each one receives in the measure that he or she foresee forgiveness to be offered even to enemies

Luke’s passage teaches the minimalist requirement to forgive from justice, a human virtue knowable by reason. The passages above teach the forgiveness requirements that emanate from charity, a theological virtue, a gift from God not knowable by reason alone.

Secondly, all sin, the misuse of His creature, offends God, the sinless one. Reconciliation with the sinless one has special requirements, ie. repentance and conversion. We call this vertical reconciliation. Horizontal or fraternal reconciliation, reconciliation among sinners, has different requirements. But the two are not independent. How we as sinners manage our own fraternal reconciliation determines our worthiness to beg for vertical reconciliation.

 

[clem456]

The answer is that people don’t know and have to delve into semantics and rewording and explaining what others have meant to fit the agenda of mercy without justice. A popular topic these days.

Who has proposed mercy without justice here? Do you understand the relationship between mercy and justice?

Some believe that if a hypothetical priest molests a teenage boy that the boy is now morally accountable for an action he was blameless in. Which can be proved theologically if the priest was repentant. But if he were denying or even worse, unrepentant the innocent victim would be morally judged on offering " forgiveness". Whatever that means…

Have no idea what you are talking about. Who has blamed victims of crimes here?

Personally I think it is quite obviously spelled out biblically and liturgically how forgiveness is achieved and what the requirements are.

Evidently it is not obvious, as you call forgiveness an “achievement”. Nowhere, anywhere, anyplace, …does the Church ever refer to forgiveness as an “achievement”. Can you point us to where the Church refers to forgiveness as an achievement?
(I am not badgering you, but since you point to semantics and rewording above, it seems it’s important to speak with the Church.)

I think a large majority of “forgiveness” is either forgetting something or letting something go, not dwelling on it. And that is fine with smaller offenses.

Really? Small offenses.

It’s even healthy psychologically and spiritually. And we MUST forgive someone who asks for it. That is clearly the essence of Christianity. But requiring forgiveness of an unrepentant evil one is ridiculous…

What is your disposition before the Lord, and how do you want him to treat you?
What do you mean be requiring forgiveness? Are you fearful the Church is forcing you to do something you don’t want to do?
**Forgiveness is the action of a free person, who is secure in the abundance of God’s love in his own life. A forgiving person knows his need for God’s mercy in his own life, has experienced it, and so he can pass it along without demanding the satisfaction of things he cannot demand. **
You cannot determine a person’s worthiness of forgiveness You do not know a person’s heart.
You are not a priest, you cannot give absolution.
You are not a judge, you cannot satisfy justice before God. That belongs to God. You can work towards a just society etc…but it is not within your ability to satisfy justice as a condition of forgiving another. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Forgiveness is not the obligation of a slave. This is the essence of the New Covenant. We are no longer slaves to injustice. We can forgive others because we are free to do it.

Like I mentioned earlier, Saturday I am going to listen to a speaker at a catholic men’s conference on this very subject. I will report back.

I hope it is a blessed time.
This was posted a while back. I will post it again and I hope you find it edifying and peaceful.
hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/8/0/9/809432f76e244a9d/Alpha_201S2-Forgiveness.m4a?c_id=8577090&expiration=1453908467&hwt=e37c8222ca3a12e44d035e53bec205bf

 

[clem456]

We are in a relationship with God. To be reconciled means for two people to come “eye to eye”. Re-con-cilia.

A relationship is between two parties. This is the New Covenant. God offers himself. We are not longer slaves to the law. We still live with it’s demands, but the fulfillment of it is in a relationship with a person, Jesus Christ.

If we live in relationship, we need to appreciate the persons involved.
What is the nature of the persons involved?
What is God’s nature?
How does God offer himself to us? Where do you look to see how God offers himself to us?

What is our nature?
How do we offer ourselves to one another?
How do we behave? All of us…how do we behave?

Show of hands here please…who has earned God’s grace? Who here influences God’s nature by his virtue?

If we are to experience God’s grace, to come eye to eye with him, a response is called for. We are called to change our ways, to change our nature to conform to God’s.
By our response we experience a part of of God’s nature. But we do not change his nature by our response. You can not, by your own virtue, change the way God is. That is idolatry.
And since we know God through Jesus Christ, we are called to live just like that. We should not confuse God’s nature with the quality of our response, which is inadequate, for all of us.

God offers merciful forgiveness without limit, without counting the cost, to the death of his own Son. If we truthfully observe God’s nature and desire to live like God, we are called to forgive our inadequate brothers and sisters, without limit.
Anything else is not the Gospel.

 

[Ender]

Are you saying/arguing that the Church teaches us that we are not to forgive anyone unless and only if they have repentence?

Well, I’m less sure about this, but I will point out that this is how the church behaves. She will not forgive the sins of those who do not repent. Those who do not repent are not forgiven. Period.

You can accuse me of “acting” as if Luke’s passage doesn’t say “if he repents” I’m not. I believe the difference is that I am not taking Luke’s passage to be saying, “If and only if he repents, forgive him.”

Maybe Jesus was just stressing that if some one does ask for forgiveness it just puts more urgency on the fact that one must forgive. But we are required to forgive regardless.

Not sure though…

If we are required to forgive regardless (of whether the offender repents), then what are we to make of the passage in Luke? Saying that we must forgive if the person repents does not specifically say we may not forgive even if he doesn’t repent, but it assuredly does not mean we must forgive whether he repents or not.

Ender

 

[simple_soul]

Well, I’m less sure about this, but I will point out that this is how the church behaves. She will not forgive the sins of those who do not repent. Those who do not repent are not forgiven. Period.

Really? Then I’m curriouse as to how invincible ignorance works and why she even teaches us about it. She can’t say on one hand that people are forgiven thier sins because of invinsible ignorance and then withhold forgiveness of those sins. Does that make sense?
Not to me.

If we are required to forgive regardless (of whether the offender repents), then what are we to make of the passage in Luke? Saying that we must forgive if the person repents does not specifically say we may not forgive even if he doesn’t repent, but it assuredly does not mean we must forgive whether he repents or not.

Ender

The mind gymnastics you go through…

I believe it does not say one must forgive or that one does not have to forgive if one does not repent. If I am understanding correctly this passage from Luke seems to be quite neutral on that or just does not address it clearly or at all. But I believe that is something you and o_mlly are trying to work out so will just follow your discussion to try and understand it better.

I’m curious as to why you are so seemingly fixiated with this one passage? Is this really the one and only passage that we have from Jesus, the apostles and the Church to teach us about forgiveness?
Is all the other teachings and examples irrelevant?

For me, one of the most beautiful examples of how the Church teaches us to forgive is how St. Maria Gorettie forgave her killer.
Here is a link to her story m.ncregister.com/daily-news/forgiveness-the-greatest-witness-of-st.-maria-goretti#.Vqjvmuw8L7o

Why would the Church hold her up as an example of how to forgive if she does not teach us to forgive someone before one repents?
Or is it your contention that this is just someone’s take on it and that the Chirch does not approve of her forgiving someone before they repent?

 

[clem456]

Really? Then I’m curriouse as to how invincible ignorance works and why she even teaches us about it. She can’t say on one hand that people are forgiven thier sins because of invinsible ignorance and then withhold forgiveness of those sins. Does that make sense?
Not to me.

In the confessional (which is not the question asked in the OP)

…the priest cannot give absolution to a person who does not show purpose of amendment and a desire to repent. This person is not willing to accept forgiveness and absolution.
**A person has to be willing to respond to the grace offered. **
The response is to repent, to literally “reverse our way of thinking”.

But, forgiveness is always available, and is always offered. It comes from God, according to his nature, through the Church.
No person should ever fear he is beyond God’s mercy, and so stay away out of despair or fatigue.
We may tire of asking and trying, but God never tires of forgiving. We must reflect that reality in our relations among one another.

 

[simple_soul]

In the confessional (which is not the question asked in the OP)

…the priest cannot give absolution to a person who does not show purpose of amendment and a desire to repent. This person is not willing to accept forgiveness and absolution.
**A person has to be willing to respond the the grace offered. **

But, it is always available, and is always offered. It comes from God, according to his nature, through the Church.
No person should ever fear he is beyond God’s mercy, and so stay away out of despair or fatigue.
We tire, but God never tires of forgiving. We must reflect that reality in our relations among one another.

I am beginning to believe some are trying to make the point that if a priest refuses forgiveness for those reasons then we should be refusing forgiveness for those reason too.

Thank you for clarifying that. Now I believe I understand better something you had said in an earlier post. I did not understand where you were coming from but it makes more sense now.

 

[Ender]

No, it has not. People have opined.
I’d like to hear an answer yes, or no…

God does not forgive the unrepentant. The church does not forgive the unrepentant. Forgiveness is always available, but only to those who repent.***Without ***a true conversion, which implies inner contrition, and without a sincere and firm purpose of amendment, sins remain “unforgiven,” in the words of Jesus, and with him in the Tradition of the Old and New Covenants. (JPII Dominum et vivificantem)

*It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. *(JPII, Dives in misericordia)

(CCC 1864) *“Whoever blasphemes against the **Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” 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…

**If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” *(Jn 20:23)
References like this are innumerable.

Ender

 

[clem456]

God does not forgive the unrepentant. The church does not forgive the unrepentant. Forgiveness is always available, but only to those who repent.***Without ***a true conversion, which implies inner contrition, and without a sincere and firm purpose of amendment, sins remain “unforgiven,” in the words of Jesus, and with him in the Tradition of the Old and New Covenants. (JPII Dominum et vivificantem)

*It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution. *(JPII, Dives in misericordia)

(CCC 1864) *“Whoever blasphemes against the *Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” 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…

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (Jn 20:23)
References like this are innumerable.

Ender

So then what is your answer to the question:
“Must we forgive the unrepentant?”

 

[simple_soul]

God does not forgive the unrepentant. The church does not forgive the unrepentant. ** Forgiveness is always available,** but only to those who repent.

How can God’s forgiveness always be available if He has not forgiven already? :ehh:

 

[Ender]

Really? Then I’m curriouse as to how invincible ignorance works and why she even teaches us about it. She can’t say on one hand that people are forgiven thier sins because of invinsible ignorance and then withhold forgiveness of those sins. Does that make sense?

The question of invincible ignorance raises different issues; it goes to the question of ones responsibility for an act.(CCC1793) If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.
In this case it is not so much that a person’s sins are forgiven as that the person may not be held responsible for them in the first place.

I believe it does not say one must forgive or that one does not have to forgive if one does not repent.

I agree with this much: while it does say we must forgive the repentant, it does not say we are required to forgive the unrepentant.

I’m curious as to why you are so seemingly fixiated with this one passage? Is this really the one and only passage that we have from Jesus, the apostles and the Church to teach us about forgiveness?
Is all the other teachings and examples irrelevant?

All of the passages are relevant, and what I am trying to do is reconcile them all. As I said before, I’m looking for an explanation of forgiveness that incorporates what was said in Luke. Conclusions that simply ignore it are not acceptable.

Or is it your contention that this is just someone’s take on it and that the Church does not approve of her forgiving someone before they repent?

No. I have not taken a position on that question. Much of what I’ve said up to now is just in response to what I consider invalid arguments.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So then what is your answer to the question:
“Must we forgive the unrepentant?”

I would change the emphasis to this: “**Must **we forgive the unrepentant?” I believe the answer to that is no. It may perhaps be optional, but it is not mandatory. This is the only way I can make sense of that passage in Luke.

Ender

 

[Ender]

How can God’s forgiveness always be available if He has not forgiven already?

God is always willing to forgive, but forgiveness comes after repentance, not before. If we are already forgiven by God then what is the purpose of going to confession and asking for forgiveness again? If God always forgives how could Christ say “*if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”? *Clearly whatever sins are retained have not been forgiven.

Ender

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So some are saying we have a command from God to forgive. Now while I think that it matters if the person is repentant, what exactly is this odd command if we can’t even define it. I’m still waiting. One would think with such a major piece of Christian identity that in 2000 years this would have been defined…

 

[simple_soul]

The question of invincible ignorance raises different issues; it goes to the question of ones responsibility for an act.(CCC1793) If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.
In this case it is not so much that a person’s sins are forgiven as that the person may not be held responsible for them in the first place.

So what makes them not responsible for them in the first place. It’s still a sin. Is it just “overlooked”’ and if it is why is it over looked? Is it because God understands and forgives regardless of the sin because they did not know it was a sin and He forgives them even though they never repented?

I agree with this much: while it does say we must forgive the repentant, it does not say we are required to forgive the unrepentant.

It also does not say we are not required to. I believe the point you are trying to make by using this piece of scripture to try and prove one should not forgive unless one repents is mute.

All of the passages are relevant, and what I am trying to do is reconcile them all. As I said before, I’m looking for an explanation of forgiveness that incorporates what was said in Luke. Conclusions that simply ignore it are not acceptable.
No. I have not taken a position on that question. Much of what I’ve said up to now is just in response to what I consider invalid arguments.

Ender

Well, it’s your right to consider them invalid. I don’t believe they are.

 

[simple_soul]

God is always willing to forgive, but forgiveness comes after repentance, not before. If we are already forgiven by God then what is the purpose of going to confession and asking for forgiveness again? If God always forgives how could Christ say “*if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”? *Clearly whatever sins are retained have not been forgiven.

Ender

Already answered these questions. Not going to keep going in circles with you. If it was not with you it was with other posters. I am sure you have kept up with the thread. If not you can find them if you go back a few pages. Please forgive me for not trying to find them or repost them myself I don’t have time right now. Need to get to work.

I so hope and pray some day you find the answers your looking for.

God’s Peace and Love be with you always on your journey

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

One of the biggest biblical teaching’s on forgiveness comes from the Prodigal son parable we all know so well. Lets examine it.
The son, repents, humbles, comes back and asks nothing that a son would be entitled to but rather what a servant would be given. The Mercy of the Father is more than abundant. This is God’s relation to us. His Mercy and forgiveness is clearly free flowing. And the condition was that the son, repented. He did, quite well.

Now lets go to the oft criticized Brother, the “good” son. He is unwilling to forgive, looking only on how it affects him and what he can “get” out of it. This is his problem. this is where God teaches us about forgiving each other, (our brothers) Now this story would read quite differently if the “bad” son was unrepentant or worse, if he demanded his brothers share to go do exactly what he had done before. Imagine that conversation, “Son, why are you upset, your brother is still dead but now he has taken your share.”
The father tells the son to rejoice. That everything he has is his now. that his brother is now alive again and has repented. This is our command, forgive the repentant because now they are ALIVE again, not dead in sin. This is why we rejoice and forgive.

What some people here are advocating is the good son would be asked to forgive and give all his money to the brother, to forgive someone who was unrepentant, proud, or even insisting in sin. Unapologetic. This is the issue being discussed, mercy to the people who are ASKING for it.

it is quite clear.

 

[clem456]

So some are saying we have a command from God to forgive. Now while I think that it matters if the person is repentant, what exactly is this odd command if we can’t even define it. I’m still waiting. One would think with such a major piece of Christian identity that in 2000 years this would have been defined…

And so in the face of your own doubt, what do you do? Opt for the minimalist position of least risk?

Before you forgive, you choose to demand the certitude of justice, which you do not have sir. And you will never have it. It does not belong to you. But you can choose to wait for it. It is your choice. Forgiveness is a free act of love, not a mandate given to a slave.
One thing is sure, if you wait for the certitude of justice before you forgive, you will never be taken advantage of. But I’m not sure that’s the heart of the Christian call, to avoid being taken advantage of.

Since we are counting the cost/benefit and risk/reward…
how does it hurt you to have a complete and total commitment to forgive? I’m trying to figure that out with a couple of posters here,
Even from a purely selfish point of view, what does it cost you to forgive totally and completely 70x7? What’s the downside? Other than the loss of justice on your part, which you don’t have anyway. Doesn’t it seem a little foolish to presume the good graces of your soul without a complete commitment to forgive?

But the most compelling reason of all should be this:
your offer of forgiveness may bring a person to conversion, as has happened countless times “over 2000 years”. Isn’t that why God breathed life into you, that you might glorify his power by your treatment of others?

Maria Goretti is one shining example the Church gives us, that forgiveness is the free act of a free person, unencumbered by the demand for justice. Maria Goretti forgave her murderer from her deathbed.
Using your idea of forgiveness, she is a fool, not a saint, because the repentance of her murderer was not a factor in her forgiveness.
But her unconditional forgiveness **saved another human soul. **
I think I’d like to be like her.

mariagoretti.com/how-to-forgive/

“The Pilgrimage of Mercy will provide us the opportunity to reflect on the powerful witness given by St. Maria Goretti whose personal strength and conviction in the power of God’s love far surpassed her tender years. Forgiveness, as so powerfully witnessed by St. Maria in her final hours, does not mean that we fail to acknowledge the seriousness and all too often devastating effects of harm done to others. Rather, forgiveness recognizes that, in our hearts, when we are unable to forgive, we make ourselves a victim of the darkness that encompasses hatred and revenge. Through the intercession of St. Maria, may this pilgrimage open the hearts and minds of many people to Jesus’ life changing gifts of mercy and forgiveness.”

–Cardinal Sean O’Malley
Archbishop of Boston

When Maria found herself trapped in the house alone with Alessandro, seeing that his intention was to violate her, she resisted him with all her strength. In fact, her resistance was so great that he was physically unable to rape her. In a fit of rage, Alessandro struck Maria repeatedly with a metal file, delivering 14 puncture wounds. These would kill Maria 24 hours later.

Alessandro was sentenced to 30 years in prison. At his trial, he blamed Maria for her own death claiming that he was defending himself from a sexual attack that she herself instigated. In prison he was locked in isolation as his anger would lead to outbursts of physical violence against other inmates.

One night, six years into his prison sentence, Maria appeared to Alessandro. She appeared in a garden picking 14 white lily flowers, handing them to him one by one. This gesture of forgiveness, this act of love, filled Alessandro with light and the Holy Spirit. He immediately became contrite for what he did to that little girl.

He finished the rest of his sentence in tranquility. In fact, his behavior became so docile, and the transformation of his person was so dramatic, that he was released three years early. Shortly after his release he sought out, and received, the forgiveness of Maria’s mother. He eventually joined the Capuchin Franciscans and, as a lay brother, worked as a gardener, porter, and general laborer. He died in the peace of Christ, with the love and admiration of those that knew him, at the Cappuchin convent at Macerata, Italy, on May 6, 1970.

Following his death, the Capuchin friars with whom he lived found a sealed envelope among his personal effects. It was his spiritual testament, written in the form of an open letter to the world. It contains an appeal that all follow the way of Christ. It also paints a dramatic and touching picture of a man who was able to regain his dignity through the generous mercy that those he wounded extended to him: