T
Trebor135
Guest
I understand that, in Catholic theology, Christ took away our eternal punishment but not our temporal punishment for sin: this is why one does penance and has access to indulgences. The examples of theft of and damage to a neighbour’s property are ubiquitous in discussions of these issues on CAF, and murder of a neighbor less frequent. Where goods are stolen, return the original or give an equivalent as replacement, such as money. Where something is broken, pay to fix the item or offer to repair it, such as a window shattered out of vandalism. Where an innocent is killed, spend a long time in prison.
The necessity of these actions makes sense; conscious harm is done to another person, and contrition should lead one to seek to remedy that harm (in the first and second case) and to accept the suffering required by the law of the land (in the third case). But how does this have anything to do with a temporal punishment which God demands we endure? How does reversing the harm done (in the first and second cases) mean one is going out of one’s way to suffer extra hardship? And how are these comparable to suffering restriction of movement (in the third case), which obviously can’t bring the innocent murder victim back to life?
With gluttony–if a mortal sin–things get more complicated. To confess to eating too much and being too attached to food will be of immense benefit. No neighbor has suffered because of this sin, so “rebalancing the scales” by restitution or jail time won’t work. Disciplining oneself so as to cut back on food, especially that which one finds most appetizing, can’t seem to suffice as expiation. After all, when can one know that the debt has been paid? Does one have to have one healthy serving of pasta or meat and potatoes for dinner, and replace the ice cream with fruit or nuts, for a week? Or does one have to skip lunch, snack on fruit or nuts, and have one bowl of hardy soup and a bread-and-butter sandwich for dinner for a month? (These are rhetorical questions to make a point.)
The death of David’s child conceived in adultery in circumstances tainted by murder is very often brought up as an example of temporal punishment in the Bible. But how can this incident be cited to prove the Catholic doctrine? God doesn’t take such drastic measures where all mortal sins are concerned; David isn’t commanded to kill his child to expiate the debt as penance. God also could have been disciplining David to wake him up, so that the king could recognize the error of his ways and amend them. Nathan never speaks of a debt to be paid in 2 Samuel 12:
[7] Nathan said to David, “…Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel,
[12] For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’”
[13] David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.
[14] Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.”
And the writer doesn’t do this either in Hebrews 12:
[4] In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
[5] And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? – “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
[6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”
[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
[8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
[9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
[10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
[11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
[12]
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
[13] and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
[14] Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Catholic theology seems to be transforming a “should” into a “must”:
Good Christians should do something to redress the harm done, whenever the option exists to do so; God, out of his love, disciplines his children to purify them.
vs.
Good Christians must do something to redress the harm done, even if the possibility does not clearly exist to do so; God, out of his justice, punishes his children to extract expiation from them.
The necessity of these actions makes sense; conscious harm is done to another person, and contrition should lead one to seek to remedy that harm (in the first and second case) and to accept the suffering required by the law of the land (in the third case). But how does this have anything to do with a temporal punishment which God demands we endure? How does reversing the harm done (in the first and second cases) mean one is going out of one’s way to suffer extra hardship? And how are these comparable to suffering restriction of movement (in the third case), which obviously can’t bring the innocent murder victim back to life?
With gluttony–if a mortal sin–things get more complicated. To confess to eating too much and being too attached to food will be of immense benefit. No neighbor has suffered because of this sin, so “rebalancing the scales” by restitution or jail time won’t work. Disciplining oneself so as to cut back on food, especially that which one finds most appetizing, can’t seem to suffice as expiation. After all, when can one know that the debt has been paid? Does one have to have one healthy serving of pasta or meat and potatoes for dinner, and replace the ice cream with fruit or nuts, for a week? Or does one have to skip lunch, snack on fruit or nuts, and have one bowl of hardy soup and a bread-and-butter sandwich for dinner for a month? (These are rhetorical questions to make a point.)
The death of David’s child conceived in adultery in circumstances tainted by murder is very often brought up as an example of temporal punishment in the Bible. But how can this incident be cited to prove the Catholic doctrine? God doesn’t take such drastic measures where all mortal sins are concerned; David isn’t commanded to kill his child to expiate the debt as penance. God also could have been disciplining David to wake him up, so that the king could recognize the error of his ways and amend them. Nathan never speaks of a debt to be paid in 2 Samuel 12:
[7] Nathan said to David, “…Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel,
I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; [8] and I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. [9] Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uri'ah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. [10] Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uri'ah the Hittite to be your wife.' [11] Thus says the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.[12] For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’”
[13] David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.
[14] Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.”
And the writer doesn’t do this either in Hebrews 12:
[4] In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
[5] And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? – “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
[6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”
[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
[8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
[9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
[10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
[11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
[12]
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
[13] and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
[14] Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Catholic theology seems to be transforming a “should” into a “must”:
Good Christians should do something to redress the harm done, whenever the option exists to do so; God, out of his love, disciplines his children to purify them.
vs.
Good Christians must do something to redress the harm done, even if the possibility does not clearly exist to do so; God, out of his justice, punishes his children to extract expiation from them.