To Forgive, or Not to Forgive?

[spockrates]

Excellent Point!

If Jesus the Son of Almighty God In the Mystery of the Holy Trinity can do this, We should be required to do no less.

I think too we should all be able take a lesson from the story of the Prodigal Son.

Peace
Chris

I agree, guard. We *should *do as Jesus does and forgive as He does. We should be quick to forgive, but we should only forgive (like Jesus) if we have good reason to forgive. In the case of the Prodigal Son who left home, the Father forgave him because he repented and returned home.

But what of the son who stayed home and refused to forgive the one the Father forgave? Since he refused to repent, doesn’t this mean the Father cannot possibly forgive him? This, it seems to me, is the truth of the parable that is often overlooked.

28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

(Luke 15)

 

[JReducation]

JR:

God the Father has more in common with the emotionless Spock than with Jesus!

Good grief! I hope not.

You can’t compartmentalize God this way. The God-head is one. The three persons in the God-head are consubstantial. The Logos, who is the Son, becomes human, but does not cease to be divine, nor do the two natures blend. They co-exist in one person, like the Oreo.

In his divinity Jesus remains God and there is no difference between his love and the love of the Father or his ability to forgive and that of the Father. It is the act of forgiving the person who does not deserve forgiveness that is compassionate. Compassion is not an emotion. It is an act of great charity. In this case, you are giving to another more than he or she deserves. There are two words that express what happens when God or we truly forgive: compassion and mercy.

Compassion comes from the Latin “to feel with” and mercy comes from the Latin “misericordia” or “open your heart”. Neither of these are emotions. They are choices.

In human beings, these choices can be prompted by emotions, but there are times when the emotions tell us to do just the opposite. We are so angry that we don’t want to “feel with” the other person or to “open our hearts” to the other person. In those situations, we have to do as Christ did. We have to place our goal over our emotions. The goal is always the perfection of charity.

should we not make every effort to suppress feelings of compassion in us and love with a compassionless love like God? After all, Saint Paul the Apostle tells us:

(Ephesians 5:1-2)

If Paul is speaking of imitating God in the way God loves, then doesn’t that mean we should love without emotion and without compassion? Any compassionate love would be unlike God’s love, and so ungodly. Would it not?

I don’t think that I have to go back to compassion. I explained that above. Are we called to suppress our emotions to be like God? NO. That is not what Paul is saying at all. You have to take that verse in the context of the entire letter to Ephesus. They were having many internal conflicts. Paul reminds them to love as God loves. But notice that he tells them to love s Christ loved us. You cannot imitate the Father unless you look a the Son.

St. Francis of Assisi taught his sons and daughters that the Holy Spirit leads us to Christ. When we look at Christ and imitate Christ, we become intimately connected to him, so that as Christ moves toward the Father, he takes us along. The goal is to reach the Father. But we can only reach the Father by loving as Christ loved. Because we have no idea how much the Father can love or even how he loves. The Father is beyond Cosmic. Christ, because he’s human, is comprehensible to us. The Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to love and forgive as Christ loved and forgave. When we do this, St. Francis tells us that we are united to him. If we are united to him, St. John tells us, “He who abides in love abides in God.” If we love and forgive as Jesus does, we are on our way to the Father.

We do not suppress our emotions. St. Francis teaches us that our emotions are part of our poverty. If we deny our emotions then we deny our humanity. To deny our humanity is to reject our poverty. Unless a man leaves everything, he cannot be my disciple.

In order to leave something, you have to acknowledge that it exists.

I have to acknowledge that my emotions exist. Then, I have to put aside those that get in the way of loving as Christ loved. That is why we have been given the Holy Spirit. He will show us what emotions we have to overcome and how to do it. He cannot show us, if we suppress them. To suppress is to deny their existence. If we don’t have the, then we don’t need the Holy Spirit either. If we don’t need the Holy Spirit, then we must be gods, not poor men and women. Our emotions keep us poor, thus keeping us dependent on the Holy Spirit in order to understand them, to use them wisely and to ignore them when necessary.

I’ll say it again–fascinating!
Are you saying that, at that moment, Jesus resisted the temptation to feel either hate or compassion, but loved them the way the Father loved them–without emotion of any kind? Are you saying there was no compassion in His Passion?

He resisted the temptation to feel hate, not compassion. Remember his conversation with the repentant thief. The thief says two simple words, “Remember me” And Jesus looks toward him and canonizes him in life. “Today you shall be with me in Paradise”. That’s compassion.

Look at Mary. She is silent during the whole crucifixion. She is the perfect model of compassion. She too must have struggled with the temptation to hate, to lash out, and to do what any mother would do under these circumstances.

Because of her Immaculate Conception, Mary can be tempted, but cannot fall into temptation. Through the grace of God, she has what it takes to rise above the temptation. She is the best example that we can use for a human being who loves and forgives as God loves and forgives. She makes use of the grace that God gives her.

It is very fascinating. That’s why I chose to major in Mystical Theology for my doctorate. I find the life of the soul to be the most fascinating and the most practical branch of theology. The other branches of theology are important, because they give us doctrine, morals, biblical exegesis, etc. But Ascetical and Mystical Theology is the branch that tells us how to use it in daily life, how and why it works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spockrates]

Good grief! I hope not.

You can’t compartmentalize God this way. The God-head is one. The three persons in the God-head are consubstantial. The Logos, who is the Son, becomes human, but does not cease to be divine, nor do the two natures blend. They co-exist in one person, like the Oreo.

JR:

Thank you so much for continuing the conversation. I have so much to learn, and so few who are willing to teach me. Yes, I agree that this is what the Bible and the Church teaches: Jesus is 100% man, but also 100% God–two essences in one being. I apprehend this, though I don’t comprehend this. In the same way I apprehend (but in no way comprehend) that the Bible and the Church teaches that God is one what in there whos. Where you and I have one person to our being, God has three.



But please consider my observation: The fictional character Spock is a member of a race (called Vulcan) from another world that believes that all emotion is dangerous, and so must be removed from the Vulcan experience. Rather than be guided by emotion, his race is guided by logic. For example, Vulcans never lie, and it is not compassion that motivates then to always be honest; it is reason.

We read in Hebrews that “it is impossible for God to lie,” (Hebrews 6:18). If one were to ask why God the Father cannot possibly lie, the answer would not be, “Because He feels emotionally for you and me,” but instead would be, “Because He it is illogical to be immoral, and it is simply not possible for God the Father to be illogical or immoral, for then He would cease to be who He is–God.”

Now ask the same question of Jesus. Why is it impossible for Jesus to lie? The answer is different: "Because it is illogical to be immoral, and it is simply not possible for God the Son to be illogical or immoral. AND ALSO because Jesus the human feels emotionally for you and me.

The AND ALSO does not apply to Spock or God the Father, and so logic tell us that (at least in the case of letting his actions be guided by reason, rather than emotion) Spock the Vulcan has more in common with God the Father than Jesus the human.

 

[spockrates]

In his divinity Jesus remains God and there is no difference between his love and the love of the Father or his ability to forgive and that of the Father. It is the act of forgiving the person who does not deserve forgiveness that is compassionate. Compassion is not an emotion. It is an act of great charity. In this case, you are giving to another more than he or she deserves. There are two words that express what happens when God or we truly forgive: compassion and mercy.

Compassion comes from the Latin “to feel with” and mercy comes from the Latin “misericordia” or “open your heart”. Neither of these are emotions. They are choices.

Then I suggest that we use a different word to describe God’s love than compassion. For the commonly accepted definition of the word is this:

com·pas·sion
–noun

1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
   –verb (used with object)
2. Archaic . to compassionate.
   Use compassion in a Sentence
   See images of compassion
   Search compassion on the Web
   Origin:
   1300–50; Middle English (< Anglo-French ) < Late Latin compassiōn- (stem of compassiō ). See com-, passion

dictionary.reference.com/browse/compassion

When you use the word compassion, the thought that comes to the mind of the common person is that of a feeling (or emotion) of deep sympathy and sorrow for another, because this is exactly what the word means in English. So, rather than use this word, should we not use another? Otherwise we will just confuse others by suggesting that the word compassion means the opposite of its definition! You see, compassion to the common man is a motivation, rather than an action. The result of such motivation can be a compassionate act, the cause of which is the emotion of compassion, he might tell you, and a cause (logic tells us) cannot possibly be the same as its effect.

It might be best to say that Jesus the man feels compassion, but Jesus the Son of God does not. Don’t you think?

 

[spockrates]

In human beings, these choices can be prompted by emotions, but there are times when the emotions tell us to do just the opposite. We are so angry that we don’t want to “feel with” the other person or to “open our hearts” to the other person. In those situations, we have to do as Christ did. We have to place our goal over our emotions. The goal is always the perfection of charity.

I don’t think that I have to go back to compassion. I explained that above. Are we called to suppress our emotions to be like God? NO. That is not what Paul is saying at all. You have to take that verse in the context of the entire letter to Ephesus. They were having many internal conflicts. Paul reminds them to love as God loves. But notice that he tells them to love s Christ loved us. You cannot imitate the Father unless you look a the Son.

Then perhaps Saint Paul the Apostle misspoke? Instead of saying,

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5:1-3)

don’t you think he should have wrote this instead?

Be imitators of [Jesus the man, who was also] God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

St. Francis of Assisi taught his sons and daughters that the Holy Spirit leads us to Christ. When we look at Christ and imitate Christ, we become intimately connected to him, so that as Christ moves toward the Father, he takes us along. The goal is to reach the Father. But we can only reach the Father by loving as Christ loved. Because we have no idea how much the Father can love or even how he loves. The Father is beyond Cosmic. Christ, because he’s human, is comprehensible to us. The Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to love and forgive as Christ loved and forgave. When we do this, St. Francis tells us that we are united to him. If we are united to him, St. John tells us, “He who abides in love abides in God.” If we love and forgive as Jesus does, we are on our way to the Father.

We do not suppress our emotions. St. Francis teaches us that our emotions are part of our poverty. If we deny our emotions then we deny our humanity. To deny our humanity is to reject our poverty. Unless a man leaves everything, he cannot be my disciple.

In order to leave something, you have to acknowledge that it exists.

I have to acknowledge that my emotions exist. Then, I have to put aside those that get in the way of loving as Christ loved. That is why we have been given the Holy Spirit. He will show us what emotions we have to overcome and how to do it. He cannot show us, if we suppress them. To suppress is to deny their existence. If we don’t have the, then we don’t need the Holy Spirit either. If we don’t need the Holy Spirit, then we must be gods, not poor men and women. Our emotions keep us poor, thus keeping us dependent on the Holy Spirit in order to understand them, to use them wisely and to ignore them when necessary.

Would you say that compassion (the emotional kind) is morally good, morally wrong, or neither moral nor immoral?

He resisted the temptation to feel hate, not compassion. Remember his conversation with the repentant thief. The thief says two simple words, “Remember me” And Jesus looks toward him and canonizes him in life. “Today you shall be with me in Paradise”. That’s compassion.

Look at Mary. She is silent during the whole crucifixion. She is the perfect model of compassion. She too must have struggled with the temptation to hate, to lash out, and to do what any mother would do under these circumstances.

Because of her Immaculate Conception, Mary can be tempted, but cannot fall into temptation. Through the grace of God, she has what it takes to rise above the temptation. She is the best example that we can use for a human being who loves and forgives as God loves and forgives. She makes use of the grace that God gives her.

It is very fascinating. That’s why I chose to major in Mystical Theology for my doctorate. I find the life of the soul to be the most fascinating and the most practical branch of theology. The other branches of theology are important, because they give us doctrine, morals, biblical exegesis, etc. But Ascetical and Mystical Theology is the branch that tells us how to use it in daily life, how and why it works.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, I understand that we should resist emotion of hate when we should love. But, as you said, we should not resist a potential act of compassion. Do you also think we should not resist the emotion of compassion, either? If you do, then would you say that feeling the emotion of compassion is an example of imitating Jesus the son of man, but not of imitating Jesus the Son of God?

 

[spockrates]

**Q. **Who loves more like God the Father?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/spock1.jpg

**Spock, whose acts of compassion are motivated by logic but not by emotion?

http://justacloserwalk.com/p7lsm_img_1/fullsize/Jesus-healing-hands_fs.JPG

**or Jesus Christ, whose acts of compassion were motivated by both logic and emotion?

The question, it seems, is an important one in determining how we should forgive. For forgiveness is a kind of love, and Saint Paul the Apostle tells us to “be imitators of God … and live a life of love,” (Ephesians 5:1). So if we know how to imitate God in the way he loves, then we should better know how to imitate Him in the way He forgives.

 

[spockrates]

In other words, should our forgiveness be motivated by the emotion of compassion, like Jesus’ forgiveness? or should our forgiveness be motivated not by emotion, but merely by logic, like forgiveness of Spock and God the Father? Does anyone have the answer?



Kirk: Spock!
[Watching Spock beginning to succumb to radiation poisoning to sacrifice himself for the lives of others]
Spock: The ship… out of danger?
Kirk: Yes.
Spock: Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh…
Kirk: …the needs of the few…
Spock: …Or the one. I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution? I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper.
[Holds up his hand in the Vulcan salute]

Star Trek II - the Wrath of Khan

 

[Nelka]

Matthew

Chapter 6:

14 'Yes, if you forgive others their failings, your heavenly Father will forgive you yours;

15 but if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive your failings either.

 

[spockrates]

Matthew

Chapter 6:

14 'Yes, if you forgive others their failings, your heavenly Father will forgive you yours;

15 but if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive your failings either.

Welcome to the discussion, Nelka!



I think Jesus’ words here are helpful, if we correctly understand what it is saying. Don’t you? Tell me, please: Does God forgive everyone everything, or does He only forgive some people everything? (For example, the people in Hell–are they forgiven by God, or are they the unforgiven?)

 

[JReducation]

Then I suggest that we use a different word to describe God’s love than compassion. For the commonly accepted definition of the word is this:

com·pas·sion
–noun

1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
   –verb (used with object)

You have to remember that language evolves and meanings change according to context and even disciplines. As I always tell people, never use Webster to define theological terms. Webster has no clue what these terms mean in this context and he’s not supposed have a clue. That’s why almost every discipline also has it’s own dictionary. There are dictionaries of theology and dictionaries for the bible too, just as we have medical dictionaries and other.

When you use the word compassion, the thought that comes to the mind of the common person is that of a feeling (or emotion) of deep sympathy and sorrow for another, because this is exactly what the word means in English. So, rather than use this word, should we not use another?

I don’t think that we should use another. To do so would require that we change the original wording in scripture and theology. You have to use the original word in its context, with its original meaning.

Otherwise we will just confuse others by suggesting that the word compassion means the opposite of its definition! You see, compassion to the common man is a motivation, rather than an action. The result of such motivation can be a compassionate act, the cause of which is the emotion of compassion, he might tell you, and a cause (logic tells us) cannot possibly be the same as its effect.

This is what scripture scholars and spiritual theologians do. They explain the terms in their context to help people see their meaning in the context of the spiritual life.

It might be best to say that Jesus the man feels compassion, but Jesus the Son of God does not. Don’t you think?

You can’t do that without creating some kind of duality in Christ. You’ run the risk of creating two persons in one body. That’s not the case at all. The case is that he is the God-Man. He is only one person. The experience of compassion is the experience of the whole person, Jesus of Nazareth. When Jesus of Nazareth experiences sadness over the death of a friend or fear in the Garden, it’s not just the divine nature that feels these things. It’s the whole person who feels them. What is not the case is that the whole Trinity feels them. This is the mystery and wonder of the Hypostatic Union. The second person of the Trinity remains part of the Trinity and yet, he is an individual too. As an individual he has experiences that the Father and Holy Spirit do not have. One of those experiences is human emotions. However, human emotions are not foreign to the Trinity. God creates human beings with emotions; therefore, he understands emotions.

But please consider my observation: The fictional character Spock is a member of a race (called Vulcan) from another world that believes that all emotion is dangerous, and so must be removed from the Vulcan experience. Rather than be guided by emotion, his race is guided by logic. For example, Vulcans never lie, and it is not compassion that motivates then to always be honest; it is reason.

What is depicted in this fictional character is a person who operates with reason. In God’s case, it goes deeper than this. God does not use reason, God is reason itself. However, unlike the fictional Vulcans, who limit themselves to that which they believe is reasonable or rational, God does not limit himself this way.

I always found this character interesting, because it depicts the struggle within man to overcome what he perceives as human weakness by sublimating emotions and acting on pure knowledge. It’s a form of Gnosticism.

We read in Hebrews that “it is impossible for God to lie,” (Hebrews 6:18). If one were to ask why God the Father cannot possibly lie, the answer would not be, “Because He feels emotionally for you and me,” but instead would be, “Because He it is illogical to be immoral, and it is simply not possible for God the Father to be illogical or immoral, for then He would cease to be who He is–God.”

Actually, it is not impossible for God to lie as in God is limited in what he can or cannot do. God does not lie, because it’s not in his nature to lie. He is truthful, because he is Truth, not because he can’t be dishonest. Whatever God does not do, is not because of a negative “he cannot”. It’s because of a positive, “he is Truth” Where there is perfect truth there is the total absence of deception.

Now ask the same question of Jesus. Why is it impossible for Jesus to lie? The answer is different: "Because it is illogical to be immoral, and it is simply not possible for God the Son to be illogical or immoral. AND ALSO because Jesus the human feels emotionally for you and me.

The answer is the same. Jesus is the eternal Logos (Word). The Word of God is Truth. In Truth, there is no lie.

The AND ALSO does not apply to Spock or God the Father, and so logic tell us that (at least in the case of letting his actions be guided by reason, rather than emotion) Spock the Vulcan has more in common with God the Father than Jesus the human.

You’re breaking Jesus down again as if he were two individuals in one body. I suggest that you take Spock out of this equation. It’s only confusing you. ​

 

[JReducation]

Then perhaps Saint Paul the Apostle misspoke? Instead of saying,

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5:1-3)

don’t you think he should have wrote this instead?

Be imitators of [Jesus the man, who was also] God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Paul wrote what was revealed to him. He did not misrepresent the message. If you imitate Christ, you’re imitating God. Paul is driving home a point here. Jesus is God. Had he written it the way that you suggest, it would have implied that there are two agents at work, Jesus the man and Jesus the God.

Would you say that compassion (the emotional kind) is morally good, morally wrong, or neither moral nor immoral?

Compassion is always a moral good.

Do you also think we should not resist the emotion of compassion, either? If you do, then would you say that feeling the emotion of compassion is an example of imitating Jesus the son of man, but not of imitating Jesus the Son of God?

Again, we imitate Jesus the God-Man. We don’t follow the human Jesus. We follow Jesus, the whole person. The great spiritual masters teach us that Jesus is who he is. We cannot change him or dissect him. He take him as a whole. Because the 2nd person of the Trinity becomes human, he is the only visible image that we have of God. That’s a whole other story.

In other words, should our forgiveness be motivated by the emotion of compassion, like Jesus’ forgiveness? or should our forgiveness be motivated not by emotion, but merely by logic, like forgiveness of Spock and God the Father? Does anyone have the answer?

Don’t split so many hairs. We must forgive as Christ forgives. Christ forgives as the Father forgives. To forgive is to be compassionate. It is a choice. Did Christ feel emotions? Yes. He’s human. But forgiveness is not a choice made by emotions. It’s a choice made by conscience. The emotions are present, but they are not the agents that make the choice. The will makes the choice.

Welcome to the discussion, Nelka!

Does God forgive everyone everything, or does He only forgive some people everything? (For example, the people in Hell–are they forgiven by God, or are they the unforgiven?)

The answer is neither. God forgives those who ask for forgiveness. God does not impose his love on us. He offers it freely and we are free to accept it to reject it. Those who are in hell are not there because God did not forgive them. They are there because of the absence of repentance. God makes his forgiveness available to everyone. Not everyone accepts it.

Hell is not the absence of forgiveness, but the absence of love on the part of the individual, not on God’s part.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spockrates]

You have to remember that language evolves and meanings change according to context and even disciplines. As I always tell people, never use Webster to define theological terms. Webster has no clue what these terms mean in this context and he’s not supposed have a clue. That’s why almost every discipline also has it’s own dictionary. There are dictionaries of theology and dictionaries for the bible too, just as we have medical dictionaries and other.

I don’t think that we should use another. To do so would require that we change the original wording in scripture and theology. You have to use the original word in its context, with its original meaning.

This is what scripture scholars and spiritual theologians do. They explain the terms in their context to help people see their meaning in the context of the spiritual life.

I think I understand, but please tell me so that I might be sure: When a student of yours speaks of feeling compassion for another, do you correct him and say that compassion is *not *a feeling; it’s *only *an action?

 

[spockrates]

… Actually, it is not impossible for God to lie as in God is limited in what he can or cannot do. God does not lie, because it’s not in his nature to lie. He is truthful, because he is Truth, not because he can’t be dishonest. Whatever God does not do, is not because of a negative “he cannot”. It’s because of a positive, “he is Truth” Where there is perfect truth there is the total absence of deception. The answer is the same. Jesus is the eternal Logos (Word). The Word of God is Truth. In Truth, there is no lie. You’re breaking Jesus down again as if he were two individuals in one body. I suggest that you take Spock out of this equation. It’s only confusing you.

Yes, perhaps I am confused, but I’m grateful you are here to relieve my confusion!



I think I can see that, if compassion is *never *an emotion, and *always *an action, then Jesus does *not *feel compassion, but only acts compassionately. In this way, one might say, the Son of Man and the Son of God are the same in the way they love and forgive. For they both do so *without *the emotion that many today mistakenly call compassion. One might go so far as to say that Jesus was more like Spock then I realized! For it is impossible to feel compassion if compassion is never an emotion, but is instead an action.



Is this what you are saying?

 

[spockrates]

Paul wrote what was revealed to him. He did not misrepresent the message. If you imitate Christ, you’re imitating God. Paul is driving home a point here. Jesus is God. Had he written it the way that you suggest, it would have implied that there are two agents at work, Jesus the man and Jesus the God.

Compassion is always a moral good.

Again, we imitate Jesus the God-Man. We don’t follow the human Jesus. We follow Jesus, the whole person. The great spiritual masters teach us that Jesus is who he is. We cannot change him or dissect him. He take him as a whole. Because the 2nd person of the Trinity becomes human, he is the only visible image that we have of God. That’s a whole other story.

Don’t split so many hairs. We must forgive as Christ forgives. Christ forgives as the Father forgives. To forgive is to be compassionate. It is a choice. Did Christ feel emotions? Yes. He’s human. But forgiveness is not a choice made by emotions. It’s a choice made by conscience. The emotions are present, but they are not the agents that make the choice. The will makes the choice.

…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, that makes sense. That is, it does *if *love or compassion is *never *an emotion, but merely action. Still, I want to be sure I’m understanding you. So please let me ask you this one more time to be sure: Are you saying that it is impossible for anyone to *feel *compassion, for compassion is in no way an emotion?

 

[JReducation]

I think I understand, but please tell me so that I might be sure: When a student of yours speaks of feeling compassion for another, do you correct him and say that compassion is *not *a feeling; it’s *only *an action?

Yes, perhaps I am confused, but I’m grateful you are here to relieve my confusion!



I think I can see that, if compassion is *never *an emotion, and *always *an action, then Jesus does *not *feel compassion, but only acts compassionately. In this way, one might say, the Son of Man and the Son of God are the same in the way they love and forgive. For they both do so *without *the emotion that many today mistakenly call compassion. One might go so far as to say that Jesus was more like Spock then I realized! For it is impossible to feel compassion if compassion is never an emotion, but is instead an action.



Is this what you are saying?

Yes, that makes sense. That is, it does *if *love or compassion is *never *an emotion, but merely action. Still, I want to be sure I’m understanding you. So please let me ask you this one more time to be sure: Are you saying that it is impossible for anyone to *feel *compassion, for compassion is in no way an emotion?

I think the best way to explain this, using the masters of spiritual theology, is to say that compassion can be both: a feeling and a choice. Sometimes the choice comes without the feeling. I’ll offer a personal example.

My sister was euthanized. My brothers and I tried all the legal means at our disposal to stop the doctors and her spouse from taking off her feeding tube, her water and her antibiotics, but to no avail. Civil law said that we had no rights in the matter.

Do I have those warm fuzzy compassionate feelings toward those who killed her? No. Do I forgive them? Yes. What they did was a horrible thing. My sister died prematurely, because she was rushed to her death. Do I have the right to withhold my forgiveness? No.

I have another. Before I became a religious, I was married and the father of three children. Many years ago a man had a seizure while driving his pickup truck. He drove my wife’s car off of a bridge. My wife, my father and one of my sons were killed.

I went to the hospital to visit the man driving the pickup to see how he was recovering. When he saw me in his room he became very upset. I could tell that he was despondent. My heart broke for him. It must be a horrible feeling to live believing that you killed three people. Did I forgive him? Yes. It was an accident. It was not his fault. Did I have positive feelings for him? Yes. I could feel his sorrow, his pain and his guilt. I tried to do as much as I could for him and his family. It’s been 20-years. I still send him a card for Christmas, Father’s Day and his birthday.

Forgiveness is an act of compassion that can sometimes come with a feeling and at other times, it’s a choice that we make, even though our gut feels differently.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spockrates]

I think the best way to explain this, using the masters of spiritual theology, is to say that compassion can be both: a feeling and a choice. Sometimes the choice comes without the feeling. I’ll offer a personal example.

My sister was euthanized. My brothers and I tried all the legal means at our disposal to stop the doctors and her spouse from taking off her feeding tube, her water and her antibiotics, but to no avail. Civil law said that we had no rights in the matter.

Do I have those warm fuzzy compassionate feelings toward those who killed her? No. Do I forgive them? Yes. What they did was a horrible thing. My sister died prematurely, because she was rushed to her death. Do I have the right to withhold my forgiveness? No.

I have another. Before I became a religious, I was married and the father of three children. Many years ago a man had a seizure while driving his pickup truck. He drove my wife’s car off of a bridge. My wife, my father and one of my sons were killed.

I went to the hospital to visit the man driving the pickup to see how he was recovering. When he saw me in his room he became very upset. I could tell that he was despondent. My heart broke for him. It must be a horrible feeling to live believing that you killed three people. Did I forgive him? Yes. It was an accident. It was not his fault. Did I have positive feelings for him? Yes. I could feel his sorrow, his pain and his guilt. I tried to do as much as I could for him and his family. It’s been 20-years. I still send him a card for Christmas, Father’s Day and his birthday.

Forgiveness is an act of compassion that can sometimes come with a feeling and at other times, it’s a choice that we make, even though our gut feels differently.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for sharing those personal and painful experiences. I cannot imagine what it must be like to struggle with forgiveness in those ways, but I have struggled with forgiving in other ways.

Regarding compassion sometimes being both an emotion and an action, are you saying that it is at times an emotion and at other times not an emotion? Do you also think, for that matter, that compassion is sometimes an action and sometimes not an action? For I’m thinking that sometimes one can feel compassion, but fail to act on those feelings.

Regarding forgiveness being an act of compassion, doesn’t that mean that forgiveness is a result of compassion, rather than a kind of compassion? In other words, are you saying forgiveness is not compassion, but is an effect of compassion, and compassion is not forgiveness, but is the cause of forgiveness? I think this must be your meaning, for an act of something cannot possibly be the thing of which it is an act, and a cause of something cannot possibly be the same as its effect. So it is impossible for forgiveness to be compassion. Is this what you are saying?

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for sharing those personal and painful experiences. I cannot imagine what it must be like to struggle with forgiveness in those ways, but I have struggled with forgiving in other ways.

Regarding compassion sometimes being both an emotion and an action, are you saying that it is at times an emotion and at other times not an emotion? Do you also think, for that matter, that compassion is sometimes an action and sometimes not an action? For I’m thinking that sometimes one can feel compassion, but fail to act on those feelings.

Regarding forgiveness being an act of compassion, doesn’t that mean that forgiveness is a result of compassion, rather than a kind of compassion? In other words, are you saying forgiveness is not compassion, but is an effect of compassion, and compassion is not forgiveness, but is the cause of forgiveness? I think this must be your meaning, for an act of something cannot possibly be the thing of which it is an act, and a cause of something cannot possibly be the same as its effect. So it is impossible for forgiveness to be compassion. Is this what you are saying?

I think you’re getting my meaning. Forgiveness flows out of compassion. That being said, sometimes we can “feel” compassion and at other times, we simply behave compassionately, even though we don’t feel it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spockrates]

I think you’re getting my meaning. Forgiveness flows out of compassion. That being said, sometimes we can “feel” compassion and at other times, we simply behave compassionately, even though we don’t feel it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, thanks for getting me that far. A very strange thing is compassion, for sometimes it is what it is and other times it is what it was not! Sometimes it is a feeling, and other times it is not. Sometimes it is an act, and sometimes it is not. If someone were to ask if compassion is an action, and you answered, “Yes,” and I answered, “No,” I suppose we’d both be right. For it can be one, or the other, or both. It seems a contradiction, or perhaps it is our definition that contradicts the true nature of compassion. What Socrates said appears to apply to our dialog:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others …

(Phaedrus, 237)

For it appears I’ve contradicted you, and even myself! by saying that compassion is not an action and then saying it is, and by saying compassion is an emotion and then saying it is not. I believe that Socrates was right, and what I need is a more precise definition of compassion.

Let me illustrate this by way of a brief example: If someone asked what is the nature of H2O, and I said a liquid, and you said a solid, and someone else said a gas, we’d all be right, but none of our definitions would not be adequate to define H2O in its various states. But if someone else said that H2O is a molecule that can take the form of either a liquid, or a solid, or a gas, depending on the temperature in the area in which it resides, then that would be the definition that would be sufficient to describe H2O in all its states of being.

I think that’s what we need for compassion. For if I say it is an emotion of concern for another, and you say it is an action that meets the needs of another, we might both be right, but neither of our definitions would be adequate to define compassion in its various states. What I need is a more precise definition of compassion to better understand what it is. This way, I might better understand how to be compassionate the way Jesus is compassionate toward me, and I might better know how to forgive others the way Jesus forgives me.

So let me ask again: What precisely is compassion? There is one virtue that is compassion, so what one definition of compassion describes it in all its states of being?

 

[spockrates]

I think the best way to explain this, using the masters of spiritual theology, is to say that compassion can be both: a feeling and a choice. Sometimes the choice comes without the feeling. I’ll offer a personal example.

My sister was euthanized. My brothers and I tried all the legal means at our disposal to stop the doctors and her spouse from taking off her feeding tube, her water and her antibiotics, but to no avail. Civil law said that we had no rights in the matter.

Do I have those warm fuzzy compassionate feelings toward those who killed her? No. Do I forgive them? Yes. What they did was a horrible thing. My sister died prematurely, because she was rushed to her death. Do I have the right to withhold my forgiveness? No.

I have another. Before I became a religious, I was married and the father of three children. Many years ago a man had a seizure while driving his pickup truck. He drove my wife’s car off of a bridge. My wife, my father and one of my sons were killed.

I went to the hospital to visit the man driving the pickup to see how he was recovering. When he saw me in his room he became very upset. I could tell that he was despondent. My heart broke for him. It must be a horrible feeling to live believing that you killed three people. Did I forgive him? Yes. It was an accident. It was not his fault. Did I have positive feelings for him? Yes. I could feel his sorrow, his pain and his guilt. I tried to do as much as I could for him and his family. It’s been 20-years. I still send him a card for Christmas, Father’s Day and his birthday.

Forgiveness is an act of compassion that can sometimes come with a feeling and at other times, it’s a choice that we make, even though our gut feels differently.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I don’t want to overlook your applicable examples, but also don’t want to make you uncomfortable by asking you to talk about them. If you are willing to talk about them, I think I might learn a lot from your experiences. I’ve been thinking about them, and I think that in the latter example I can see a good, moral and biblical reason to forgive. For you say, “Did I forgive him? Yes. It was an accident. It was not his fault.”

It seems, then that one reason that demands that I forgive would be the knowledge that the one who wronged me was not culpable for his actions. This seems to be a similar reason for Jesus’ act of forgiveness during His crucifixion:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

(Luke 23:34)

The Roman executioners were forgiven. Why? Because they did not know that what they were doing was wrong. They thought Jesus was a criminal deserving His punishment, not the Son of God. They were not responsible for their actions.

---

However, in the former example you gave, I’m not as sure about the reason why you forgave. If it is not too painful and if you don’t mind, please tell me the reason you forgave the ones responsible for your sister’s death. Also please tell me who you forgave (was it a spouse of your sister who wanted this?) and in what ways (by thought, word, or deed) you forgave those who allowed her to die.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t want to overlook your applicable examples, but also don’t want to make you uncomfortable by asking you to talk about them. If you are willing to talk about them, I think I might learn a lot from your experiences. I’ve been thinking about them, and I think that in the latter example I can see a good, moral and biblical reason to forgive. For you say, “Did I forgive him? Yes. It was an accident. It was not his fault.”

It seems, then that one reason that demands that I forgive would be the knowledge that the one who wronged me was not culpable for his actions. This seems to be a similar reason for Jesus’ act of forgiveness during His crucifixion:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

(Luke 23:34)

The Roman executioners were forgiven. Why? Because they did not know that what they were doing was wrong. They thought Jesus was a criminal deserving His punishment, not the Son of God. They were not responsible for their actions.

---

However, in the former example you gave, I’m not as sure about the reason why you forgave. If it is not too painful and if you don’t mind, please tell me the reason you forgave the ones responsible for your sister’s death. Also please tell me who you forgave (was it a spouse of your sister who wanted this?) and in what ways (by thought, word, or deed) you forgave those who allowed her to die.

The reason to forgive someone who has harmed us or harmed a loved one is very easy, obedience. We live in obedience of the Gospel. The Gospel commands us to forgive. It commands us to wish for another what we wish for ourselves. What are those things that we wish for ourselves: peace, happiness, prosperity, forgiveness from God, health, success in our endeavors and protection from evil.

Your turn to the Immaculate Heart of Mary who loved without selfishness, without resentment, without complaints and you pray that God will grant you the grace to love as she loves and to give as she gives. Forgiveness, in this situation begins with praying for yourself. You must pray for the grace to be generous with your forgiveness and conservative with your condemnation. From there, you move to the next step. You don’t forget the harm done, becuase that’s simply impossible, but you pray for the person who did the harm. You pray that he or she may realized the mistake and receive the grace to ask for forgiveness form God, not from us. Finally, the last thing that you do is not to hold it against the person. You’re available to the person.

Our Holy Father Francis said that when someone sins against you, you must stay close to that person. To put distance between you and the person not charity and is not forgiveness. He said that the real act of forgiveness was exemplified by Jesus. He comes back to those who had abandoned him and he remains with us. That’s is how we must forgive and show forgiveness. We do not have to sanctify a harm. But we must not let a harm done to us become a barrier that obstructs charity. Francis realized that this was a very uncomfortable thing to do, but necessary if we were going to be like Christ and his mother.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF