From the Gospel according to Luke:
Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us."
The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me, when you come into your kingdom."
He replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise"
Not how I intended to return but an article in today's Pillar finally gave me the push.
The above passage of scripture is worth a thought for a few moments. If we truly believe that Christ was the Son of God and voluntarily gave his life for the forgiveness of our sins, you have to come to the conclusion that Christ--in foreseeing his crucifixion--chose to die on the cross. In other words, while He was on the Cross, Christ could have come down from it an any time if he chose, the implication being that He was in full command of His divine powers.
So when the penitent thief said his piece why didn't Christ let him down off the Cross? The guy clearly had expressed repentance of his acts and acknowledged the justice of his punishment. Why wasn't Christ "merciful"to him? It's an interesting thing to ponder since Christ could have miraculously lowered him from the Cross, healed his wounds and sent him on his way. After all, isn't that what Mercy's about?
And yet He didn't.
He let the good thief die next to him.
Now, I can't explain Christ's motivations for his course of action but I can observe the following facts:
1) Christ retained the power to do pretty much anything he liked while on the Cross.
2) The criminal was repentant and by his own admission was punished justly.
3) Christ assured him a place in paradise.
4) Christ did not in any way avert or mitigate his punishment even though he had the power to do so.
What we see here is that at a bare minimum Christ did not interfere in the Roman judicial process even though the thief was repentant. Now, I wouldn't draw a broad principle from this instance but it does give you something to think about.
I turn now to C.S. Lewis, who in writing about repentance wrote:
If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian.....Notice what both Lewis and the Good thief are asserting is the rightness of justice in their act of repentance. It's one of the reasons why people, when they are truly sorry for something, try to make it right. There is a sense that the natural order needs to be restored at least in some way.
That's why today's Pillar article was profoundly disturbing.
As he is recovering from bronchitis, Pope Francis did not read his prepared speech, but instead handed it over to be read afterwards.
“Those who work at the Holy See and the Vatican City State certainly do so faithfully and honestly,” the Pope's speech read, “but the lure of corruption is so dangerous that we must be extremely vigilant.”
“I know you dedicate much time to this,” the Pope added, stressing the need to balance “absolute transparency in every action” with “merciful discretion”, since scandals “serve more to fill the pages of the newspapers than to correct behaviour in depth.”[ED]
“in addition to this,” the Pope concluded, “I invite you to help those responsible for the administration of the Holy See's assets to create safeguards that can prevent, ‘upstream’, the insidiousness of corruption from materializing.”
As one of the commentators in the Pillar stated:
I'm struggling to find a generous, positive reading of this directive.
Replace "financial corruption" with "sexual abuse" and then try arguing that this is defensible.
Bingo.
What has happened in the broader Catholic Catholic culture has been the erosion in the value of other virtues such as prudence and justice and the elevation of Mercy to supreme virtue. For Francis, and for many senior clerics, what matters is the conversion of the sinner. No matter what the consequences are for their victim or the institution. In real life with this approach is that you lose a hundred to save one, and even that is not guaranteed. Furthermore, forgiveness without repentance --despite being theologically dodgy--is just a license to sin.
Now I understand that media sensationalism is par for the course when it comes to reporting Church affairs but it was also media sensationalism that bought to light the years of sexual abuse that wasn't being dealt with. The line between merciful discretion and cover-up is one that can be mis-stepped, misused and misinterpreted quite easily. Some institutions need to be inherently transparent due to the nature of their mission. Opacity has not helped the Catholic Church.
Part of the reason I have not been writing as much over the past few years is that I've been trying to understand what has led to the current situation. And I'm of the opinion that Christian faith is seriously compromised by a malignant form of pseudo-Augustinianism that masquerades as orthodoxy and has gained ascendancy. Much like in Arian days, the senior clergy seem to have become infected by this heresy and it is the laity despite all their faults that are more legitimately orthodox.
7 comments:
It is not only the Church but the entire Western civilization. When some future historian asks "What was the alibi to destroy the Western civilization?", the answer will be "Mercy, compassion".
Every civilizational rule has somebody who suffers because this rule is applied. So, if you want to destroy a rule, you find these people and make a public show of it: "Don't you see how they suffer? Why are you such a meanie that want people to suffer because of this old rule? Look at me! I am more merciful and human than you".
Every "social justice movement" has been based on this template.
Another example from Christ's life that needs to be considered alongside that of the thief on the cross is that of the woman who was brought before him after being caught in the act of adultery. When he was asked to judge her, he said to let those without sin cast the first stone. Couple this with John 3:17, where he says he did not come to condemn, but to save, and it should be readily apparent that Christ's ministry was a ministry of mercy, not of justice. Consequently, it is the work of the church to carry out this ministry of mercy. There are certainly entities on this earth that are given the authority of carrying out justice (in particular, all the various states, cf. Romans 13).
The problem, in my opinion, is that people do not understand two very important principles of justice. The first principle is that the church is to be focused on mercy and reform. Therefore, those who seek justice for wrongs perpetrated against them, even when the perpetrator is the church, should not go to the church for justice, but rather the state. If a priest abuses a child, the parents should file a police report and press charges, not talk to a bishop. The church is not generally intended to dispense justice, and should not be the first recourse of justice for those who seek it. The church, like Christ, must be about the Father's business, and his business is mercy.
The second principle is, to put it more broadly, that the failure of a proper authority does not impose an obligation on an improper authority. We understand this intuitively in minor matters; if one had, say, a warranty claim denied by one manufacturer, one wouldn't go to another manufacturer in an attempt to get satisfaction. In the same vein, if the authorities entrusted with the duty of justice cannot or will not provide it, it doesn't fall to the church to provide it. If the state can't or won't investigate and prosecute crimes properly, then the state must be made to do so, not the church.
That said, the church absolutely has an obligation to oversee, to the extent possible, that those in it's employ conduct themselves honorably and in full accordance with the law. The church should also cooperate with all external investigations of wrongdoing, insofar as it doesn't conflict with the laws of God (particularly the seal of confession).But Pope Francis is perfectly and theologically correct in asserting that the primary concern of the church is the reformation of the soul and reconciling the soul to God. There are already many legitimate authorities of justice on this earth, none of which have the responsibility of reconciling man to God. Asking the church to focus on the one part of it's mission that no other entity has the authority to pursue in order to do what is the rightful obligation of another is simply foolishness. The church is our only avenue of God's mercy, why therefore would want to compromise it?
@Andrew
Pope Francis is perfectly and theologically correct in asserting that the primary concern of the church is the reformation of the soul and reconciling the soul to God.
But what about the victims. What duty does the Pope or the Church have to them?
or does Christian Charity stop at the sinner?
To answer your question, the church has no duty to victims, or perpetrators for that matter. The church's only duty is to Christ. Moreover, the sinner-victim distinction is a distinction without a difference because, as Saint Paul tells us, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And since the consequences of sin impact everyone, each human is simultaneously a victim and a perpetrator. Since God's desire is that each soul be saved (John 3:13-17) and since there is no salvation through the law (Romans 3 and 4), salvation this comes to many by the mercy of Christ, who reconciles sinners to God. The work of Christ's church, therefore, is the reconciliation of of souls. It is not, and never has been, the avenging of victims. The church certainly can and should console the victims of sin, as a work of reconciliation, but the church, like Christ, has a mission of mercy, not vengeance. Indeed, the entire epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans is a discourse on this exact subject.
To answer your question, the church has no duty to victims, or perpetrators for that matter. The church's only duty is to Christ. Moreover, the sinner-victim distinction is a distinction without a difference because, as Saint Paul tells us, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
It's the logic that enabled all of the sexual abuse. Are you seriously telling me that the God does not make any distinction between the innocent child and the rapist, since "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God?" Are you saying that the Christian religion states that both are of equal moral status?
The church certainly can and should console the victims of sin, as a work of reconciliation, but the church, like Christ, has a mission of mercy,
Why, when just above you say that Church has no duty to victims?
What kind of Mercy is it that provides succor to the victims but no means to prevent them from being violated again?
The issue I see here is reduction of notion of Christian love i.e. Caritas to a simplistic understanding of mercy. Caritas is much bigger than Mercy.
First of all you’re back, hooray!
Second and to the article, one point, He gave the thief something better, He explicitly told him he would be with him in paradise that very day. “Would you like a few more years trundling around 1st Palestine or Heaven?” That’s a no brainer, I shouldn’t even have to say it.
Thanks Hoyos.
Post a Comment