Forgiveness is indeed difficult: we sometimes cherish our greviences, even nurturing them. We stew and obsess over wrongs committed years ago, often wrongs which are petty or stupid. But not petty or stupid to us, even years later. How often do we hear about family members who go years without speaking over some slight, which is not even remembered in detail?

We need to forgive not just for the sake of the other person, but for our own sake. Perhaps this is how we most become like God, when we forgive, when we can leap beyond our humanity and catch a glimpse of God and his mercy.

Mark is correct, all this obsession with pelvic issues sidetracks us from loving each other and forgiving each other.
In some respects, Catholicism in the US combines the worst of Catholicism and Puritanism, a toxic brew that warped and scalded many people [ditto for Ireland]. We need to move beyond it.

Traditionally Catholicism makes the connection between mercy and justice. The two are intertwined. There cannot be mercy without justice. To forgive a criminal is one thing but to allow him to run free is not being merciful. The Lord shows mercy so that we amend our sinful ways but after death his justice has to also be satisfied. The sin today is not one of despair of the Lord's forgiveness but of presumption in that anything will be forgiven without any repentance on our part.

God forgives unconditionally and asks us to try to do the same. God and a just society also require restitution. If everyone is forgiven sin then why does Hell exist? God determines the degree of culpability or ignorance in a matter. That is why the most wonderful Sacrament of Confession is so important in that if we repent and try to amend our ways, we know with certainty that Hell will not be our final destination.

It appears that you use the terms mercy and forgiveness interchangeably but I don't believe they are synonymous. More to the point, it is not clear that mercy is appropriately applied to the unrepentant. If that were so, how do we makes sense of these?

Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him (Catechism, 1422) Doesn't this imply that those who don't repent don't obtain pardon, that is, their sins are not forgiven?

To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. (CCC 1847) This and any number of other quotes tie mercy and forgiveness to contrition and repentance; do we proclaim that the former are obtainable without the latter?

There can be no reconciliation unless these attitudes of conversion come first... This is a first value of penance and it extends into a second: penance also means repentance. (Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, JPII) This clearly states that reconciliation with God requires repentance and it surely seems that this reconciliation is necessary if we are even to hope for his forgiveness and mercy ... and if God requires repentance doesn't that imply that we should too?

I would really like to understand whether mercy is appropriately applied to the unrepentant, and if it is then I need to have explained the necessity of penance (not to mention the existence of hell).

It is not about any claim that mercy means "letting criminals run free".

It is not about a claim that there is no Hell.

It is not about a claim that repentance is unnecessary for receiving forgiveness.

This article is strictly and solely about the command given to those who have been sinned against to love their enemies and extend mercy to those enemies *while they are still enemies*.

All the above claims are things readers are supplying from their imagination, not things I said.

The requirement on the part of the sinner is to seek and obtain the mercy of God and in order to do so he is most likely required to seek the forgiveness of the one offended or wronged. Restitution is then the next component as the means toward restoration.

This may or may not be possible in the literal sense and punishment is meant as the means of restoring the person - in a sense - penance - for the action that offended or harmed the other.

As for the victim or one offended, he is required to extend forgiveness to the sinner or actor per the Biblical mandate and as an extension of the Mercy and Grace of God.

If both of these events occur, there is a restoration of the relationship and a means for the flow of grace from God to resume or increase (depending on the nature of the offense).

Our obligation to forgive is so as to reflect the Divine command to love one another as Jesus loved us. As sinners though we must seek His forgiveness in order for the relationship to be restored. This notion of relationship is critical. It is why Christ instructs us that prior to offering out gift at the altar to reconcile with one we have offended or who has offended us.

None of this defeats the virtue of justice which must be honored. Indeed the person who has done wrong and knows it in his heart wants true justice to be done. It is then that the mercy of God intervenes to raise up the penitent and restore him to the place God intended.

One sees this scenario played out quite powerfully with people who are dealing with post abortion situations. The sacraments become powerful means allowing the person to act through the pain, the suffering, the mercy, the penance, the reconciliation and bring about the restoration for those who acted against charity.

The problem today as Mark notes is that people will not admit that there is sin or that they commit sin. As a result everyone is a victim. The history of the criminal justice system was originally based upon a Catholic understanding of crime and punishment. We would be well suited to return to such an understanding.

I understand that we are commanded to forgive one another. I understand that we are commanded to be merciful. What I don't fully understand is whether we are commanded to be merciful to the unrepentant.

I can believe that we should forgive even the unrepentant as forgiveness allows us to give up our resentments and is at least a benefit to us, but I am not at all convinced that it is appropriate to show mercy to the unrepentant. That's what I was asking you. The response I'm looking for is Yes, No, or Beats Me.

Hard to say until I know what you think "merciful" means. Both Jesus and St. Stephen prayed that God would not hold their impenitent murderers' sins against them. That looks a lot like extending mercy and forgiveness to the impenitent to me. It leaves the final judgement in God's hands, which is pretty much what I take "showing mercy" to mean. "For my part, I forgive you." seems to sum it up. That makes no presumption to know the mind of God, but it rejects the idea of being held hostage to bitterness by the sin of the impenitent sinner for the rest of my life. One is left free to follow God rather than left in chains of rage at the wrong done in the past.

"...we are a culture that only has "mercy" on people who "couldn't help it" or "didn't know any better." The problem is, that's not mercy, because allowing for weakness, ignorance, or some other excuse is not mercy. It's excusing."

When Our Lord prayed, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He being merciful or excusing?

Increasingly, we are a culture that only has "mercy" on people who "couldn't help it" or "didn't know any better."

As a culture we seem not only to have forgotten the meaning of the word mercy but have also forgotten that having pity for those souls poorer than us is something we should strive for. Those poor souls may include those of our enemies.

I think part of the problem is that people confuse the idea of "punishment" with that of "justice". Punishment involves measuring the amount of harm done to the victim and them meting out a roughly equal measure to the perpetrator as a way to deter him from further wrongdoing and bring about repentence. Justice involves the balancing of accounts by which the perpetrator acknowledges the extent of the harm done to the victim. The two are similar, in the sense that the attempt is to bring about a balancing of accounts, but they are not equal. Repentence allows justice to occur without the necessity of punishment, wheras punishment applied without discernment can become vindictive and therefore lacking justice. What this beatitude seems to be saying is that one need not wait for repentence in order to practice mercy, that mercy itself can create repentence and thus avoid punishment altogether, which often provides a ready and willing occasion of sin.

As for the person who asked about "why then does hell exist?" Many people are stuck on this idea that hell is a punishment. Hell is not a punishment, but rather its the natural consequence of a choice, the way smashing your head on a pile of rocks is a consequence of jumping off a cliff without a parachute. Punishment by definition is temporary, its the temporary application of pain or discomfort for the purpose of repentence and deterrence. If you're in hell, there's nothing to deter you from, because there is no way to get out of hell.

When Our Lord prayed, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He being merciful or excusing?

Yes. The murder of Jesus involved both people who acted in innocence (soldiers who were simply carrying out execution orders) and people whose pride had made them wilfully blind to the evil they were committing. The prayer encompasses both sorts of people.

Yes. The murder of Jesus involved both people who acted in innocence (soldiers who were simply carrying out execution orders) and people whose pride had made them wilfully blind to the evil they were committing. The prayer encompasses both sorts of people.

Since the innocent are not properly the subject of forgiveness, your answer, given the weight of your article's opening paragraph, does not seem to address my question.

When Our Lord prayed, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He being merciful or excusing?

since the passage in question is not intended as a legal treatise, a philosophical syllogism or a Thomistic definition, but as a general prayer of forgiveness for all concerned in the murder of Jesus (basically, all humans who have ever been or will ever be conceived) my guess is that looking to it as a commentary on this essay is probably not going to help much. Square peg. Round hole.

Where, in a practical sense, does forgiveness fit it with prudence and responsibility. In the example you gave, torturing a cat ought to merit a call to the SPCA. Or someone with a history of abuse ought not to be allowed to babysit. You have to make this an intellectual exercise on your own, and doing that whilst still exercising some prudence in protecting your neighbour's cat or your own kids etc. can be a bit of a tightrope. You might forgive a cheque forger, but you still ought not let him keep the books for your business.

Forgiveness does not mean "abandonment of prudence and common sense". One may forgive a criminal and still testify against him, giving facts which might lead to his jailing and even execution. Forgiveness does not mean lying to ourselves or others about what has, in fact, occurred. Nor does it mean trusting people who have given us no cause to trust them.

Mr. Shea - I have no special definition of mercy; the one Merriam-Webster gives is fine with me. The only thing I (and M-W) won't accept is that it means the same as forgiveness. I have already said I can accept the need to forgive the unrepentant, precisely - as you stated - because it frees us from "being held hostage to bitterness." Since I see forgiveness and mercy as two different things however I am left unsatisfied by your explanation that "showing mercy mean[s] 'For my part, I forgive you.'"

I still have no explanation for the Catechism statement that: "To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults." Nor of this:

Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "this movement of the mind" (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant." (Aquinas, ST II/II 30,3)

... which seems to be saying that for mercy to be reasonable, justice must be safeguarded - which happens when we forgive the repentant. By implication this would seem to say that justice is thwarted when mercy is applied to the unrepentant ... and that it is therefore inappropriate to do so.

Mr. Shea, thank you for your insights. The disparity between the approach of the modern world to sin and that of the Catholic Church has never been made so clear for me.

May God continue to bless you in your writing and your quest for truth.

Ender said:
'The only thing I (and M-W) won't accept is that it means the same as forgiveness. I have already said I can accept the need to forgive the unrepentant, precisely - as you stated - because it frees us from "being held hostage to bitterness."'

Replace "unrepentant" with "repentant" in the statement of yours that I quoted, and then you have a statement that makes sense.

The problem is that what you're talking about isn't forgiveness. Forgiving the unrepentant isn't allowed. That is one reason why Jesus and St Steven asked the Father to forgive them, since they would be with the Father and not on earth by the time those who had killed them realized their mistake. Their killers would do their penance later for God and his Church.

This feeds into Ray's question:
"When Our Lord prayed, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He being merciful or excusing?"

The answer is neither. Without naming names, Jesus was making a distinction between those who were deliberate sons of satan (the selfish liars and murderers he condemned earlier) and those who were cluelessly riding the torrent. The implication in the qualifier: "for they know not what they do..." is that there were others who knew what they were doing. Thus Jesus identifies that there are sins that can be forgiven, and sins that cannot be forgiven (those against God).

In Acts, we see examples of the fullfillment of both God's forgiveness for the rams that were clueless bandwagoneers, but who had repented after being pointedly convicted by the Spirit, and of the condemnation reserved for those who were to be struck down in death. Death in Christ, and death apart from Christ.

I'm not a theologian, but:

M. Shea is not so much claiming that mercy and forgiveness are synonymous, but rather that they are closely related, which is true. Mercy can be expressed in many ways - forgiving sinners is just one of them. It is in this context that Jesus's commands must be understood:

Be merciful and receive mercy - Forgive and be forgiven.

Remember the spiritual works of mercy include admonishing sinners, instructing the un-informed, counselling the doubtful, comforting the sorrowful, being patient with thouse in error, FORGIVING OFFENCES, praying for the living and the dead.

Remember also that mercy is the greatest of God's attributes for it is his mercy that gives life to his love (and forgiveness) and shape to his justice. Much of God's justice (pain, suffering, purgatory etc.) is an expression of his mercy which brings us closer to him.

And as for the need to repent - given the unfathomable nature of God's mercy, those who repent WILL be forgiven (that we know ... those who do not repent may be forgiven, but no guarantees ... If we forgive others [no conditions], God WILL forgive us; if we do not ...

Dear Ender:

I understand your question entirely.

You said:

Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "this movement of the mind" (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant." (Aquinas, ST II/II 30,3)

... which seems to be saying that for mercy to be reasonable, justice must be safeguarded - which happens when we forgive the repentant. By implication this would seem to say that justice is thwarted when mercy is applied to the unrepentant ... and that it is therefore inappropriate to do so.


My advice is that you don't lose yourself in safeguarding justice. That trap is avoided by merely accepting in advance that sometimes you will violate perfect justice by extending at least some slight mercy or slight help in being generous, even when the receiver is absolutely unrepentant and scamming you a bit. You must accept in advance that you will sometimes be scammed. The unrepentant may never see your being generous as anything other than an opportunity for continued scamming. Then again they might. But you will save yourself from a lifetime of having a hard heart.

I have been fortunate to have learned this from Father Benedict Groeschel. He has spoken and written on this topic often. You may want to read his book on living the Beatitudes entitled "Receiving the Blessings Longed For". The topics I describe are covered in the chapters an living mercifully and seeking justice.

It is prudent to safeguard yourself from the unrepentant. I have experienced this need myself. But to be merciful and forgiving requires leaving the door open for the unrepentant to repent themselves. And you can never truthfully know the complete mind of another, so you cannot be their judge or arbiter of whether that person is completely unrepentant or not. Only God can do that. Don't even try. Just accept the fact that
you yourself, will never achieve perfect justice in your life. It's rather liberating. Then you can move forward.

Peace.

Thank you for your response. Since I am not so much articulating my position on whether mercy should be extended to the unrepentant as I am trying to discern whether or not it is appropriate to do so, your comment is welcome.

One of the things I have noticed in several posts (yours included) is an attitude toward justice that seems just a bit dismissive. As the foremost of the four cardinal virtues I really think it deserves a bit more respect; it was, after all, St. Augustine who added the caveat that justice is to be safeguarded when mercy is granted, and St. Thomas certainly had a high opinion of it: If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person.

I have tried to discover the answer to this question before but have found nothing definitive; those things I have found, however, tend to reinforce the idea that mercy should in fact not be granted to the unrepentant. If my understanding is mistaken then I need to be corrected. I'm open to the evidence if someone can find it.

Ender:

You (and everyone you're listening to) are still associating forgiveness with what should be regarded as shaking the dust from one's feet, or foot washing. So long as you people confuse these things, you will continue fruitlessly looking for reasons to justify mercy for the unrepentant.

Mercy is given in forgiveness, and forgiveness, as I explained earlier, is the product of repentance. In the assignment of penance, both justice and mercy should be satisfied. The satisfaction of justice ensures that the victim is appropriately compensated for any harm done and the offender (or prospective offender) is appropriately disuaded from committing the same sin. Mercy ensures that the punnishment given (if any) not be inappropriate to the offense, and that the recompense asked for not be overly burdensome.

Note that this is sacramental. The command to extend mercy and forgiveness means that we should always leave the door open. However, the sinner must enter on his own initiative, which sometimes can only be accomplished through the grace of conviction. Sometimes even Grace is ineffective, in which case there is nothing that anyone can do. That is why the wall exists.