For Catholics, repentence and subsequent forgiveness is a very important part of spiritual life. It’s a sacrament, literally! But their emphasis is on the penance, what you do to make it up to the person you wronged. Often, the penance is simply prayer, which used to confuse me: for me that was a punishment, but shouldn’t you like praying? I also found that the people giving out forgiveness were not the people wronged in the first place. While I’m sure God was offended by my inability to care about Church in general, the things I used to confess were wrongs done to people, not supernatural beings. And having a priest tell me that, after 3 Hail Marys, I could pretend it had never happened never seemed right. If I wronged a classmate, I should have to approach that classmate and ask for forgiveness, and accept whatever penance the classmate wants to dole out, before pretending it never happened.
I know very little about the beliefs of the Amish, but I read this today & it struck me how badly Catholics approach forgiveness. And how beautiful the Amish approach is.
11 responses so far ↓
1 CBiden // Feb 25, 2007 at 1:12 am
Your take on the sacrament of reconciliation is mistaken. Its purpose is to repair the rupture that sin has caused between God and the penitant. Sin is an offense against God. The fact that sin may also have concrete effects in the natural world is self evident but the primary effect of sin is that it breaks the union between God and the sinner and is a restoration to full communion with the Church. True contrition will result in a sincere effort to amend one’s life, which may include reparation to the ones we have harmed, but such acts are not demanded by the Church, as a quid pro quo for forgiveness. The Church makes it very clear “Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.”
2 Miko // Feb 25, 2007 at 10:50 am
It may eventually make it clear, when one studies the Catholic scholars’ takes on the various sacraments, but when going through the sacrament of reconciliation, there is no such explanation for a child. The age of reason apparently doesn’t mean that one can be trusted with the truth.
3 John // Feb 25, 2007 at 8:38 pm
It seems that there is often a disconnect between some of the more elegant explanations for various relgious practices and doctrines and the day-to-day, lived teaching, implementation and experience of the same.
Miko, have you heard of the Amish rite of Rumspringa? It’s when Amish kids (mostly 15-17) are allowed to go off into the world. Most sow their wild oats and then return to the fold. The communities are starting to run into problems as more and more youth get involved with meth use and dealing. The insulated Amish society is colliding more and more with this corrupt world, and Amish justice/forgiveness is starting to receive criticism from others.
This is something that I struggle with as an someone who cares about the implementation of the highest ideals in imperfect human societies–something that religion has struggled with for millenia.
4 Miko // Feb 26, 2007 at 11:59 am
I’ve heard of the practice, though if someone dropped the word in a conversation, I wouldn’t make the connection. I also have not heard about the meth aspect. I think that forgiveness is more complex than the Amish may treat it, but certainly less complex than Catholics make it. I respect the Amish community for being their own law, for addressing the rift that causes crime, rather than the rift caused by crime. I know I’ve read of certain First Nations who have similar policies, but don’t have the links to substantiate that right now.
5 CBiden // Feb 26, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Forgiveness is as complex as you make it. It is, however, different from repentance. Forgiveness is from the injured.
6 nee // Feb 26, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Repentance as it relates to deity is another example of the strangeness of religion. Put tritely, it is deity saying (at least where Christianity is concerned):
“I’m going to make a world in which you will screw up. I plan on you doing so. And when you do, I shall consider it an offense to me. How dare you trip over the block I enabled to be put in your path? Since you will screw up, I will create the means by which you can be redeemed. For I will create the punishment for your offense to me and I will create the solution. You will use my method because you only exist for my pleasure and I demand it. If you opt not to, prepare to burn.”
I was at a Unity service a few weeks ago where the pastor said “sin” stands for “Self Inflicted Nonsense”. hear, hear.
7 Miko // Feb 27, 2007 at 8:35 am
lol! I like that. I’m all for forgiveness from the person wronged, but “healing a rift” between me & god that I’m not even aware of? That’s bizarre to me.
8 CBiden // Feb 27, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“While I‚Äôm sure God was offended by my inability to care about Church in general…”
Why?
9 Miko // Feb 28, 2007 at 10:05 am
oh, mostly because I don’t believe in a personal god
10 CBiden // Mar 10, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Then why was “God” offended? If “God” does not exist, your statement is either meaningless or silly. Sorry, if I sound harsh, but logically a non-existant entity cannot be offended. And I’m not sure what you mean by a personal god. Regardless of whether you think it’s bizarre or not, the “system” of penance in the Catholic church is as I described it, and makes sense within that system.
11 Miko // Mar 11, 2007 at 9:33 am
Perhaps it was god in the form forced upon me by all the people around me. It can be a palpable presence as child, until you realize it has been created by your betters for their own purposes.
I am also not entirely certain that penance even makes sense within the religion in question. Certainly better minds than mine have had issues with it long before 2007. But many of the so-called logical arguments made by Catholics in defense of (apology for?) their faith only make sense if you suspend logic the way they do. Reading Aquinas was painful for me because he made logical jumps in the exact opposite direction than I did. Only if one thinks the way a Catholic is supposed to think do these arguments make sense. The moment a fragment of doubt is introduced, the whole system falls apart.
Which is unfortunate for anyone who has ever had a fragment of doubt.
Leave a Comment