By Noeticos

Beginning with chapter 5 of Matthew’s gospel, the Lord Jesus delivered the “Sermon on the Mount” which would escalate the moral expectations of God’s people.  The Law that was given to Moses was to be internalized and lived in a manner of perfection that would require the assistance of God’s grace.  Sin was condemned unequivocally, and yet on more that one occasion Jesus’ compassion for sinners scandalized the religious leaders of His day (see Mk. 2: 13-17).  This notion of viewing sin as unacceptable while showing such compassion for sinners themselves leads us to a natural tension that has plagued the ethics of believers for centuries. 

During the era of Christendom in Europe the governments of the various “Christian Kingdoms” sought to enforce Christian morality with the use of civil authority.  While the results of these attempts often left much to be desired, modern historians have been far too eager to illustrate the coercive and sometimes brutal methods that were employed in these attempts.  Setting aside the blatant bias of most early historians in the English speaking world (most were part of the church of England and quite enthusiastic about embarrassing the Catholic World), we can not be so naïve as to assume that no aspects of these accusations were true.  The ruling kings and emperors of this era on some occasions fell into the error of equating the sin with the sinner, to oppose one was to oppose the other.  Our modern world has become quite sensitive to these notions of abuses and in trying to correct them I believe that we have fallen into the same error.

In our modern western society we cherish notions of freedom and liberty and rightfully so.  Efforts have been strenuously made to restrict the use of coercive pressure upon individuals and laws have been fashioned to guarantee religious freedom to all.  In this society it would be “unconstitutional” for someone to be looked down upon or punished for holding a dissent religious or moral belief.  Such an attitude could be expressed in such a fashion: “It’s a free country, who are we to judge, right?”  My concern here is not with the political system, it is a concern that our cherished American beliefs have led us into thinking as moral relativists.  We are now living in a society in which criticism of certain behaviors is considered slander against individuals or groups.  To declare any action of another to be a sin could easily have you labeled as being “judgmental”, “intolerant”, or even guilty of hate crimes.  To attack the sin is now considered to be an attack upon the sinner, we have made the error of equating the sin with the sinner, this is the same error in the opposite direction.       

As Christians we are called to hate sin and love the sinner.  This is no easy task.  How do we love someone and affirm his human dignity without giving implied consent to sinful behavior?  How do we speak against evil acts without judging the individuals who commit them?  While we may return to this subject again, for now I recommend that we keep two things in mind.  1)  We must clearly distinguish between people and their actions.  While we may be able to say that stealing is sinful, we can not see into the heart of the thief and judge the state of his soul.  2) Pray, a lot.  Pray for wisdom and guidance in such matters and always pray for those whose actions we can not approve.  Blessed Theresa of Calcutta would say that we should never correct another without first doing penance to that person.  Have a blessed Easter. 

Image: from http://www.wga.hu/index.html; Matthias Grünewald, The Crucifixion, 1523-24, Oil on wood, 193 x 152,5 cm, Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe.