Episode 43: Year A – 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on one apologetical topic. We will be focusing on our duty to forgive offenses committed against us.
Speaker 1:
This is the Sunday Catholic Word, a production of Catholic Answers, the only podcast to look at the Sunday mass readings from an apologetic’s perspective.
Karlo Broussard:
Hey, everyone. Welcome back to the Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith. I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers and the host for this podcast.
In this episode, we’re going to focus on one theme, forgiveness, and in particular, our duty to forgive our neighbor’s offenses against us. It’s found in the first reading taken from Sirach 27:30 through 28:7, and the gospel reading, taken from Matthew 18:21-35. In Sirach, the author states, “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.” Jesus echoes this teaching in his Parable of the Wicked Servant in Matthew 18:21-35, which, recall, after being forgiven of his debt, chooses not to forgive those who owed him and thereby is thrown into prison. Jesus concludes in the gospel, “My heavenly Father will do to you unless each of you forgive your brother from your heart.” This parable is given by Jesus in response to Peter’s question, “How often must I forgive my brother if he sins against me?”
Now, this theme of our duty to forgive others is not really an apologetic topic per se, but there are certain misconceptions that surround this duty that justifies the need to talk about it within apologetical discussions. One such misconception is that I must extend unconditional forgiveness to my neighbor. That’s to say, I must forgive even if he doesn’t repent. As Jesus says, so it’s reasoned, “Unless we forgive others, the Father will not forgive me.” But the question is, what do we mean by forgive? Well, there are two views or meanings that we could ascribe. If by forgive, we mean that we should no longer be angry at our offender and have positive feelings, well then, of course, we don’t have to “forgive” when someone doesn’t ask for our forgiveness. My colleague and good friend Jimmy Akin here at Catholic Answers calls this view the feelings-based view of forgiveness in his article, The Limits of Forgiveness, which you can check out at catholic.com.
Now, here’s one reason why we don’t have to forgive our unrepentant neighbor on this view, that which justifies the anger and lack of positive feelings, namely the offense, remains when someone doesn’t repent. I repeat, that which justifies anger and lack of positive feelings, namely the offense, remains when someone doesn’t repent. This being the case, if the offense is present, then the anger is still justified and thereby doesn’t have to be overcome. Remember, anger is not sinful in and of itself. There is righteous or just and unrighteous or unjust anger. Whenever there is an offense, anger at that offense is justified. When the offender does not repent, the offense remains, and so the anger is still thereby justified.
So for this reason, that which justifies the anger remains, one would not need to extend unconditional forgiveness, that is to say forgive the offender even though the offender does not repent, because the question that we’re considering here is, does Jesus’s teaching about forgiveness involve an unconditional forgiveness, that involves extending forgiveness even though our offender does not repent? That’s the question that is raised with this teaching of Jesus, which many have considered.
Now, another reason why we don’t have to forgive on this feelings-based view is because God wouldn’t ask us to control something that’s not subject to our control. We can’t control having emotions. We can only manage or influence them. When someone offends me, I can’t, in the words of Jimmy, “reach into myself and flip a switch that causes the anger to vanish and be replaced by rosy feelings.” That was well put by Jimmy there. And then Jimmy goes on to note, “We can only try to manage the anger by focusing on other things.” So for example, if somebody offends me, I might shift my focus to think about how the offense maybe wasn’t as bad as I thought, or I might shift my focus to the good that God might bring about from my experience of being offended by the person, or I might focus on the lesson I could learn from the experience. So those are things I might focus on to try and manage and influence the emotions that I’m experiencing based on a response to the offense.
So we could construct our argument this way concerning God not holding us responsible for what’s not under our control. We might think of it like this. Premise one, if we were to forgive our neighbor in this sense of the feelings-based view, then God would be holding us responsible for something that we can’t control. Premise two, but it would be unjust for God to hold us responsible for something that we can’t control. Premise three, God can’t be unjust, therefore the conclusion, we are not required to forgive our neighbor in the sense of no longer being angry with them and having positive feelings toward them. Now, keep in mind we’re talking about whether or not we are obliged under Jesus’s command to extend forgiveness in this unconditional way, that is to say, when the offender does not repent. At least on the feelings-based view, for two reasons now we’ve seen, it is not the case that we must extend forgiveness in the sense of having positive feelings and no longer being angry with them when they do not repent.
Now, let’s suppose by forgive, we mean no longer holding an offense against someone. So if you offend me, for example, and I forgive you, well then that means I no longer hold the offense against you. I make a choice to allow the relationship to be restored. We might call this view of forgiveness the restorative view. So do we have a duty to unconditionally forgive in this sense? Must I no longer hold the offense against the offender even when the offender does not repent? Must I make an act of choice to restore the relationship even though the offender does not repent? Well, as Jimmy argues, and even my colleague and good friend Tim Staples here at Catholic Answers argues, and I think they’re right here, the answer is no.
And one reason is that God doesn’t unconditionally restore us back to peace with him or forgive without our repentance. God doesn’t stop holding against us an offense against him and thereby restore the damaged relationship with him unless we first repent. The damned in hell are a perfect example of this. God doesn’t forgive them because they forever remain in their rejection of him. This is why we call hell a definitive self-exclusion from God. If God doesn’t unconditionally forgive, well then it doesn’t seem that he would require us to unconditionally forgive. That’s to say, to restore relationships with those who offend us without repentance. Not only does it seem so, but Paul tells us that it’s not so. In 1 Corinthians 3:13, he writes, “Forgive each other as the Lord has forgiven us.” Since God doesn’t forgive us unless we repent, so, too, we don’t have to forgive in the restorative sense unless our neighbor repents. So that would be one reason why we don’t have to forgive unconditionally even on the restorative view of forgiveness. God doesn’t unconditionally forgive.
Here’s a second reason. Jesus teaches us conditional forgiveness in Luke 17:3-4. Luke’s version of Jesus’s teaching that we’re reading about in Matthew’s version here in the gospel reading for this upcoming Sunday mass found in Luke 17:3-4, Jesus says this, according to Luke’s version, “If your brother repents, forgive him.” So there’s Jesus’s command to forgive, but notice there’s a condition attached to that command to forgive. “If your brother repents, forgive him.” He goes on, Jesus does, “And if he sins against you seven times in the day and turns to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Notice the conditional. “If he repents, then forgive.” So at least we can say Jesus doesn’t require us to forgive our neighbor when he doesn’t repent, and that’s what we’re after here, the obligation whether we are obliged under the precept of divine revelation to extend forgiveness in an unconditional way, that is to say, when the offender does not repent. According to the evidence so far, it seems to me the answer is no.
Now, this doesn’t mean that if our neighbor does not repent, then we must abstain from forgiving him, whether we’re talking about the feelings-based view or the restorative view, that is to say, no longer holding the offense against the person. Someone may discern to work on fostering more positive feelings toward the offender, lest his anger control him and become unbridled, which leads to an unrighteous anger, a desire for the offender to experience evil beyond the demands of justice. This same person may choose to no longer hold the offender accountable for the offense and give the offender a second chance at a relationship with the hope that the person will repent later.
So we are not saying that a person must abstain from forgiving in either of the senses when the offender does not repent. We are not saying that. But what we are saying is that according to the evidence, it does not seem to be that we must forgive when the offender does not repent. May God inspire us, give us the grace, and lead us to make an act of mercy to forgive even though justice does not demand it? And the answer is yes, we may go over and above and beyond what is required of us and make an act choice to forgive, whether in the feelings-based view or the restorative view, but we’re not required to do so, at least so the evidence seems to suggest. So whether we’re talking about the feelings-based view of forgiveness or the restorative view, we’re not obligated to forgive our neighbor if he does not repent.
Now, this is sort of a sensitive topic, right? It’s an interesting topic that many people are beginning to wrestle with, given the work of Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples, and so there are a few counters that are opposed to this line of reasoning that we need to consider. Here’s one. Doesn’t Jesus say from the cross in Luke 23:34, “Forgive them for they know not what they do”? It seems that Jesus forgives his enemies even though they didn’t repent, and if Jesus did that, then so should we.
Now, I must admit this is a very persuasive counter, and when I first entertained this question of whether we must, by obligation of divine revelation, extend this unconditional forgiveness, this was the first thing my mind came up with, in Luke 23:34, Jesus said, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” That seems to be forgiving without repentance. Now, a problem with this challenge is that it assumes Jesus… One problem, I should say, is that it assumes Jesus actually forgave his enemies. But as Tim Staples points out in his article, Must I Forgive and Forget?, all the text indicates is that Jesus petitioned the Father to forgive those who crucified him, revealing his desire that all men be saved, as St. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:4.
Now, someone might counter and say, “Well, if Jesus petitions the Father to forgive them without their repentance, well then wouldn’t that imply that the Father forgives without repentance?” Now, I must admit that this is a decent counter, but I don’t think the implication is necessitated. It could be that the request for the Father to forgive them also involves the Father’s grace to move their wills to repentance, since we know from elsewhere in the Bible that God doesn’t forgive unless the sinner repents. So it’s not a strict necessity that for Jesus to ask the Father to forgive, that would imply that the Father forgives without repentance. Given biblical revelation elsewhere, there is repentance then forgiveness, and so the request for the Father to forgive could involve the request for the grace of repentance, just to summarize it all again there. I know I’m saying the same thing, but repetition is the mother of all learning, right?
Now, another possible response to this counter that appeals to Jesus’s requests for forgiveness on the cross is that it could be that Jesus is going beyond and above what we’re required to do. And so although it would be evidence that this is what Jesus does in exercising mercy above and beyond what is required of us, it wouldn’t follow that this is what we must do, okay? And we could think of some examples of what Jesus does in extending mercy that goes beyond the bounds of justice, but we’re not always called to exactly that thing.
So for example, I’m thinking of the rich young man in Matthew 19 when Jesus calls him to sell everything he has. That is something over and above what all of us must do as Christians, but for that particular individual, he was bound to do it because it was a special calling for him. So, too, with extending forgiveness, unconditional forgiveness, extending forgiveness, whether on the feelings-based view or the restorative view, over and above and beyond what we’re required to do might be a special calling that God is calling an individual to, but we would not be all obligated to do so, again, to emphasize exactly the target we’re after here, lest there be any confusion.
Now, here’s another counter to this conditioned view of forgiveness, and that is, Jesus teaches us to love our enemies. If we’re to love our enemies, so it’s argued, well then shouldn’t we forgive them for their offenses? Note the principle underlying the counter, love demands unconditional forgiveness. That’s the principle that’s driving that counter. But surely this doesn’t apply to God? God doesn’t forgive the damned in hell. Does that mean he does not love them? Of course not. He holds them in existence, which is a willed good, and a willed good is a manifestation of love, since love is to will the good of another. Moreover, John tells us in 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” So love doesn’t demand unconditional forgiveness. If we say it does, well then we got a problem with God holding the damned in existence in hell.
Furthermore, the counter wrongly conflates love with forgiveness. Love is willing the good of the other, and this is something that must be unconditional because willing the good in general flows from our natures as rational beings. When we will the good of the other or love the other, we are doing something that’s consistent with our nature. Forgiveness considered in and of itself, on the other hand, is not something that’s rooted in our nature as rational beings. Why? Well, nature demands that when the order of relations between two social animals has been disordered through bad behavior, nature demands that the one who violated the order experience some sort of displeasure so long as that disorder remains because the person took pleasure where he ought not to have taken pleasure. If a person doesn’t repent of his bad behavior, then the disorder remains. That is, the order of relations between the two social beings is disordered, it’s undermined. And without repentance, that disorder remains. This being the case, the displeasure due to him remains. Remember, so long as the disorder between the social beings remains, the displeasure due to the misbehaving one remains.
Now, in our relationships, the displeasure due to the person may be knowing that I am angry at his offense and do not have positive feelings toward him. In this scenario, it would be natural that I remain angry and not have positive feelings toward him as long as the disorder remains. The displeasure due to him may also be simply the lack of peace between us, a peace that we all naturally crave as social animals. And as long as the disorder remains, then it’s natural that the lack of peace between us remain. This is not to say that we cannot forgive our neighbor without their repentance. Again, as we said before, it only shows at least we’re not obligated to forgive in either of the senses mentioned before, the feelings-based view or the restorative view. Again, we’re not obligated even when we consider the order of relations that is due to us as social rational animals.
Now, God may give us a grace to forgive our neighbor without his repentance, but again, and this would not be contrary to nature, it would simply be above and beyond nature. So nature, when we look at nature, it has certain prescriptions of what justice demands, and mercy does not conflict with what justice demands as if justice is undermined, but mercy goes above and beyond, and that’s what would be the case if we were to forgive our neighbor without their repentance. It would be an act of mercy over and above what we’re obligated to do. Again, some may have a special calling to that act of mercy, but that doesn’t mean all are called to that act of mercy.
Now, someone might say in counter, “Well, Jesus demands that we have faith in him and love him above all things.” That’s above and beyond our nature, and yet Jesus requires this of us, with the stipulation that he will give us the grace required for it. And this is true, and we know it’s true because Jesus has revealed it. So this is something that Jesus is requiring us to do that is over and above our nature. And so there seems to be a parallel here with unconditional forgiveness, which would be over and above our nature, and yet Jesus possibly requiring us to do that very thing. So our appeal to what’s over and above our nature is a moot point.
But here’s the response. Forgiving unconditionally is something else. Sure, it is above and beyond our nature and it’s something that Jesus could give us the grace to do, but for us to be obligated to do this, Jesus would have to have revealed it to us, which, as mentioned before, is actually opposite of what he’s revealed. Remember, Luke 17, “If your neighbor repents, then forgive him.” That’s the data of revelation. We do not have the data of revelation saying, “Forgive unconditionally even when the neighbor does not repent.” That is not what we have. If we had that, then we would be obliged to do it and God would be giving us the grace to achieve that goal, but that is not what we have in this order of providence.
Now, another counter to our thesis here in this episode is that it doesn’t comport with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. In Paragraph 2844, the Catechism states the following, “Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer. Only hearts attuned to God’s compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another.”
Now, the highlight-worthy verse there or line would be the beginning, “Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies.” “Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer.” Right? “Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation.” So some might appeal to this and say, “Man, it sure seems hard to square your thesis here in this episode that we only extend forgiveness in a conditional way versus what the Catechism is saying here, which seems to indicate unconditional forgiveness, forgiveness of enemies in Christian prayer weeks, pray for our enemies and forgive them.”
How do we respond? The problem with this counter is that it front-loads a particular meaning into the text that’s not clearly there. Consider that the thesis we’re considering in this episode conflicts with this passage if and only if forgiveness is already envisioned to be given in a scenario where our enemies don’t repent. But we could just as easily say that forgiveness here is envisioned as being given in a scenario where the enemy does repent. Forgive your enemies. Well, that could involve the scenario where the enemy has repented, and we must, thereby, extend forgiveness. In other words, it could be that when the Catechism talks about forgiveness, there’s an automatic assumption that the person has repented and asked for forgiveness. So an appeal to this text in the Catechism doesn’t hold water.
Now, this interpretation would comport or be consistent with the passage from Luke quoted before, in Luke 17:3-4, “If your brother repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times and turns to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Moreover, in the next paragraph, in Paragraph 2345, the Catechism speaks of God’s forgiveness, which, as we argued before, is given on condition that we repent. This further confirms our interpretation that forgiveness here is envisioned as being given in a context where the offender repents. So in talking about our forgiveness that we must extend to enemies, the Catechism, in the same context, talks about God’s forgiveness and that forgiveness envisioned as involving the repentance of those who sin. So we could conclude that when the Catechism speaks of our forgiveness that we must extend to enemies, it envisions our enemies repenting and asking for forgiveness, thereby obligating us as a Christian to extend that mercy and forgive.
There’s one last counter here. Someone might say, “God gives initial grace for us to repent without our repentance. This is a form of mercy. So maybe we should imitate God and be merciful toward those who even don’t repent.” And this is true. Any act of repentance itself presupposes a grace that God gives us to move us to this act of repentance. So the grace to repent, obviously, is given without repentance. That is mercy. That’s an act of mercy on behalf of God. The problem here is that our mercy toward our offenders who don’t repent is not God’s mercy as expressed in giving people the grace to repent. God’s mercy can be expressed that way because there can be no repentance whatsoever without the Creator’s grace being given. Such an expression of mercy doesn’t apply to us because we’re not the Creator. This being the case, there’s no obligation for us to forgive our offender who doesn’t repent, whether we’re talking about the feelings-based view or the restorative view.
Now, in closing here, with all this said, I do think it’s important that we try our best to mitigate our feelings of anger toward our offenders who don’t ask for forgiveness. Otherwise, as I mentioned earlier, it could lead to our anger becoming unbridled and taking control of us, leading to unrighteous anger. In other words, we might go crazy if we hold onto this anger, right? And I think many of us that resonates, many of us can affirm that, “Yes, until I tried to forgive the person who offended me, regardless if they asked for repentance, it was driving me nuts, man. I couldn’t live my life.” And in those circumstances, practically speaking, yes, we should try to work on mitigating those emotions and that anger so that we can have positive feelings toward the other person and forgive in that feelings-based view.
Now, as I also mentioned earlier, we can work to mitigate these angry feelings by trying to focus on the fact that, “Maybe the offense wasn’t as bad as I originally thought. Maybe I can focus on the good that would come from the experience or the lesson that I could possibly learn, or just simply begin to focus on the prayer that I should offer for the offender, that the offender repent and exercise love in that way, and in exercising that love for my enemy, that will mitigate, in turn, those feelings of anger, that emotion.” Now, although we wouldn’t be obligated to do this, and that’s been my argument in this episode, it at least can begin to give us some inner peace, enabling us, as I said, to get on with our lives, which is very important.
Now, there’s one last thing I’d like to say. This is something that is unclear, according to my understanding in magisterial teaching, as to the precise nature of forgive your enemies. So this is a thesis that is being presented by some of us here at Catholic Answers, it has been presented by others, and it is legitimately subject to counter argumentation, and I’m sure there are others who have a different view of concerning forgiveness, and they may very well present arguments against this view.
So by no means am I establishing this as a hill to die on, and we are not bound as Catholics to ascent to this view of forgiveness. This is an apologetical discussion, right? This is a theological discussion about what best makes sense, and so far in my mind, in my journey of knowledge, I initially started out thinking this view did not make sense and probably was not true. I’ll admit that. But upon further investigation, I’ve come to the conclusion to where I’m willing to pitch my tent for a while in this view, that we are not obligated to extend forgiveness in an unconditional way, but that God may call an individual to do so by a special grace, and that it’s practically beneficial to do so, lest we go crazy in harboring those feelings of anger towards those who continue to offend us by not repenting.
So the readings for this upcoming 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time, your A gives us an interesting question to ponder, must I forgive when my offender doesn’t? And as I’ve argued in this episode, the answer seems to be no, and notice I use that term seems intentionally. I am not making a definitive conclusion here, right? According to the evidence so far in my mind, the answer seems to be no. But if the question is, would I feel more at peace if I did forgive without my offender repenting, then I think the answer would be yes.
As always, my friends, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast, and please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. Also, if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, Mr. Sunday Podcast, go to shop.catholic.com. I hope you have a blessed 24th Sunday of Ordinary Time. God bless.
Speaker 1:
Thank you for listening to the Sunday Catholic Word. Find more great shows by visiting catholicanswerspodcasts.com or just search for Catholic Answers wherever you listen to podcasts.