Mercy, Part II | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The most important thing about the nativity story is not that we believe it, but that Jesus believed it. That is why he could speak with authority about forgiving sins and curing on the Sabbath. As important is that he said the Sabbath is for man (in other words, not for God) and that this can be applied to all our moral teaching, including that about the family and including those individuals we don't consider to be families - but are. What caused Jesus the agony on the cross was that he at some point had to tell his mother that he is dead (Gods don't die), giving up his divinity by giving her to John's care and giving John the mission to care for her, not baptize the world just yet. This emotional pain, only possible after the physical torture, had Jesus cry out to the Father for mercy - which was granted as he finally drank of the fruit of the fine before dying.
If the Passion is a divine vision quest, not a bloody divine sacrifice, the whole idea of mercy must be turned on its head - probably a bit more than Kasper intended in his treatment of substitutionary attonement. God felt what we feel, so we can now go to him, and his altar, to escape our sin. Ironically, it is easier for many in the Curia to except two dudes getting married than this change. Of course, one implies the other. All morality must be looked at through the lens of Jesus suffering to understand our suffering and as a balm for our souls, not a ransom. Morals which do not serve that purpose are not, therefore, from God. Damnation is not part of the afterlife as much as it is part of this one. Jesus is the answer and should not be the cause of greater alienation through unbearable moral precepts. The harder thing, of course, is for both clergy and faithful to follow the example of mercy, to bring happiness where there is pain, especially the pain of divorce.
No comments:
Post a Comment