When you see people fall into various sins against you, against the Lord, against their neighbors and against themselves, do not be angry with them – for there is much malice and anger in the world without yours – but pity them from all your heart and soul and excuse them when they offend you saying, ‘Father, forgive them, for sin perplexes them, and they know not what they do’.
- St. John of Krondstadt
If there was truly enough righteous anger in the world, there would be a great need for mercy, because justice would be an accomplished fact.
Somehow I find the opposite- the world is an incredibly unjust place, and mercy is abundant to the point of destroying justice.
Mercy is abundant? What planet do you live on?
The one where homosexual marriage and abortion are celbrated as sacraments, and where heterosexual breeders are treated with bigotry.
The mercy given the usuror, as he is allowed to charge 528% interest to poor people on payday loans.
The one where having the wrong genes or a father who raped your mother is a death sentence, because clearly the parents deserve mercy for their sins but the child must die to acomplish this mercy.
The one where an old person in pain is given 9 grams of rat poison out of mercy.
There is far too much mercy calling sin something other than sin, and the result is a lack of justice.
I wonder if Mr. Seeber means that so much that is a sinful is being praised by society in general, and being tolerated by many religious minded people as well, that some how this represents Mercy. Certainly, it is not, but I guess if there is no sin there is no need for mercy.
As to the quote at hand, I certainly agree with the principle behind it, but I wonder how it would be usefully practiced. Would the the good Orthodox bishop watch some nurses going to assist a mother to murder her unborn child and say: “Don’t be angry pity the poor nurses, and do nothing.” Or perhaps he would tell the mother whose child was just killed by a drone as he was playing: “Don’t be angry at the man who did this pity him. He probably stays up nights feeling bad about the death of your son.” Or perhaps to the rich man oppressing the poor he might pray to God: “Dear God bless and forgive this rich man with his boot upon the neck of your poor. Please protect his foot that it not get tired and weak with the effort of the poor to cast it off. And please give grace to the poor to pity the rich man and accept this grave injustice with resignation.” Some how I do not think the good bishop meant this. Perhaps you could find some practical application of these principles and the lives of the Saints. For example St. John Eudes once cursed a rich man, who then lost all his fortune and was forced to end his life begging from those he had previously oppressed. Of course this curse was really a blessing for the man’s poverty was the instrument that turned his life around, but the Saint cursed in the name of God.
St John was not a bishop; he was a married priest.
I really don’t see how pitying the sinner means that one does not work for justice. The good saint’s counsel against wrath is sound; at any rate it is better for one’s own soul to have mercy than to give in to anger, righteous or not. And I speak as one much given to “righteous” anger…
Mr. Nichols,
Perhaps we aren’t very far apart after all. My problem is that I have many “Conservative” Catholic friends who show no mercy or love for sinners, but I also have liberal friends that refuse to assign any responsibility/culpability to the sinner. I had a very good priest who was fond of saying:
“If your Faith lacks Charity, there is something wrong with your Faith. If your Charity lacks Faith, there is something wrong with your Charity. ”
This seems to be the predominate problem I find. Conservative Faith with no Charity, and Liberal Charity with no Faith. I have actually had conservative Catholics tell me they do not practice the corporal works of Mercy because they are already being done by the liberals, so they tend to only admonish the sinner. However the liberals are not much better. In practice they tend forget the spiritual works of mercy.
I guess I might be responding to your post on Tribes. One of the great points of the CCC is that it dealt with ignorance of the natural law. For years many Catechisms would talk about ignorance reducing and even getting rid of culpability (eg Sprirago Clark – put out by TAN). However the CCC dealt with this in a fairly strong way, which very few have taken notice of. When discussing ignorance and reducing culpability the CCC says:
“1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.”
The nurses at abortion clinics and the President that kills babies with drones (or nukes/fire bombs cities) or the rich man that takes advantage of the poor can not be deemed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law. I believe this with Faith, and this belief must be a part of my Charity. I will not excuse those who violate the moral law through ignorance (however, I certainly have empathy for those who do so out of want for basic necessities. like Sonia from Crime and Punishment). And if their violation of the moral law, harms another (especially the weak), I feel a need to raise my voice loudly.
Finally with regard to righteous anger – I am of the school of thought, that it is possible in principle, but I have always failed when trying to put it in practice, so I try to leave that alone (although I am sure the internet has noticed my failures in that department).
This is truly what I meant. If you forbid yourself from wrath to the point where you either do nothing in response to sin, or worse yet, out of pity for the sinner enable the sin, then truly either the corporal works of mercy or the spiritual works of mercy suffer.
That is certainly what I mean by over abundant mercy destoying justice.