|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 2, 2016 14:49:40 GMT -5
We're not required to forgive him, though, unless he repents. I guess you 'can', but it will be completely meaningless if he doesn't repent. It would only be meaningless to the unrepentant...the person who forgives is free of any resentment or unjust anger...any burden at all...that is very meaningfull. |
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 2, 2016 14:52:08 GMT -5
I still think you are using a deficient definition of forgivness. |
|
|
|
Post by mundacormeum on Jul 2, 2016 16:18:54 GMT -5
We're not required to forgive him, though, unless he repents. I guess you 'can', but it will be completely meaningless if he doesn't repent. It would only be meaningless to the unrepentant...the person who forgives is free of any resentment or unjust anger...any burden at all...that is very meaningfull. I agree. It seems like, too, it would, in a certain sense, take more humilty and virtue to offer forgiveness without any repentance. In that case, you are giving freely, without counting the cost and without expecting anything in return. If the person rejects your gift, then that is their choice. But, it doesn't render the act of forgiveness on the part of the victim meaningless. Besides...Our Lord's command to forgive was without stipulations or conditions: "21Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times." The answer was not, "only when he is repentant." Forgiveness is certainly a two way street, and both parties have parts to play for it to be fully completed for those involved. But, I don't personally think we are to be unwilling to forgive until repentance is proven. It should always be in our outstretched hands, ready for when the offender can accept it. The other side of that is that the offender is incapable of accepting it and remains unforgiven until he is sorry; thus giving the victim no choice, but to have to withhold his forgiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 15, 2016 21:20:26 GMT -5
If the unrepentant doesnt recive the benefit of forgivness that doesnt mean forgivness shouldnt be offered. And I can recive the benefit of forgiving the unrepentant despite his rejection. There was a man who I employed and showed great generosity and tried to help with gainfull employment. He was a recovering junkie. He fell back into drugs and robbed my home (he and his wife) when he knew we would be at church. We knew it was him...he robbed others and his own parents. Obviously he recived no more help or trust from me...years later my Priest pulled me aside after Liturgy and asked if I could reextend a hand for this man...ie a Job. I said no way...Father asked Why...havent you forgiven him? I said of course...but a man who cuts his own hands off cant expect to play piano...even if he repents cutting his hands off. Further Father... the man has never even apologized to me or attempted to restore the property he stole...so no Father I will not help"...not exact quotes but something along those lines. I think the true core of this discussion is really about resentment...can we give up resentment?:Currently I am resenting a dumb animal...a coon who killed my chickens. Isnt that silly. Exactly. You can forgive from the bottom of your heart, but there is no reconciliation without a sincere apology. Especially not if the offender is plainly unrepentant and continues to hurt people in the same way. Some people in this world are just malicious and are not safe to have any dealings with at all. I don't think there's any duty in charity to treat them as if they were decent people. How that plays out in day to day situations depends on the circumstances. It is helpful to consider that everything that happens to us has been allowed by God, and that He can bring good out of it all. It can be a long time before the good result shows up though. |
|
