I remember growing up and being told that we must do more than talk the talk, but we must walk the walk. It is easy to put on a show, to make ourselves look good by saying the right things. But do we mean what we say? Do we put any effort into living it out, especially when it is difficult to do so? That was a message which I picked up as a Protestant, and not only does it remain with me as a Catholic, but it is one which I think fundamentally expresses a key element of Catholic thinking about “works.” Faith and works go together; to separate them is to misunderstand faith. Focusing on faith alone, on teachings instead of praxis, is what has led many to have the “talk” and the “walk” so distinct, the talk was considered all that was important. This attitude has turned the Christian faith into a show, showing what we know, what we can say, instead of it being about having a life of fidelity to Christ.
I also remember a prime example I was told of those who walked the walk instead of just talking the talk were those Christians who forgave people who hurt them or those who killed or hurt their friends and family. Some of these Christians not forgave the person who did them such a terrible wrong, but they formed relational bonds with them, seeking to help them overcome the evil which they have done and to receive mercy from society. It is not that they did not want to ignore the expectations of justice, but they knew justice without mercy, without real, tangible mercy, was not justice but mere revenge. I heard so many stories about those who showed such love and concern for those who did them some horrible wrong that it became a prime example of what it meant to forgive. It showed me forgiveness is not only tied to mercy but love, for it is love, the love they felt for everyone, which allowed them to grant such forgiveness to those who wronged them. To be sure, not every Christian can form such a bond with their tormentors, nor do they need to in order to show forgiveness. Indeed, those who do this embrace a rare, heroic form of witness of the Christian faith. It is difficult to show mercy to those who would show us no mercy, but Christians, especially those who talk the talk, are to make sure they are not just putting on a show. We should be concerned with justice, true justice, which is restorative and not retributive justice, for in doing that, we present the real goal of justice, which is restoring what was lost.
To forgive others is the calling of the Christian. Every time we recite the Lord’s Prayer, we say we will forgive others as we have been forgiven. What does it mean to be forgiven? Does Jesus say to us, “I forgive you, but as justice demands eternal perdition, I will no longer think bad thoughts about what you have done as I send you off to hell?” Of course not. Jesus says he forgives us and loves us and seeks to make us better, to offer us the grace we need so not to suffer eternal perdition. So why do we think we can pit justice against mercy; why do so many of us say we can forgive people while ignoring mercy and so demand the greatest retributive punishment possible? To be sure, some of it comes from the fact we are fallen people who are ourselves not yet perfectly just. We struggle to do what is right. We are tempted towards retribution out of anger. That is understandable. It’s when we try to talk the talk without trying to walk the walk, and so, when we don’t struggle to do what is right, that we fall for grave error and our words become meaningless chatter.
If we forgive someone, we do want justice to be established. Forgiveness must not be seen as an act which works contrary to justice, rather, forgiveness and mercy is a part of the process of justice That is, justice can be restored only with the help of forgiveness. Forgiving someone doesn’t mean we will not be angry. It doesn’t mean we will no longer be hurt. It does not mean we will not have temptation for retribution. But it means we will not let such retribution have the final say. As Christians, we know Jesus said that we are not to follow retributive justice with its demands; that is, we are not to seek an eye for an eye. We are to show mercy, to love others, even our enemies, even those who wish us ill, not, of course, by ignoring the evil they do nor the evil they wish to do, but because mercy is required if we are to put that evil to an end by healing the harm it has done. We are to restore as much good as is possible, even for those who are deemed our enemy. This is what Christ did for us – when we were “enemies” of God, Christ died for us so that we can receive grace and become his friend instead of his enemy. It’s not cheap grace which Christ offered us and it is not cheap forgiveness which Christ expects us to give to others.
This is why I find it absurd for someone to say a Christian can forgive someone for murder but still want the murderer to be executed. Similarly for someone to say they do not care what happens to the person, that they will not get in the way of the state if it seeks the death penalty (as, for example, seems to be the case with Erika Kirk). That, to me, shows someone who is talking the talk but not walking the walk (especially if they are a Catholic and know the death penalty is to be rejected). Those who have a national spotlight saying they forgive someone but will not do anything to make sure the person they say they forgive receives mercy when their crimes are tried and punished seem not to truly exercise forgiveness but rather want to look like they are giving it because they think it makes them look good in front of others. That way, they can play the victim, using their victimhood for actions which run contrary to such forgiveness (and justice). Thus, when someone says they forgive someone but everyone around them speaks not of mercy, but violence, of the violence they want to do to others in their name, and they do not silence those speaking in this manner, but rather, encourage it, their words are hollow if not a part of an act which seeks to encourage the opposite of what they say. Those who truly want to embrace forgiveness, those who will show mercy to others, will say “not in my name” to those who will use their suffering as an excuse to promote retribution and violence in the world. That, after all, is what I saw happen after 9-11, as many of those who lost loved ones on 9-11 told the government the government must not go to war in their name, that if the United States did so, the United States would not be honoring the victims of 9-11 but make them even greater victims.
Those who proclaim mercy, those who proclaim life and the value and dignity of life, cannot stand by and defend the death penalty as if the death penalty represents true justice. It doesn’t. It is retributive and only continues the cycle of violence. The death penalty, due to the way it is executed without mercy, can be seen to follow the path of sin as it furthers the destruction of being in the world; it encourages us and tells us it is fine to snuff someone out if we do not like them, and in doing so, annihilating what little good which remains as a response to the way someone hurt or destroyed some element of the good. As true justice seeks the restoration of the good, not its elimination, the death penalty can never be the way. And those who talk the talk, those who say they forgive someone who has done something terrible, like kill their spouse, should do more than talk the talk, especially if they talk the talk in the national spotlight; they should walk the walk, telling all those involved in the prosecution which emerges that they must not seek the death penalty in their name (and in the name of your spouse). If they are true to their words, they will do that; but if they shrug off that responsibility and say the government alone should decide, what does their forgiveness really entail? What would our fate be if that was what God meant for forgiving us our sins?
* This Is Another Post From My Personal (Informal) Reflections And Speculations Series
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In