• Subscribe to Crisis

  • Running From Hell: Thoughts on Love and Sin

    by Pete Jermann

    Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery 1527-29 Lorenzo Lotto

    Running from hell is a lousy way to approach God. This seemed to be the consensus of many post-Vatican II Catholics who saw the pre-Vatican II era as a generation beholden to the fear of sin and subject to rules drawing sharp lines over which a good Catholic did not cross. As a high school student and young adult I rode the euphoric wave following Vatican II, a wave that lifted us out of the murky depths of sin and guilt and set us firmly on a solid land of love and good feelings. No longer would we run from hell.  Instead we would run toward love. But to look at today’s poverty of spirit wrought in our broken families, our failing churches, and the almost unanimous rejection of Catholic teachings on human sexuality, we must ask, “Where did our love go wrong?”  Rather than embracing God, our flight toward love has led us even farther away from the very God we claimed to seek.

    I believe our mistake was in thinking sin and love were only loosely connected, if they were connected at all. At our worst we saw sin as the violation of a set of arbitrary rules invented by sexually repressed control freaks in medieval dress, to discourage good times, to inflict guilt, and to assert control over our lives. At our best we thought that if we simply did enough of the things we saw as good, which also frequently corresponded with things that made us feel good about ourselves, we could ignore both sin and the fusty fathers, and confidently march toward heaven. We did not see that love and sin are two sides of the same coin, perhaps better seen as love and unlove. We did not understand that every time we rejected sin we were doing something good for our selves and our neighbor. We failed to see that with every sin we committed we lost an opportunity to love.

    Sin is Never “Victimless”
    To diminish sin, to make it insignificant, has been a particular quest of the generations since Vatican II. The concept of “victimless sins” greatly accelerated this reduction. The new morality deemed sins without victims as not sins at all since they hurt no one. We saw these sins, especially sexual ones, as infractions of arbitrary rules that merely tethered innocent desires. Only with time did I understand that the term “victimless sin” is an oxymoronic gem of deception. Sin is sin because it has a victim, someone who is hurt, whether it be ourselves, another, or many others. A sin only seems victimless when we narrow our vision to include only those things we want to see. We want to see the small “white” lie as victimless though we took the trust of the person lied to and counted it for nothing. We want to see the bauble shoplifted as something unneeded by an evil capitalist we judge unworthy of its ownership. We want to see our sexual escapades as harmless rather than as a selfish taking, which diminishes the value of others lives, particularly those yet born, and replaces a counterfeit love for real love. All sin involves taking rather than giving. When we don’t lie, we give honor to the person to whom the truth is told. When we don’t steal we have not judged the owners evil but instead give recognition to them as people capable of dealing honestly with others. When we express our sexuality with love we freely give ourselves to generations to come.

    We labeled sin “victimless” to render it meaningless. In doing so we found ourselves molding our definition of “love” to the lives we led and not the lives we were called to. We defined God in our own image rather than discovered His image in ourselves. We thought we could define sin away and not change love.  We were wrong.  Because we cannot define love, neither can we define sin. We do not hold the power to define God or love. God told Moses, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14). This leaves no room for our definition, only our discovery. St. John tells us that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). If God simply is who He is than it follows that love is what it is. We can discover it, but we cannot define it. Love defines sin as that which is not love. Neither love nor sin are subjective, but objective. Love does only good. Sin does only harm. The intentions or ignorance of the sinner may mitigate judgment but the sin exists and ripples across the moral landscape regardless of intent. We can see abortion as a sin every time it happens, but in every case we can still feel compassion for the mother. In fact, our very compassion is based on the wrongness of the abortion, its sinfulness, and our understanding of the missing love in a life that would find itself in such a situation and make such a choice. If we don’t see the sin–the missing love–there is no reason for our compassion because no one is hurt and no harm is done. Yet we know this isn’t true. We see the harm all around us.

    Subjective Sin Renders Remorse Meaningless
    When we define sin as subjective rather than objective we render remorse meaningless. If sin is a matter of intent than the woman who aborts a child, considering it the best interests of the child facing a hopeless life, has committed no sin, only a possible error in judgment. There is no reason for remorse, only a sense of wounded pride if and when the error is acknowledged. True remorse is only possible when we see our actions in the revealing light of love. Only when we see the harm of these actions, regardless of our intent or our ignorance, and begin to feel the pain inflicted do we truly experience remorse.

    Yet, when we see only the sin and feel only the pain, we will succumb to a popular theology that proclaims the mercy of Jesus, considers it unappreciative of His mercy if we don’t pass through remorse quickly, and suggests we move on with our life. This is Peter telling Jesus he need not suffer only to have Jesus reply to him, “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:22). In seeing our pain as something to simply move beyond we will succumb to Peter’s plea and we will miss the true beauty of remorse. We will miss that we are seeing something new through the eyes of love. We will overlook the miracle that where we were once blind, we now see. As Jesus understood, the miracle of sight in a broken world comes at the expense of pain. Yet in that sight there is also joy. Our remorse is both the pain and the joy of the lost sheep, broken, bruised and bogged in a ravine, who sees the good shepherd cresting the hill. In Dante’s Divine Comedy the denizens of purgatory suffer painfully, because they see their sins anew. Simultaneously, they are spiritually joyful because they revel in the love through which they see them. Remorse begins our journey to a heaven where all love completely. It opens our eyes to the light of God’s love and calls us to live it more deeply. Remorse truly understood cries not for a dimming of the light inflicting pain but for its brightening so we may see even more, so we may love even more. True remorse is never a passing moment but a compelling momentum, hopefully lifelong, to replace sin with love. When we cast sin as a matter of intent and deny its objective reality we stifle remorse, we accept spiritual darkness as normal and we stunt our growth as lovers.

    Guilt: A Divine Call to Love
    Like remorse, guilt has joined the modern panoply of bad feelings to be banished. Guilt points to sin, or that which isn’t love. The triumph of modern self-esteem is the elimination of guilt. This sympathy overflows even from Catholic pulpits preaching the message that to wallow in guilt is to deny a loving God. In this message the slavery of sin is not in the sin but in the refusal to accept God’s mercy. It asserts that we will always be sinners and that God’s mercy has us covered no matter what. We only need to accept God’s mercy, put away those uncomfortable feelings of guilt (to not do so is characterized as sin itself), and all will be well. I do not question God’s mercy, but a response that seemingly assumes it will not change our lives. When the last man dropped the last stone and walked away, Jesus refused to condemn the adulteress, instead telling her, “Go and do not sin again” (John 8:10). For her to follow that mandate she had to know her sin. We must assume that through the grace of God she did, and she probably perceived that knowledge as guilt. Jesus did not tell her to go and feel good about herself. He called her to change, to answer the call of grace, to love. Because we misunderstand sin, maybe we have also misread guilt, seeing it as an acid poured on the soul rather than a nutrient spurring its growth. When we consider sin the violation of arbitrary rules erected by a church confused about the modern understanding of love, guilt can only be an annoying aberration, an alarm not to be heeded but eradicated. But, when we understand that sin is an opportunity lost to love, when we see sin through the eyes of love, no longer will we see guilt as a warning of impending hellfire and damnation but as God filling our hearts and pleading, “Love me!” We will then see every tug at our heart as another opportunity to express that love.

    When we diminish remorse to a passing fancy and reduce guilt to a bad feeling, we will replace love with a counterfeit based on good feelings. When we deny the objectivity of sin and assert that sin is in the intent and not the action, we will encourage the cultivation of ignorance, because knowledge may give lie to our intentions. We would consider it odd if a math teacher told his students that it is okay if they think two plus two equals three as long as they redeem themselves by asserting that three plus three equals six. Yet, when we start asserting that we simply need to do more right things to cover the wrong things, we enter a moral universe of our own design subject to a similar calculus. No longer will we seek the truth. We will seek only that which we want to find, that which works for us. We will build equations that incrementally increase the value of the good we do and simultaneously decrease the value of those things we once called sin. We will volunteer at the local soup kitchen while being unfaithful to our spouses and our children. Ultimately, those things called sin will be no more, and the voice that says, “Love me!” will fall silent. Our confessionals now gather dust because we have become a people of excellent intent with no need for forgiveness. We have become the people that Christ spoke of from the cross, “Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). The ignorance of those who crucified Jesus did not preclude their need for forgiveness, nor will it preclude ours.

    Truly, the post Vatican II spirit was right. Running from hell is a lousy way to approach God. It is God we should run to and not hell we should run from. Yet we cannot run toward God with shackles on our ankles. We cannot both love and unlove. We cannot see and be blind at the same time. When we no longer see our sin, we no longer see the love that God is. We will cease to see heaven as the ultimate quest, and we will find ourselves not striving for the ultimate union with God, but simply accepting something less, and, ultimately, anything less than heaven is hell.

    When we no longer ran from hell we found ourselves back on its brink. In the euphoria following Vatican II many of us erred in thinking that we could simply label God as loving and merciful, go about our business, and not spend our entire lives getting to know Him. But only when knowing Him becomes the very essence of our lives will we truly see sin as love violated. Then will we hear His “love me” in feelings we considered guilt and see the miracle of sight in the pain of remorse. Then will we truly find ourselves running toward God.

    Editor’s note: The image above entitled “Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery” was painted by Lorenzo Lotto in 1527-29.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • hombre111

      Pretty good. Reminds me of a book written long ago entitled “Whatever Became of Sin?” But it also caused me, as an old timer with 48 years under my belt, to think of the kinds of sins I used to hear in confession before the bottom dropped out. Mostly “I ate meat on Friday,” “I missed Mass on Sunday,” and “I had bad thoughts” kind of stuff. In other words, no particular insight into the real nature of sin beyond whatever was learned in the second grade. The priests of that era gave no great insight into the real meaning of sin. It must have been really, really easy to let that kind of infantilism go and stop going to confession.
      .
      That said, I think the public reconciliation ceremonies common in my diocese today offer some kind of improvement. The younger generation of priests have long since taken over and so, when I help out as a confessor priest with the two hundred or so confessions to follow, I get their Pope John Paul version of things. Usually, a mediocre sermon followed by a pretty good examination of conscience which probes the real damage sin can do to self and neighbor. Then auricular confession with no time for counseling. And what do they confess? “I missed Mass on Sunday,” and “I had bad thoughts” kind of stuff. Sigh.

      As for individual auricular confession? The same handful of people confessing the same sins over and over. Every once in a while somebody with a real spiritual problem. In other words, more or less what I remember when I was first ordained. But it is up to those Pope John Paul priests to straighten this out better than we did. So far? So-so.

      • http://www.facebook.com/briana.grzybowski.3 Briana Grzybowski

        When you are talking about people “with real spiritual problems,” are you talking about those people who have commited mortal sins? Jesus said we are all called to be perfect, just as our heavenly Father is perfect. If that’s the case, then surely all sins, no matter how big or seemingly small they are, hold us back from reaching that perfection that we are all called to be, where we love God and neighbor with every fiber of our being. Thomas Merton was talking with a friend a little while after he had converted to Catholicism. He was comfortable calling himself Catholic, but he really hadn’t let it transform his life yet. His friend was asking him what he wanted to take away from his conversion experience, and this is Merton’s reply: This is Merton’s reply: ”I can’t be a saint,’ I said. ‘I can’t be a saint.’ And my mind darkened with a confusion of realities and unrealities: the knowledge of my own sins, and the false humility which makes men say that they cannot do the things that they must do, cannot reach the level that they must reach, the cowardice that says: I am satisfied to save my soul, to keep out of mortal sin, but which means, by those words: I do not want to give up my sins and attachments.” When I read this, I felt he was talking to me from the grave, because I know that I am in the same boat that he was in.

        • hombre111

          To strive for the kind of perfection you are talking about is a formula for insanity. It actually comes from modern production methods in a factory, where they try to create things without a flaw. But actually, “perfection” comes from two Latin words: “Per Facere.” Which means, simply, “finished.” I think of a glass chalice I bought from a professional glass blower who was a famous artist. The chalice is anythng but flawless. But it is finished in its own unique way. So, I am not going to obsess about my flaws. I just pray that when the end comes, I will be finished work in God’s eyes.
          As for mortal sin? It is really, really hard to commit a mortal sin. Think about it: Serious matter, full knowledge, full consent. So, you are right. All sins hold us back. Not from “perfection,” but from God’s love and from showing God’s love to a neighbor.
          But the simple truth is, so many compartmentalize their lives. They have this little one hour bubble for God, and then al the rest. I think about the many, many days when I have managed to do the same thing while calling myself God’s priest. Fortunately, at this late date, and with the leisure of retirement, I can pay more attention to the garden of my soul. But in the end, I will merely be finished, not perfect.

      • lssaddle

        Wonderful article, Mr. Jermann.

        But @hombre111:

        Wow! Good to know.

        You see, before I converted I had a great many of what you might call “real spiritual problems.” I was once in a very deep and a very dark place and a very lonely place. Thankfully God has helped me overcome many of these problems. He’s helped me find love and faith and these days my failings are generally of a more trivial nature. I still have “real spiritual problems,” but I no longer have a great litany of mortal sins. Unfortunately, to confess any sin, however big or small, is a tremendously difficult thing for me and all my shaky voice can usually muster is, “I missed Mass on Sunday … I had bad thoughts.” I say these trite phrases not because I have the spiritual mentality of a second-grader (at least I would hope not), but because that’s how I cope with my nervousness, with my embarrassment, with my shame.

        But I stopped going to confession because the last few times I worked up the courage to go, I heard (what would you know!) a loud sigh from the other side of the screen (from two different priests). I wondered why, particularly since my confessions were never long and tedious. I wondered what in the world would make a priest so callous as to rather blatantly insult and dismiss someone who came into the confessional asking for mercy. Because if they only knew how difficult it was for me even to walk into that confessional, if they only knew how difficult it was for me even to speak of these “trivial things,” if they only knew how long and hard this journey has been for me, they might have a little compassion and keep their sighs to themselves while trying to put me more at ease so that someday I could work up the courage to go beyond these simple phrases.

        But now I know why: they thought I was infantile! They thought I was a waste of their time. And now I remember why I stay as far away from the confessional as I can.

        • hombre111

          Thanks for your honesty. It helps a lot. In my entire life, I have never sighed at the triviality of somebodies confession. As I have gotten older, I have come to realize how much I love hearing confessions. Anybody’s confession. My understanding of the reality of the sacrament continues to grow. As soon as somebody comes into my presence, I try to make my greeting and blessing a real greeting and a real blessing. Then I remind both of us that we are in the presence of the Lord. I tell them that what is really important is that reality. The Lord looks at us, knows our deepest heart, and touches us where we need to feel his touch. I remind the person that our sins are often actually symptoms of our deeper struggle. I then ask the person to consciously let the love and healing touch of Jesus surround him/her while I pronounce the words of absolution.

    • The Truth

      Sin seperates us from God. Mortal sin does so eternally. We have to think about our souls. We are dmaging our very souls without knowing how severe. The more we accept sin the darker our spiriual life becomes. God sets us free from sin, He lioberates us. We can’t just recognise our sin and stop. We must ask God for help. We need His grace to stop. but we need to do the work. We need to pray. We need to KNOW WHY something is called a sin. We need to know WHy there is venial and nortal sin. Just saying fornication is a sin doesn’t explain why it is a sin. We have the ability to reason whereas animals don’t. We are culpable.

    • crakpot

      Very clear. I can see why the left fears homeschoolers such as yourself.

    • http://marycatelli.livejournal.com/ Mary

      One notes that they are not following Jesus’s example. Recourse to Hell was a continually reoccuring theme of His attempts to persuade reform.

    • djpala

      To put Vatican II in proper prospective the intentions of its creators & advocates needs to be studied. Once ‘Roncalli’ & ‘Montini’ are put under a microscope the whole plot unravels. The Church to this day has a homosexual-collective problem. For decades the Communist & the Masons plotted to subvert their enemy, the Catholic Church, through the seminaries & the Priesthood. St. Pius X warned us about ‘modernism’ the greatest heresy & this is exactly what Vatican II unleashed on the world.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3T6HKI5GKHEAEXQC24X4ZSN75I Gilbert

      Pete,

      Your article goes right into the heart of probably my main faith/spirituality problem. I’m a convert, perhaps two or three years older than you, and I had the unbelieveable timing to be converting to Catholicism at the very moment Vat ll got under way, at the very beginnig of the swinginest part of the “swinging sixties”, at the very moment my adolescent hormones hit warp speed. Then I dropped out of school and went to Viet Nam. When I got back, I was so far removed from the church that it took the next 30 years to fight my way back. Oh, it was not continuous fighting; I completely abandoned any attempts to believe in God for a good many of those years.

      And the timing phenomenon comes into it again when I eventually did get back to church, because this happens during the height of the priest scandals. But even more, what really got to me was the, as you put it, complete turnaround from fear of sin and its consequences to the emphasis on God’s love and infinite mercy. I’m constantly saying (to myself) about my fellow parishioners,”you people have absolutely no idea how bad sin can get, how wicked can be the ungraced heart of man.” And I constantly ask myself, “have I really had remorse, have I really experienced the miracle of sight through Jesus’ eyes, the eyes of love, and do I truly know the damage done and the pain caused by my sins?” I have confessed them all, to the bitter dregs of the most abject nadir of my time in the desert of no faith, and I will not question the power of God’s sacrament of absolution, but I sometimes fear I do not fear enough the gravity of my past deeds.

    • Facile1

      All sin is idolatry. LOVE GOD FIRST.

      Sin begins with the unfounded belief that humans were born innocent — and therefore, without sin. We’re only partly right. We’re born innocent because we have yet to KNOW God. But we’re NOT without sin because we have YET to LOVE God (unlike Jesus who IS alpha and omega; and Mother Mary whom GOD conceived immaculately to be the Mother of His Son).

      And if you are anything like me, a better part of one’s life can whiz by before one realizes how many opportunities to know God’s love (and opportunities to love Him back) are LOST forever. Such is human ego. Such is vanity. Such is pride.

      It is GOD who loved us first; God who will love us last; and God who loves us always even as we make our merry way to hell.

      I know only one thing about hell. God will NOT be there. And I cannot bear the thought of being separated for all eternity from the one and only LOVE who loves me best.

      We cannot hope to KNOW what we do not LOVE first. LOVE GOD FIRST.

    • evenhim

      Sexual repression or sexual forced perversion and unholy matrimonies. I mean seriously you can’t say sexual repression is a bad thing. It’s one or the other. Hot or cold there is no luke warm.