One of the most dramatic moments of any Catholic Christian's year is that moment in the Good Friday liturgy when, in the reading of the Passion, the entire congregation calls out, "Crucify him!" [Update: Reading this magnificent first chapter from Fr. Neuhaus's book on Good Friday (thanks Ross), I see that I misremember; the "Crucify him!" is spoken on Palm Sunday. -- RD] The point, obviously, is to bring home the solemn truth that it is we who bear the guilt for Christ's death. It was our sins that put him on the Cross. And less theologically, if we had been in that crowd that day, we likely would have stood with the masses in demanding Jesus' death.iirc, certain defenders of The Passion of the Christ and of the Gospel of John, in deflecting attention from controversy, have asserted that all are responsible for Christ's death. (Did Mel Gibson himself make this claim? I believe he did so in an interview, and also during one of the commentaries on the film.)
Our collective "guilt" for the death of Christ is supposed to be made manifest in our participation in the Passion narrative in the ordinary form. Or, at least in the ordinary form here in the United States. [Is it in the GIRM for the new Missal? Or is it an invention by the American bishops or some committee or agency of the USCCB? Is the participation of the faithful included in the old Good Friday liturgy? I don't think so.]
Surely, Christ did die for all men, so that they might be saved and united with God. But is everyone responsible for his death? Did they bring it about, by putting him to death, or commanding that it be done? No. There is a difference between the efficient or agent cause (those who actually brought about his death) and the final cause (for what purpose, or whose sake, Christ chose to die on the cross).
I think that this sort of erroneous attribution promotes a false sense of guilt, or guilt for the wrong reasons, and adds to the stereotype that Catholics suffer from too much guilt (or wrong-headed guilt or even scruplosity). Like survivor's guilt? If someone sacrifices his life to save me from a grenade, am I responsible for his death? I didn't throw the grenade, but certainly he died in order to save my life, perhaps even out of love for me. I didn't cause his death as the agent or instrumental cause, but I was the reason behind why he died, the purpose of him choosing to die. I am only responsible for those things which I do or bring about directly through my actions, and I should only feel guilty for the evil that I myself have done.
Or is there something more sinister at work here? Is this kind of guilt more readily exploitable by the devil for his purposes (much like scrupulosity), just as domineering parents give their children a guilt trip and make them suffer? That is, parents might say that they had to suffer through a lot in order to bring up their children, and that therefore it is their children's fault they they suffered, and therefore the children are obligated to make up for the suffering. (As opposed to making a return on the debt for the benefits they have received from their parents.)
Now this is not to say that we should not be moved (that is feel) in some way that Christ chose to offer Himself on the cross in order to redeem us. We can feel guilt for our sins, for letting Christ down perhaps, but not for actively bringing about His death. (And it is not clear to me that the practice of thinking that we should avoid sin by thinking about the pain that we cause Christ on the cross through our sins is a psychologically healthy one.)
It is not the degree of what was suffered, but what was suffered that matters? Can we say that the pain Christ suffered was directly proportionate to the number of sins actually committed by all?
No comments:
Post a Comment