not sure if this belongs in the philosophy forum, but i’ll post it here.
I was raised a Christian, so when I just recently read the Possessed by Albert Camus (adaptation of Dostoevsky), a line spoken by Fedka the convict compelled me to think about the sacrament of reconciliation, in the Christian tradition, with regard to moral responsibility and progress. The line by Fedka was something like “Yes I have gone to Bishop Tikhon. He forgives even murder!”
The point is basically this: does the sacrament of reconciliation incite moral progress, or even guilt in any genuine sense, if anything can be forgiven? I haven’t received the sacrament in some while, but I wonder if priests recommend community service or something to those who have sinned. But even then, does the feeling of guilt compel the sinner to comport, to act on the basis of a stronger moral foundation, or is it used as an excuse to, well, sin again?
When I was a child, I always felt like reconciliation was a means to attaining a clean slate again. But does this clean slate only imply that it will be dirtied up again? And to what degree? Is the imposition of guilt or shame by the Other sufficient to influence stronger morals so that the feeling doesn’t occur again, or does that idea of a ‘clean slate’ only serve as an excuse to sin to any quantitative, or qualitative, degree whatsoever?
As I understand it, reconciliation only counts if you mean it. So, while the cloak of religion has allowed many evil people to get away with many, many evil things, if God exists, those people likely weren’t saved.
The act itself, though, may discourage bad deeds. Most obviously, there is the act of penance, and the punishment might offer some deterrence. More important, though, is the process of reflecting on ones misdeeds, and having to divulge them to an authority figure.
Confronting our transgressions in and of itself is a good step to avoiding them in the future, both because it helps us recognize wrong actions in the future. As social animals, we have innate understanding of right and wrong social action. Reflecting on actions and realizing that they are wrong associates the negative feelings with the actions more stongly.
Divulging misdeeds to an authority drives the point home from a different angle. Not only are you experiencing your own aversion, but your weakness is being exposed to a powerful individual, someone who, as a spokesperson for god, vicariously represents parental authority and complete control.
These factors can make the act very psychologically impactive, and probably make the sacrament unavoidably utile in discouraging certain behaviors.
Id agree with that. Though the people who do this are widly thought of in the christian community as not being true christians, people like this do exist and in large numbers
If there is a God who “saves” people who believe that He has the power to save them and who ask Him to save them, then probably the vast majority of these “evil” people are saved because they do have a sincere belief in God.
Most of them were brought up in religious households and never learned the critical thinking skills necessary to become atheist. I don’t doubt for a minute their sincere belief in the reality of God.