Mercy, Not Sacrifice

This homeless Jesus has left a place for you to sit.

Be merciful to him or those in a similar situation, as

he is always merciful to you….

I have had enough of burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. (...) Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. (...) New moon and Sabbath and calling of convocation --- I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. (...) When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen. (...) Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:11-17)

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings. (Hosea 6:6)

The prophets of the Old Testament were the right people for the right moments. Their voices and their oracles came from an analysis of the reality, the practical problems of the people, in the light of the word of God. The suggested solutions to the various problems and situations were of divine inspiration. These prophetic messages would always destabilize the existing “status quo” because very often the analyses were critical of the social structures and the way of life that had nothing to do with the will of God.

Religion that does not transform life is the opium of the people
Once there was a Muslim who ran after his enemy with a knife in his hand in order to kill him. As he was running, the Muslim heard the voice of the Muezzin at the top of the minaret of the nearby mosque calling the faithful to prayer. Suddenly he stopped his persecution, dropped his knife, spread his rug on the floor facing Mecca and began to pray. After finishing his prayer, he rolled up his rug, once again picked up his knife and continued his pursuit of the enemy.

This is just a caricature of how the practice of religion can become completely dissociated from real life. This same or similar situation can happen to many faithful in all religions. When Karl Marx said that “religion is the opium of the people”, he was probably referring to Christianity; however, what he said can be true of any religious tradition.

The churchgoers are the worst kind – says an old expression. In fact, we often observe that the practice of a religion’s prescribed rituals does not make its faithful better individuals; in many situations, they behave even worse than the atheists or agnostics. It is as if after having paid God dues with their practice of the religious precepts, the rest of their lives were no longer any of God’s business.

Mercy as the sacrifice of oneself
The prophets of ancient Israel were unanimous in condemning a life separated from religion and a religion separated from life; in other words, they condemned a cult or religious practice that could cohabit, condone and justify injustice and corruption. Therefore, in situations when it is not possible to have both justice and mercy together with sacrifice, if God had to choose, already from the Old Testament onwards, He has always preferred mercy to sacrifice.

Jesus reminded the Jews of his time that God, his Father who sent him, maintains this same choice when he tells them decisively: Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” (Matthew 9:13)

In preferring mercy to sacrifice, God is in no way rejecting sacrifices for He did not come to abolish the law but to perfect it. The sacrifice of His Son on the cross came to replace all the ancient sacrifices. In fact, at the very moment of Jesus’ death on the cross, the veil of the Temple to the Holy of Holies, was torn in two so as to say that the type of sacrifice of the old law has ended and the sacrifice of the new law has now begun.

The new law is the law of love, and for this reason, the worthy sacrifices are no longer those of lambs and goats but what Jesus said and put into practice, that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. That is, it is no longer to give what I can and the rest I keep; nor it is to give things outside of myself, but rather it is the giving of my very self. Most of all, the sacrifice of my ego is what is most pleasing to God, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”(Luke 9:23)

Be not surprised, sweet friends, of my furrowed brow, I live in peace with men and at war with my guts. This is the existential sacrifice of which the renowned Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, alludes to in this proverb: I battle with myself to be at peace with men, by sacrificing my instincts or basic tendencies such as anger, revenge, pride, selfishness, and even my thoughts; all this I sacrifice so to live in love and peace with my peers.

In preferring mercy to sacrifice, God is to have both things in one because there is no mercy that does not involve sacrifice; not the sacrifice of things that are mine but do not comprise me, but rather the sacrifice of my very self or a facet of my ego.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, we see these two worlds colliding. The world of the old covenant as symbolized by the priest and the Levite who, obsessed by the sacrifice of the external things outside of themselves, passed by on the other side of human need without feeling compassion and the world of the new covenant as represented by the good Samaritan who, faced with human misery, answers with mercy by sacrificing himself for the half dead wretch, deliberately going out of his way and putting aside his life and his business.

This parable emphasizes the importance of how a religion that exists supposedly to make us more human can, in fact, do just the opposite. It was precisely their religion that emptied compassion from the hearts of these clergies and impeded them from saving the one who urgently needed their assistance.

The sacrifices of the old law, the sacrifices of things outside of me, might do me well but they only concern my person. The sacrifice of the new law, mercy or the sacrifice of myself is good for me as well as for others. With this in mind, to fast by keeping what I did not eat to be eaten later is a fast of the old law that perfected only me; to fast by giving what I have rationed to those who need it is a sacrifice of the new law, because it makes me a better person and at the same time puts me in solidarity with the poor and the marginalized.

Be perfect versus be merciful
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:36)

What do I gain with the perfection of another person? Nothing. I could even suffer if that person uses his perfection and moral superiority to criticize or humiliate me. On the other hand, I have nothing to fear of the one who is merciful because faced with my misery he will be supportive and compassionate.

Christianity is not like Buddhism, a means of perfection and individual spiritual progress to belong to an alleged elite state of enlightenment. To reach perfection without taking into account others is not perfection at all. An individual improvement, that in some part of its process does not lead to the betterment of others and of the world in general, is negative because it will establish more social differences, and this will end up creating more injustice. In Christianity, my spiritual progress goes through social progress and vice versa.

In Christianity whenever you approach God, He always asks you like He did Cain, “Where is your brother?” and by responding, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” we all know is not the answer that God wants to hear from His children… (Genesis 4:9)

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC

Confessing directly to God

Figure 1 The confessional is the only “tribunal” where 

the defendant admits his guilt and leaves acquitted.

It is very common to find Catholics who say that they do not need a priest to be reconciled with God. They say, “If God knows very well our sins, and it is He who forgives, then why do we need a priest? We can confess directly to God”. In fact, in the sacrament of reconciliation, the priest is only an intermediary who mediates between the penitent and God. He acts “in persona Christi”, that is, he represents Christ who is, in fact, the one who forgives.

Mediators were in the past associated with capitalism and because of this, nowadays they are poorly regarded. Mediating between producers and consumers, they are seen as parasites of society because they are the ones who benefit the most and always in any business transactions.

The consumer seeks to buy directly from the producer because he can buy the goods cheaper, and the producer seeks to sell directly to the consumer since he can sell at a higher price. Ever increasing are the cases where the intermediaries are kept away from these transactions. Whether we like it or not, the practice of the sacrament of reconciliation has been adversely affected by this negative ideology concerning the person of mediation.

However, regardless of what has been said, the sacrament of reconciliation continues to make sense for reasons that have to do with the unchanging human nature as well as for biblical and theological reasons.

Reasons from human nature
Humans are intrinsically social beings because the uniqueness of an individual -- his character and personality -- is the result of his interactions with others; beginning with parents, followed by siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins, teachers, catechists, school friends etc. Because he is formed by them, these interactions, more than introspections, are privileged means for a human being to know himself as a person.

It is said that the face is the mirror of the soul because it is the part of our body that defines us the most; and yet it is precisely the face that is also the only part of our body that we ourselves cannot see directly. We see its image in a mirror but we do not see it as it is because there are no perfect mirrors. Only other people see it as it really is; in this same way, in order for us to see our innermost self, we need the help of others.

The Johari Window, a technique to help people better understand their relationship with themselves and others, tells us that our “Self” is divided into 4 quadrants and in these four areas we are only aware of ourselves in two of them:

• Open self – This part is made up of everything that I and others know about me from my sharing, through activities, public projects, general awareness, as well as through feelings shared.


• Blind self – This area is made up of my body language and all sorts of mechanisms that others are aware of but are unknown to me. I could have a speck on my face which is visible to others and not to myself; only others can help me discover this aspect of my personality. It is only those who are outside the forest that can see the forest, to those inside they can only see trees. Even Jesus in order to know this aspect of himself asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” We need the feedback of others to truly know who we are.


• Hidden self – This is made up of the secret motives of my behaviour: hidden feelings, my privacy, and secrets; that is, what I know but do not want others to know about me.


• Unknown self – This part is made up of my defense mechanisms, and all that Freud calls the unconsciousness. It is the source of behavioural variations for which neither I nor others can explain. Since to know means power and control, what I know about myself I can control, what I do not know controls me. Therefore to gain more and more ground into my unconsciousness, I also need the help of others.

In order to achieve the fullness of life, the human person must have the freedom of movement and expression, be independent and the lord of his own destiny, autonomous and responsible for his own choices. In this sense, a human being does not obey any situation outside of his moral conscience which is supposedly well-formed and informed.

However, as the maxim says, “No one is a fair judge in his own cause”. Furthermore, the moral conscience is not always well-formed and informed; on one hand, there are moral consciences that are too scrupulous, that see evil where none exists and find faults beyond what is reasonable; and on the other hand, there are moral consciences that are too lax, that do not see their own depravity.

One example of this is found in the case of King David who committed adultery with the wife of Uriah the Hittite and then sent the latter to the forefront of a battle to be killed. Despite having done all this, it was necessary for Prophet Nathan to tell him a parable that mirrored the gravity of his sin for David to realize what he had done (2Samuel 11-12).

It is true that when I have medical problems I turn to a doctor; when I have mental problems I turn to a psychologist; to whom then should I turn for moral problems when my conscience accuses me? How can I get rid of my guilt without someone’s help?

Studies have shown that practicing Catholics, because they have the sacrament of reconciliation at their disposal, have less of a need for psychologists and psychiatrists than Protestants who do not have this sacrament. Being social beings, we can only get rid of certain stuff that poisons our souls by talking it out and having a qualified person listening to us.

In other words, the guilt nagging our conscience pertaining to a past event and the obsession with any trauma are psychological and moral mechanisms from which, on our own, we cannot set ourselves free. This is graphically represented in the movie The Exorcist, where the girl is physically liberated from the demon only when it came out of her to enter the Jesuit priest who was performing the exorcism. In a similar way, we are only truly set free of issues that bother us when someone who is qualified psychologically and morally listens to us with empathy.

We really need a friend, a priest or a psychologist to do this safely; we cannot vent alone to a wall.  For this reason, Jesus has given to the priests the faculty to forgive sins on His behalf, both individually in the confessional and in a general absolution within a penitential community celebration.

The Jews used to experience a liberating purgation when they projected all their guilt onto a goat, hence the word scapegoat. There are certain sins and certain guilt that we cannot get rid of on our own, and to confess them directly to God will not help if that is all we do. We need to take charge of them, cry on some concrete shoulders and only then are set we free of them.


Biblical or theological reasons
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins – he then said to the paralytic – ‘Stand up, take your bed and go to your home’. (Matthew 9:6)

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19; John 20:23)

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. (James 5:16)

The priest, the man of God consecrated to represent Christ “the scapegoat” for the sins of all mankind, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, is in himself a sacrament, that is, a visible person who represents the invisible God. He is the one who continues the work of Jesus, which includes the faculty to forgive sins. He is the pontifical bridge between God and man who, as we are not yet with God, already lives on earth the life that all will live in heaven. Therefore he represents Christ and is his ambassador to continue here and now on earth what Christ started over two thousand years ago in Israel.

General or individual absolution?
For there to be a sacrament, there has to be someone who represents Christ; this someone is the priest who through the sacrament of Holy Orders is vested and entrusted with the same faculties that Christ exercised while living among us.

It is not indispensable that the priest hears or knows all our sins as it happens in communal penitential celebrations and individually when we confess to someone who does not speak a language that we are familiar with, as it occurred in the early years of the missions. What is indispensable to have the sacrament is the presence of the priest.

In the Gospel of Mark (2:1-12), Jesus said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven”. Jesus forgave the paralytic’s sins without knowing or hearing the paralytic confess them. His sins were forgiven because so great was his faith that he believed that Jesus could heal him.

When the feeling of guilt is unbearable we need spiritual direction to unburden it, then in such cases, an individual confession is more comforting and appropriate. Since we are social beings, from the pastoral point of view, psychologically and pedagogically, individual confession and absolution are preferred because they are more powerful in delivering us from the burden of guilt and produce a joy that is by far greater than the one we may obtain from a mental confession and a general absolution.

However, when this is not possible and it is entirely impracticable then in a community celebration where after an extensive and intensive examination of conscience guided by a priest is carried out which leads to awareness of our sins and impels our hearts to repentance, a general and communitarian absolution given by the priest has the same theological and sacramental value as an individual one.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC