Forgive us our Trespasses

2 SM 12:7-10,

PS 32:1-2, 5, 7, 11

GAL 2:16, 19-21

LK 7:36-8:3

As perhaps the best-known prayer in the world, the 'Our Father' is a remarkable testimony to our faith. Despite its gender specific language that troubles so many, it is prayed by hundreds of millions of people every day. In it we acknowledge our family relationship with God, God's universal supremacy, and our total dependence on divine providence. We pray that God's plan of salvation be accomplished in and through us, and that we will be able to withstand the temptations that assail us. While some of the needs mentioned in the prayer may not immediately touch every life at all times, the prayer contains one petition that does: "Forgive us our trespasses." Whether or not we have updated the language to say 'sins,' the meaning is the same. We are all sinners and we all need forgiveness.

We probably know the prayer so well, or we recite it so often, that its religious significance no longer makes an impression on us. After all, though we all might be able to admit that we are sinners, we are annoyed if anyone points out specific examples of our weakness. Besides, most of us have probably never been guilty of the kind of sins described in today's readings. This may be true, not because we are such good people, but because we have not been in situations that call forth the worst in us. However, if we look carefully at these readings, we might find that we share many of the same attitudes found in the sinners depicted there.

In the first reading, we find that David's weaknesses have caught up with him. Earlier he had been overcome with lust for the wife of another man. He certainly was not the first person, nor would he be the last, who became infatuated with someone with prior commitments. Unfortunately, he succumbed to the temptation, as has been the case with so many people before and after him. The attraction was not the sin; acting on it was. As frequently happens, the consequences of his behavior could not be avoided; Bathsheba conceived a child. Now what was he to do? How could he cover up his transgression? Again, in this he is not unlike many of us. However, as king, David had opportunities to hide what he had done. He tried to manipulate the situation and make it appear that the child belonged to Bathsheba's rightful husband Uriah. But this was to no avail, for the basic integrity of Uriah prevented him from enjoying the comfort of marital relations while the soldiers under his command were fighting. So David resorted to the vilest plan. He saw to it that Uriah died in battle. This left Bathsheba free to be taken into the royal household. This is a sorry picture of lust, fear, dishonesty, abuse of power, and ultimately murder. We may not have killed another person, but who has not been guilty of one or more of the other offences?

Once David's sins had been uncovered, he did not try to deny his guilt or place the blame elsewhere. He acknowledged his culpability and cried out: "I have sinned against the Lord." Speaking in God's name, the prophet Nathan assured David that he had been forgiven. It should be noted that the one who gave this assurance is the very one who pointed out David's list of sins. Though the king who had the power to silence the accusing prophet, he listened humbly to Nathan's words, accepted responsibility for his own actions, and acknowledged his sinfulness. David is an example of the repentant sinner.

The gospel passage recounts an episode that took place in the home of a highly reputed interpreter of the Law. Being a Pharisee, Simon, in whose home a dinner was held, would have known that contact with a public sinner placed Jesus in jeopardy of becoming ritually unclean. Jesus never denied the woman's sinfulness. Instead, he pointed out the correspondence between a sinner's need of forgiveness and the depth of grateful love inspired by receiving that forgiveness. For his part, Simon not only condemned the woman, but he also passed judgment on Jesus for allowing her to touch him. In his self-righteous estimation of his own propriety, Simon overlooked the fact that he failed to fulfill the requirements of hospitality, a very serious obligation in the ancient Near Eastern culture.

True, the woman's need of forgiveness was much greater than was Simon's, but that was precisely Jesus' point. If there was a correspondence between the need of forgiveness and the resulting grateful love, as Jesus argued earlier, then her love far excelled Simon's. Their respective behavior demonstrated the truth of this. Simon showed no compunction for having violated the protocol of hospitality. She, on the other hand, fulfilled that protocol with exaggerated solemnity, bathing Jesus feet with her tears, wiping them with her hair, kissing his feet and anointing them with oil. Her sins may have been great, but so were her contrition and the love from which it sprang. What can be said of our sorrow for sin?