Called to act with justice

After the Saturday morning session concluded with Mass, we broke for lunch.  Teri had packed food for us so that we wouldn't have to eat out at every meal, so we headed back up to our room and considered which of the afternoon sessions she was going to skip. She was growing bored or overwhelmed, so attending them both was out of the question (as is any hope of us ever doing another weekend, where each presentation builds on those before it, so skipping isn't really an option). The two remaining themes to be presented in the afternoon were "Called to act with justice" and "Called to love tenderly." I preferred for us both to attend the latter session, so we agreed that I'd take in the first one on my own. I think I'd have chosen the same way had I known how they were approaching this. My expectation, for no particular reason, was that this would be about how we should seek justice as a couple toward those outside of our relationship, rather than how to act with justice within it. Still, Teri has lived this concept of justice under extraordinary circumstances, so even after the talk I still thought this was the better presentation for her to miss. (She does a nice job in the other area, too, mind you, but I wanted us to both share in that one.)

I'm expanding significantly on the ideas expressed in this presentation by Jim and Jill Serpe and Fr. Syl Taube, such that what follows is more a reflection on their talk than a reflection of it.

The world's idea of justice is deeply intertwined with the concept of "fairness." It involves weighing and measuring, and at least the impression of impartiality. The image of blindfolded Justice holding her scales is deeply ingrained in our cultural psyche. In relationships, the resulting approach to justice involves giving equally, ensuring that our contributions at least roughly balance out. This becomes our sense that the responsibilities for our daily living are divided in an equitable way. This sounds completely reasonable; I mean, there's got to be something to this approach, right? Still, partners' conceptions of equitable balance often differ greatly, as can their perceptions of when it has been violated. This often evokes feelings of resentment and (real or perceived) hurt.

Likewise, when one partner has indeed done something objectively hurtful to the other, often things aren't considered to be resolved until the hurt partner judges that offending one has experienced a similar level of misery, either through the pain of contrition and consequences or through some level of retribution exacted by the original victim. The victim may withdraw from the relationship until they judge that this balance has been achieved. This temporary - or even permanent - loss of the relationship can be viewed by the victim as the appropriate consequence of the offender's actions, or he or she may feel that it is only right that they should exact punishment. The interruption or termination of the relationship is considered to be the offender's fault, not the victim's.

This "fairness" approach to justice in various areas of a relationship involves a high degree of evaluating and score keeping, often by both partners. But keeping score inevitably interferes with our love relationship, in a couple of different ways. It repeatedly interrupts the flow of love and care in our marriage whenever one partner believes things are out of balance. And when partners disagree over when things are in balance, or even over what balance really is - and I posit that no two different individuals will ever be in full agreement on these things - inevitably there is conflict and tension in the relationship. Each partner becomes more interested in convincing the other of their own way of thinking; defensiveness and, more basically, fear prevent each partner from seeing their own actions accurately and owning up to their own offenses; the pursuit of equity takes precedence over loving. Being right becomes more important than fostering a loving communion with our partner. Communication breaks down when justification takes priority over an open heart.

The 50-50 myth (or even it's adjustment to the more lofty sounding "we each give 100%") causes strain and resentment when either partner (or both) feels that the other is not doing their fair share of the contributing or bearing their just portion of the pain in the relationship. A phrase used repeatedly in the presentation was that each individual tends to act as "judge and jury" in the relationship. I will decide what is equitable, when I've been wronged, when my need for recompense has been satisfied, and who is right in any conflict - which will, of course, be me!

God's view of justice is very different from society's. Rather than insisting on balancing the scales with us, God gives his very and whole self to us, without condition, in the full knowledge that we are going to fail to do the same. When we choose not to give ourselves fully and God has every right to condemn us for it, God instead shows mercy, forgiving us completely even before we ourselves are able to receive that forgiveness; God never keeps score with us as we do with each other, merely holding our offense in abeyance to be brought back up against us in the future. Even in the Hebrew Scriptures (Micah was cited), God's view of justice is shown to encompass humility and kindness.

The full expression of God's commitment to justice for us is found on the cross, not in any condemnation of his Son but in their joint outpouring of mercy for our sake. I love Fr. Neuhaus' suggestion that God did not condemn his Son to die in our stead, but we did, and in their love the Father and Son accepted our judgment.

Yet the result of death to ourselves is a resurrection beyond our wildest dreams. This is true as we die to ourselves in our marriage, as well.