On Peace

 If we consult Google translate and see the translation in Hebrew from English of "how are you?" we will see the word "shalom", peace. If we consult the youtube on how to say "how are you" in Hebrew we will get something like this, "ma shalom'kha". So there we have the word "shalom"., peace The phrase "how are you" then is roughly translated in Hebrew as "are you in peace".  

If we consult, again, Google translate of "goodbye" in Hebrew, we again see the word "shalom", peace. Goodbye, take care, shalom. Be in peace as you move away.

Are you "complete"? "Integral"? When a house is built and completed, it is in shalom. A completely constructed house allows for a harmonious and intact daily life. There is peace in daily life. Shalom has its roots in shalem, according to Hebrew language specialists. Shalem means whole, complete, intact. It can apply to personal wholeness or also to social-political wholeness. 

It may be interesting to note that shalom is also applied to wishing an "intact" death. "You shall go to your fathers in shalom, you will be buried at a good old age.” (Genesis 15/15). Whatever happens to you in and after death, may you be in shalom.

In the psalms we read about what a friend is. A friend is "someone of my shalom", someone of my peace. I can place my trust on that person; I can rely on that person. So we read, for example, the verse complaining about a friend who has "unfriended" me, so to speak. "Even the man of my peace, who ate my bread, has raised his heel against me" (Ps41/10). Even the person of my peace has raised the heel against me. The relationship thus is no longer intact, integral and trustworthy. The person who is contributing to the peace of my life is now an obstacle to my peace. The psalmist thus complains.

When there is justice there is shalom. In justice each one is respected in dignity. The dignity is conserved intact. Earth gives sufficient fruits, each one has enough to eat, each one lives in security, each one sleeps well, each one can bloom in life. To live in peace is not just to be free from violence and tensions, it is also to be able to bloom. 

Of course shalom includes the presence of the Lord God in life. Shalom is a spiritual condition of living with the Lord God who assures everyone that the covenant is sustained. It is the covenant that guarantees security, justice, cooperation, harmony within society. Because everyone in society recognizes the presence of the Lord God who has given the gift of Covenant, there is shalom in that society. In union with the Lord God, “no sword will pass through your land” [Lev 26/6]; “God will bless his people with shalom" [Dt.20/10].

For the Christian, Jesus is situated in peace. He is a gift of peace. Hence the angels announce to shepherds that there will be peace thanks to the coming of Jesus. 

"And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” [Lk2/13-14]. 

The coming of Jesus signals peace, completeness, integral life, blooming because all will be reconciled with God and with each other. 

It has become the task of the Apostles--and consequently the Church--to announce the Good News and put this peace in effect. Thinking about this then we can ask ourselves if, in our own personal--and social lives--there is this completeness, this wholeness, this shalom.

I might be getting what I want, but is it what I REALLY AND DEEPLY want. Does it make me whole, integral, intact? Or does it ruin me and ruin my shalom? Are the things that I do in conformity with the covenant that the Lod God has installed in the midst of society? Is it in line with the peace of Jesus? Am I, like the Apostles, on mission to promote peace? 

Do I have peace in me? Deep in me can I say there is peace? And when in deathbed I go to my fathers, do I go in shalom? As I move away, do I go in shalom?

Reflections on Abraham's call to "take, go and offer"

  "Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you" [Gen22/2]. Three verbs here: take-go-offer.

1. Take the son you love, your son. That's Isaac, the son from the sterile Sarah. Isaac is a surprise; never quite expected. Abraham starts to consider Isaac as his son--emphasis on "his". Yes, he is a "promised" child. But he is the Lord God's promise, not Abraham's. So the Lord God tells Abraham to give him up--take him up the mountain. Abraham can refuse this order to "take" Isaac. He does not. His paternity is now placed in faith. 

2. Go to the land of Moriah. Abraham had done his going away from his own homeplace. "Go forth from your land, your relatives, and from your father’s house to a land that I will show you" [Gen12/1]. . Now he has another going away, this time from his own son. He is to go away from his son to a future designed for Israel. [Remember that prior to the Abraham story we read about the stories of Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark and the tower of Babel, all descriptions of the conditions of the human being after the Adam and Eve story].  

Abraham is quite silent. He says nothing. He says nothing to Isaac. He says nothing to the servants. He is cloaked in silence. 

Well, he does say something to his servants, but it is no explanation of what is really going on. He also replies to Isaac's question. "The Lord God will provide" [22/8]. The Lord God will provide what is needed for the sacrifice. He does not however say that he will sacrifice his son. Abraham is completely absorbed in faith. 

3. Offer. Offer the son to the Lord God. The future is now outside the hands of Abraham; it does not rely on Abraham and his plans, goals, dreams. Offer the son because the paternity is now that of the Lord God. The future of Israel will have to be abandoned in the hands of the Lord God. 

We know the story, an angel comes and stops Abraham from killing Isaac. There are interesting commentaries on this and let us leave them to the expertise of Biblical scholars. There is just one point we can discern. Offer all hopes and dreams based on one's own expectations and lay them all in the hands of the Lord God.  The human, in the figure of Abraham, is called to overtake continuously what prohibits the human from what the Lord God has given. This includes overtaking dreams, plans, goals, desires that prohibit the human from living with the dignity that the Lord God has provided. This is our dignity as "image of God", our dignity as children of the Father, our dignity as brothers and sisters to each other. It is our dignity that has to be realized in the course of history--as represented by the history of Israel in the Bible. In a way Abraham is reminded that his faith in the Lord God is marked by a recognition of what it is to be truly human as the Lord God has designed the human.

It is tough and at times incomprehensible to be told to "take, go and offer". There are moments in life when this feels cruel. Life has its "comfort zones"that are shaken by the three verbs, "take, go, offer".  But as Charles de Foucauld prayed, "Father, I abandon myself into your hands; do with me what you will. Whatever you may do, I thank you: I am ready for all, I accept all. Let only your will be done in me, and in all your creatures. I wish no more than this, O Lord.". Good luck to all of us. 

Reflections on "Forgiveness"

Forgiveness. What is this? Those who pray the Our Father pray, "forgive us our trespasses". In that prayer to forgive is to forgive like the Father. The way the human forgives is aligned to the way the Father forgives. Something happens in the heart of the person who forgives and it is what the Father wishes to happen. 

If we look at what have transpired in our lives, the times when we forgave others, we might note two things. One is that the moment of forgiveness was an event. It happened at a precise moment. Also, it happened as if the forgiveness was like a "gift" to the person(s) who hurt us. 

1. Forgiveness then happens in an event with a date on it. It is something like this.

Time moves on with a hurt we cary in our hearts hoping maybe that the hurt will go away on its own. But then we also know that during all that time there is an ember that can be triggered to become a huge flame. A memory might arise and we realize that the ember is there inside. The hurt, the grudge, the pain still linger within. The flow of time has not thus guaranteed a new order of feelings and behaviour. The flow of time has not easily allowed the inauguration of a new happy life order.

Come to think of it, the event of forgiveness is like a "conversion" or a "surgical operation" that cuts out the grudges deep within. It is like a decision made, giving up the hope for a better past.

This is easier said than done, of course. The act of forgivness does not present a new situation as if nothing happened before, as if no hurt was ever done. It is more like constructing a new life. 

2. It is also like a gift. Oh, we might feel that the person who hurt us does not deserve the gift. That person who hurt us does not seem to have the right to be forgiven. 

For the person in pain, hurt and holding grudges, forgiveness may be unjustified.  Unless the injury remains unpaid and unrepaired there will be no forgiving of the other. Reparation and restitution belong to the system of justice. Of course we want justice. We need justice. 

But maybe there is something paradoxical with forgiveness because we give it as a gift even if we feel that the person who hurt us does not merit the gift. Imagine saying, "Oh I forgive you even if you do not deserve it". 

Are we capable of forgiving those who have really--and I mean REALLY--hurt us? Are we capable of looking for something beyond justice? What about ourselves, our relationships with our very own selves. Some of us might have done actions that make us hate ourselves and make us unforgiving towards our very own selves. Self forgiving can also be very difficult. 

So, the question remains: Are we really capable of forgiving? I do not know. What I do know is that there are perons who have been so hurt and have, nonetheless, been forgiving. To reply to the question I would like to look at the Our Father prayer given at the Sermon on the Mount. 

The prayer gives us a reference point. If we are to forgive we do it just like the Father. Forgiveness does not arise exclusively from our own decisions, it also "consults" what the Father will do in the same situation. So as the Father forgives, we do the same. We decide to forgive based on how the Father forgives. 

How does the Father forgive? Continuing with the Sermon on the Mount we can get a clue from the description Jesus made regarding the "perfection" of the Father. This is not a geometrical perfection. Rather, it is a perfection of the way the Father treats us all. The Father "makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust" [Matthew 5/45].

Something in each person remains untouched; it is conserved and must even be protected. A person may be "bad or good", "just or unjust". but that person remains to be a child of the Father and has the human dignity of being a child of the Father. The creation story will say that the person is "image of God". 

No matter what any person does or has done, the sun will rise on that person, the rain will fall on that person. There is no discrimination here. To forgive is to keep this in mind. No matter how I have been hurt--by others or by myself--I must remain constant about the fact of human dignity and the fact that each person is image of God. Justice and mercy need to have their focus on this dignity. If I find it so difficult to accept others and to forgive those who trespass against me, I need to however continue functioning based on the respect of human dignity, the respect of the image of God. Never must I violate the dignity of anyone and always, when the occassion is given, must I promote the dignity of others even if consider them as "intolerable", so to speak. This, if I am not mistaken, is the "bottom line", the "non-negotiable" level. 

I might have difficulties with my dislike of certain persons and I might even fall in the cultural trap of relating with others in terms of liking or disliking them. Much of social life, in fact, seems to me so unforgiving towards particular, disliked, persons. However, the Christian faith in the dignity that God has bestowed on each and every single human person must serve as a solid foundation.  The "minimum" we can do in forgiving others-- and ourselves-- is to keep the recognition and respect for human dignity.

Some Christmas Thoughts (with the help of Blessed Charles de Foucauld)

1. Adam and Eve ate from the prohibited tree. A command was given, "You may eat from any and all trees EXCEPT from the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil". There is nothing wrong with knowing what is good. There is nothing wrong with knowing what is evil. The problem lies in the word "and"; hence "good AND evil". 
2. With the help of a Biblical concordance, when this phrase with the word AND emerges in a Biblical text it indicates a problem, a risk. Good AND evil implies the risk of transforming evil into good and transforming good into evil. For example I like to kill my fellow. It is evil but I want to make it a good thing to do. Nobody will tell me it is bad because I consider it good. A confusion is thus described in the phrase "good AND evil"; it is the confusion of mixing up good with evil and losing proper discernment. 
3. Hence the command of the Lord God in the garden is a description of the human condition as created by the Lord God. The human condition involves freedom. You may do anything you want; BUT know the limit. Feel free to do anything you want, BUT recognize the limit. If the human rejects the limit "you will die". It is deadly to live with mixing up evil with good and not knowing which is really good and which is really evil. It is no longer a happy and vibrant life to live according to the intolerable; that is, to live with evil as if evil is good.
4. When the Lord God gave the command, the Lord God immediately supplemented it by saying, "it is not good for the human to be alone". Hence you may do anything you want to do, but know the limits by living with the other. It is in living with the other, or as the book of Genesis would say, with a "helper" that you will know how to manage limits. The "helper" will guide you with the limits. Both Adam and Eve, then, were to be helpers to each other. Life becomes an adventure in which the partners in the garden will explore the whole garden, discover what is in there and do anything they want within the given limit of not eating from the prohibited tree. The adventure dies if they eat from that tree. If they eat from that tree they will start saying that they have no more limits--hence there is nothing more to discover, to learn, to see, to enjoy; there is no need to adventure.
5. Hence the Garden of Eden story, as written by human authors, is a description of human life meanto to be adventurous; and we might add as "socially adventurous". We know the story, Adam and Eve, each ate a fruit from the prohibited tree. They accepted the story line of the serpent and lost the fun and joy of adventuring in life.    
6. I would like to appreciate the story in the perspective of philosophy. The human has limits starting with the limits of human incarnation. I have a body and at the same time I am my body. Hence this body is not just a thing, not just a material object for scientific scrutiny. This body is also me. 
7. Beginning with the human incarnation the world is then delineated into space, time and society. Clearly the delineations indicate human limits. For example in terms of space the human can reach certain places and the human cannot reach certain places. I can reach the pen next to me but not the top of, say, Mount Apo. I can see the computer screen but not the wall behind me. I terms of time I can pace in my own way but I must recognize the pacing of the world around me. I might want to rush planting papaya seeds in my garden but I also must recognize that the best time to do this is during the next rainy season. I may want to drink my cup of coffee but I must wait for the coffee to somehow cool a bit so I will not burn my tongue. In terms of society I may have my own thoughts and feelings and express them to others, but other people also have their own thoughts and feelings. I must recognize that fact and not violate their own access to their own thoughts and feelings. I might want a child to master at once algebra in school but I must also recognize the pacing and capacities of the child for learning algebra. With others I need to keep in mind that they have their thoughts, feelings, joys, pains, plans and goals. Others are my sabbath too.
8. What can I do? This is the human condition with all its limits. I can adventure and adventure with others, in the family, in the neighborhood, in society. Forgetting the limits can create a hellish life. 
9. Just think of the violation we have been doing to the carrying capacity of nature. We demand so much from nature and if nature cannot give in to our demands we intensify our demands and production to the point that we do not care about the plastics we throw into the sea and the carbon we spit into the air. 
10. Just think of conditions of many workers. From many workers are demanded profitable work but with salaries that cannot sustain a decent family life.   
11. Returning to Biblical reflections I am reminded, this time, of the first creation story--the seven-day story. The Lord God is such a marvelous and powerful creator but on the seventh day the Lord God takes a distance from being the marvelous and powerful one. The Lord God takes a distance--a "sabbath distance"--from God's own mastery over the world and allow the created order to take its own stand. Some biblists would poetically say that as soon as the Lord God takes this sabbath distance the created world sings joyfully and thank the Lorde God.
12. Among the creatures is the human being created in the image AND LIKENESS of the Lord God. This word "likeness" specifies that the human being is TO BE LIKE GOD by ALSO taking a Sabbath distance. The human is master of the world, ok, fine, great. But the human is commanded to take a distance from that mastery. The human is created male/female BUT must also be man/woman. You may be male/female BUT BE MAN/WOMAN. You may be master BUT know how to take a distance from that mastery. Note the same structure found in the garden of Eden story: "you may, but". In the case of Adam and Eve, the other person is a "sabbath". The human can be master but the other person must be recognized in his/her sabbath status. Know when to distance from your mastery in order to allow the other person to be himself/herself. (This is one reason why, in the first creation story, the human is told to be vegetarian--eating without competition with the animals. It is only in the Noah's ark story where the Lord God agrees that the human can also eat the meat of animals--BUT not the blood. The same structure is insisted on: "you may, but...")
13. So comes a Christmas meditation. The Word became flesh. If in the creation story the Lord God takes a sabbath distance--a distance from being Lord and Master and Powerful, the same logic is found in the New Testament. In the New Testament the Word became flesh or, as St. Paul would say, "Although he was God, he did not count equality with being God, HE EMPTIED HIMSELF AND BECAME HUMAN". The logic of the sabbath distance is now reiterated in the Incarnation of the Son. The command that the human take a distance from power and mastery, the command to be free with all desires but with recognition of limits is now, in the New Testament, made so evident. The solidarity of the Word of God with us is in our very own incarnation--starting with conception and with the birth in Bethlehem. This solidarity of God with the human is expressed in the confirmation of our creation. We were created "like God" and we were created to have a full, adventurous life. In and through the Incarnation of the Word God has confirmed and affirmed that our very own incarnation is of so much value and dignity.
14. Let me end with some thoughts taken from Blessed Charles de Foucauld. He was so enamored by the Eucharist. In the Eucharist he saw both Christmas and Holy Week. Let me just mention the Christmas side. Each time there is a mass the bread becomes Body of Jesus Christ. It is a Christmas. Jesus was born in the First Century Palestine, and during each mass he is again born in Pacita San Pedro Laguna, in Cotabato City, in New Delhi, in Lima Peru, in Yaounde Cameroon, in Fribourg, Switzerland etc. For Blessed Charles de Foucauld there is always this Christmas going on each day, somewhere, in which the Incarnation occurs. The solidarity of the Incarnation, this time in the Eucharist, assures us that really God is with us. 

On Touching Jesus and Jacob's Wrestling with God

On Touching Jesus
Look at the miracle narratives in the Gospels (and Acts). The narratives are theological constructs written by the authors. Sure, they are based on the historical experience with Jesus, a healer and someone who restored people to their human integrity. But the actual miracle reports were theological texts. Post-Easter Christians, as can be discerned in the letters of St. Paul, understood Christian life as characterized by the efforts to empower each other and to help each other restore each other from pains and struggles. Hence the effort to exert medical help to someone ill is, itself, a miracle.
God does not contradict the nature of God's created world. In and through nature miracles happen. This includes the actions we do to help each other live with dignity. Hence we do not have to look for extraordinary events to witness miracles. Miracles can happen in the most ordinary situations of daily life. I know of someone who made the courageous decision to address his deteriorating health due to vices by consulting, first thing in the morning, the doctor. I'd see that as a miracle. Think of a parent who is so emotionally distant from the children and who decides to re-bond with them. I'd see that as a miracle. Or think of someone so attached to his/her loneliness and decides to seek ways to be happy with the help of friends. Isn't that miraculous? Consider someone who puts work for justice above self-centered career. Isn't that miraculous?
I am not exactly sure of what goes on in people's minds when they wipe their handkerchiefs on statues and images and re-wipe the handkerchiefs on themselves. Do they expect a certain "power" coming from the statues and images? Let us, however, look at one power, it is the "power of the resurrection" as St. Paul stated it (see, for example, 1Cor15). This is seen, for example, in our efforts, small and silent as they may be, in supporting each other to rise constantly from the pull of the dark knowing that "at the end of the day" we will all rise with the Lord.

On Jacob's wrestling with God:
In Genesis we read about Jacob wrestling with God (see Gen 32).
One interpretation of this wresting goes this way. God, who is Almighty, pretends to be weaker. God gives Jacob a trial--a trial that Jacob can handle. So the interpretation extends to our life by saying that God gives us trials--God wrestles with us--but gives us trials that we can handle. 
Is God, however, also really "weak"? Biblical views show God has, from the very start in the creation story, shown a weak side. The Sabbath distance of the seventh day is God's option to take a distance from power and might to be in solidarity with the created world. In the Christian tradition this God will be nailed on the cross. Over the centuries the Church, with her councils, will deal with the "heretical" refusal to acknowledge the humanity of Jesus Christ. One heresy states that Jesus Christ was only pretending to have a hard time up the cross; his God side was using his human side as a front.
Going back to the Jacob story, then, we see that after the wrestling with God Jacob is given a new name, "Israel" signifying "wrestling with God". 
Put this in the whole Jacob cycle of Genesis. Jacob is fearful because of Esau. He is now confronted with his own fear. Jacob is frozen in fear (see his preparations before meeting Esau). 
Jacob is then to confront the fear by first wrestling with God. Face God tonight, face Esau tomorrow. Jacob will address fear by first wrestling with God and receiving God's blessing. What does the story conclude? 
Jacob can never flee from fear. Remember that after the wrestling Jacob will receive a handicap on his hip. Handicapped, he cannot flee, he cannot run. He cannot flee using his own strength--his resources. He will need others--and God. The most authentic way to face fear is by relying on others and God's solidarity with him. Here is where we can appreciate the "weakness" of God. 
Of course we tend to say that God is so strong, all mighty, all powerful and has no weak side. Theologians of the Middle Ages have emphasized this strong and powerful side of God. But "weakness" can be interpreted as the option of God to be on our side, to accompany us, to be one with our joys and pains. "Weakness" can be interpreted as God's willingness to respect us and our being creatures. 
We can appreciate this through what St. Paul called as the "self-emptying" of Jesus: "he emptied himself and became human " he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross." (Phil 2/7-8a).
 Remember the Adam and Eve story where God puts them in a condition in which life will be an adventure between both of them. Each will be a partner of the other. It is the human condition described in the Adam and Eve cycle, a human condition that is refused, not acknowledged by Adam and Eve. Now Jacob is to live in adventure with God as partner. Israel is to live in partnership with God.  Jacob thus will have to learn to face, rather than avoid, his fear, thanks to the fact that he is not alone. 
This interpretation, if correct, helps me re-frame my view of God. I am more attuned to the view that God walks with us in life and accompanies us in the trials we face. God does not give trials, God undergoes our trials with us. Both God and us wrestle with our trails, pains, joys, adventures. Hopefully this interpretation helps me face my own neurosis developed in time since childhood by the view that God tests me and sends me trials.

Love and forgiveness in our Christian vocation

In social media sometimes we read posts that wish bad things happening to others. For example we read about differences in political views and affiliations. Those on one side show intense bitterness and hatred against those on the other side. But how would a Christian behave in such situations? We were taught love and forgiveness.

To forgive is in the teaching of Jesus. In the Our Father Jesus also teaches that "if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions (Mt 6/14-15). Jesus insists here on the importance of forgiveness. Now we can think of the story of the unforgiving servant in Mt 18. The parable is given in the context of Peter's question regarding forgiveness "seven times". In the parable the master forgives first. The forgiveness comes first. The servant's unforgiving of another comes next. 

The parable is saying that when one is forgiven the result is that the forgiveness is transmitted to others. God forgives so we know how to forgive. Our forgiveness is a result of our being forgiven. If we refuse to forgive we then do not accept the forgiveness done to us; we do not live up to the fruits of the forgiveness done to us. This thus explains what Jesus means when he says "if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions". The image of the Father not forgiving is, in reality, the refusal of the forgiven to accept the forgiveness of the Father. This refusal has its consequence in relationship with others. One remains stubborn and one treats others harshly. Why will the Father like that?

Jesus also teaches about love of enemies. This is a tough lesson to accept. How can we love enemies? How can we love those who have caused us so much suffering? Jesus in fact tells us to love our enemies and "do good to those who hate you (Lk6/27)". What? Do we do good to those who have done us so much injustice? Do we not have bitterness towards them? How can we love them and even do good to them? Is Jesus crazy in his teaching?

Love comes from a loving heart. One loves because the other person has the dignity of being loved, no matter who he or she is, no matter what he or she has done. Love desires the good of others, including enemies. This is because each and every single person has human dignity and is image of God. By the fact of being existent, each person is worthy of love, especially of God's love. So loving an enemy is not narrowly about feeling affection for that person; it is about recognizing the human dignity proper to that person. Hence we never wish bad things for an other person, no matter who he or she is, not matter what he or she has done. We do good to those we hate by keeping them away from their refusal to live up according to the dignity God has given them. This is part of our Christian vocation in the world. 

The Christian does not promote hatred and discrimination. The Christian does not promote wishing bad things to happen to anyone. The Social Doctrine of the Church has emphasized the central place of human dignity. The Christian is always guided by this dignity.

Love, in the teaching of Jesus, involves our being open to others. We never close the door to the dignity of others. Refusing to forgive is thus refusing to love. Why? This is because the refusal to forgive is a closing of the door. It is a way of saying that the other person ceases to share a future with us. Our dignity is no longer something we share. We are no longer on equal terms. This is a refusal of the dignity that God has given to each person. 

If we are guided by love then we always wish the good of others, even those we hate. This is why we can talk of "forgiveness". In forgiveness we never give up the hope in and the respect for the dignity of others.  

In practical terms we oppose the injustice that someone else will do, in love we protect that person from doing the injustice! We struggle to make sure that the person is disabled from doing injustice. Note that we wish the good of the other person--we wish that the other person step away from the evil of injustice. We wish that the person exercises justice. We wish that the person stays faithful to the dignity God has given him or her. This is why we forgive not just seven times but seventy times seventy times--that is, we forgive infinitely. We remain faithful to the dignity that God has given to each and every single human person.

Love hopes to protect others from doing bad things. This too is forgiveness. This is a way of recognizing and respecting the dignity proper to others. Because of their dignity and because they are image of God they must be re-located from injustice to justice, from violence to peace, from hatred to love itself. The bad things that others might be doing only harm them. The bad things destroy them. Our struggle for justice does not involve wishing bad things to happen to the unjust. It involves restoring the goodness that the dignified person is really capable of doing. 

God loved us first. God has forgiven us first. Hence the fruit of what God has done to us is for us to transmit love and forgiveness in our relationships. We would like to have love and forgiveness bloom in our actions even if we find it impossible to delete the pains others have done to us. 

Jesus taught that we be "perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt5/48)". The perfection of the heavenly Father is something we can always do. The Father loves, the Father forgives, we can do the same. Christian vocation is thus not about doing things we can never do. We have been given guidelines by Jesus and we can do them as best as we can. 

Bible and Word of God: A Catholic reading

We Catholics believe that the Scriptures help us listen to God's Word. Now, "Bible" and "God's Word" are not exactly the same. The different books in the Bible had been written to express, with human language and culture, divine reality. This divine reality is God's Word which goes beyond all of us. Hence in the Catholic Church we are careful not to put God's Word and written text together strictly.
The Bible, as recognized in the Catholic Church, allows us to have access to God's Word, but the Bible is not exactly the text directly said by God. God's Word has come to us through history and in many ways through creation, the sacraments, the Church. God, also, manifested to humanity in the Incarnation of Christ. This is the definite and conclusive expression of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Note then that we have Scriptures that were written by human authors to precisely say how the Word of God got involved in human life.
It is alright then to use all sorts of analyses to study and undertand the Bible. Even scientific analyses, including archaelogy, are used. These analyses help us to AVOID projecting our own ideas and presumptions on the Biblical texts. These help us AVOID just interpreting the Bible in any way we want. The analyses help us place ourselves in a more appropriate listening to God's Word. It is dangerous to let Scriptures say things that are based solely on our wishes. The Biblical texts were written by human authors; we grapple with the texts as we live in our own cultures. This is part of our own human incarnation.
Of course, in the Catholic faith, we still ask for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church says that the Biblical texts were written by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We are not the very first who have received the texts; we are not the very first who interpret them. In fact we are, today, guided by a long tradition of interpretations done by so many other persons and communities in the past. Think of the Church Fathers; think of St. Jerome; think of St. Augustine. There were individuals like St. Thomas Aquinas who did their own attempts to interpret the Biblical books. Look at the published Bibles we hold today--like the New American Bible or the Jerusalem Bible. They have headings and paragraph-titles. Those are interpretations also. (Let us not forget that translations are, themselves, interpretations too).
The Church herself has stood with her own dogmas and her own councils. These view Scriptures in specific ways--in ways that we can consider as "interpretations of the Church". Take the example of the notion that Christ is fully human and fully divine, as defined by councils like that of Chalcedon. The Church read sciprtures and came out with this definite view about Christ. The Church saw in Scriptures this very fact about Jesus Christ. The Church interpreted Scriptures and established her dogmas. Dogmas then can be understood as positions taken by the Church in her understanding of Scriptures.
For a Catholic then, the Church herself serves as guide for reading and interpreting Scriptures.
The Catholic faithful does not read the Bible as a purely private affair. Catholic reading of the Bible is community based. We read in common, in community. We just do not make our own private interpretations without consulting what the community--the Church--says. The Bible belongs to the community, not just to our private selves.
Remember the the human authors who wrote the Biblical books were writing for their readers. They were writing for their communities. Take the example of the gospel accounts. Each gospel author wrote for his own specific community. Mark, for example, was writing for his community in Rome. Furthermore, the authors were taking information from communities too. The bases of their written texts were derived from their lives and inter-actions within communities. Mark, again, took information from memories of people, including St. Peter himself, about Jesus. Matthew and Luke, for example, even took parts of Mark's text to write their own gospel accounts.
It is clear that, from the very start, the Biblical books were not meant for private interpretations. Of course we may read in the privacy of our own rooms. But as soon as we interpret, we need to consult the community, the Church and the Church's communication with the scientific community analyzing the Bible books. This is part of our human condition as incarnate. Our incarnation is not exclusive of others. Each individual human is at the same time social and communal.