In encouraging the three penitential practices (almsgiving, prayer, fasting), Jesus says to focus not on what others think. Ultimately only God’s opinion counts. Against him alone have we sinned. (Ps. 51:6) Although we long for others to understand and accept us, we sense that, even if they did, it would not be enough.

The Bible presumes we come to God with a burden of guilt, like a condemned man walking to the gallows. To some that biblical language seems overblown. What have I done so wrong? Besides, isn’t guilt a negative emotion from which we need to free ourselves to have a happy, productive life?

Yes and no. Before saying a word about false guilt, let me mention two men who freed themselves from guilt – but with hideous results. By the end of his life Adolph Hitler had spent years shifting the blame. In his final testament he asserted: “Those who carry the real guilt for the murderous struggle” were not the German people or himself, but “international Jewry.” Likewise, when Timothy McVeigh looked through a video camera at the parents, spouses, and children of the 168 people he had murdered, he showed no sign of remorse.

Freedom from guilt is not always what’s best for a person. Nor does presence of remorse necessarily cripple. It can spur one to action. Lest I be accused of promoting “Catholic guilt,” I will give a secular example. Princeton professor Peter Singer donates one-fifth of his considerable income to organizations feeding the hungry. He readily admits he could give more, that some children are dying every day because he does not do so. While you could hardly blame the Catholic Church for Singer's guilty conscience - he was reared a non-practicing Jew and he believes human existence is accidental and meaningless - still he feels a certain compunction (guilt) which motivates him to give at a level greater than most Christians. That kind of guilt - if humility keeps it within a certain perspective - does not harm a person. On the contrary, it does great good.

However, Dr. Singer also experiences a kind of guilt which one must question. He follows the Benthamite philosophy that each conscious individual counts as one – and therefore our duties are the same to strangers as to family members.* However, when his mother was dying with Alzheimer’s, he devoted thousands of dollars to her care. Later he became defensive about lavishing such resources on a single person – because it went against his ethics. In other words, his philosophy made him remorseful about going the extra mile for his mother. What an impoverished worldview which produces that kind of guilt! St. Paul calls this “worldly sadness which produces death.” (1 Cor 7:10) The Catholic Church has always striven to distinguish between true guilt which leads to repentance and salvation and the “false guilt” which leads to misery and despair.

Singer’s philosophy, far from eradicating remorse, is a formula for unappeasable guilt. Jesus, on the other hand, while he insists on accountability for ones decisions, offers genuine hope. For our sake he became sin “so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21) In effect, he stands with us on the gallows - and with him at our side we have nothing to fear.** Today he offers us the dignity of participating in our own expiation by fasting, prayer and almsgiving. Brothers and sisters, welcome to Lent.

************