Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
A Study Of “On The Character of Men And the Virtuous Life”: Part XVI

A Study Of “On The Character of Men And the Virtuous Life”: Part XVI

Last updated on: April 19, 2011 at 5:09 am by Henry Karlson

A Study Of “On The Character of Men And the Virtuous Life”: Part XVI 2011-04-19T05:09:01-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Introduction and Part II

Because of the disorganized nature of our text, we will look at paragraphs sixty-nine and eighty-one together, and then, afterward, look at the paragraphs which fall between them. This is because these two paragraphs work well together, while what lies between them are, in their own way, better tied together.

First, our writer states that, if we find someone needing correction, we must do it in purity, without anger:

We should not become angry with those who sin, even if what they do is criminal and deserves punishment. On the contrary, for the sake of justice we ought to correct and, if need be, punish them ourselves or get others to do so. But we should not become angry or excited; for anger acts only in accordance with passion, and not in accordance with good judgment and justice. Moreover, we should not approve those who show more mercy than is proper. The wicked must be punished for the sake of what is good and just, but not as a result of the personal passion of anger.[1]

Nonetheless, while we read that we must not be “too merciful,” our writer does not want us to think we should be without mercy:

If you are in a position of high authority, do not lightly threaten someone with death, knowing as you do that by nature you, too, are subject to death and that the soul sheds the body as if shedding its last garment. Since you know this, be gentle and merciful, always giving thanks to God. For he who has no compassion has no virtue.[2]

Justice seeks after what is good, not just for one person, but for everyone. When someone sins, they have, in some fashion, abandoned some good. They need to be led back to that good. This often means that they must make satisfaction for what they have done. Perfect satisfaction for sin is often impossible – if you kill someone, it is unlikely you can bring them back to life. It is for this reason any punishment for sin must be done in accordance to mercy: just because someone cannot restore that which they destroyed does not mean they, in return, should be destroyed. Mercy allows for this, because it understands the just demand for satisfaction must not become retribution or revenge, for such retribution does not lead to the restoration of the good, but, rather, continues the cycle of sin and eliminates even more good from the world. Retribution is not satisfaction, but its elimination. Mercy, however, can only be given to those who are ready for it, for those seeking satisfaction for their errors; by ignoring the plight of those who have suffered some wrong and giving mercy to those who continue in their error, just like retribution, justice is lost and error is promoted.

Punishment is often needed when justice has been abandoned. It is because, when justice is significantly transcended, society is hurt. To repair what has been damaged, the one who has done wrong might have to be forced to act rightly, if they do not want to do so. We are not individuals free from society, we are a part of society, and we benefit from society whether or not we try to set ourselves apart from it. We can be, and should be, forced to change our ways when our ways significantly fall from what is good. Murder cannot be left unpunished. The squashing of significant human rights, such as when some of the rich seek to make the poor into their playthings and slaves, cannot be ignored. But, when we do this, again, our justice must not be done by anger, must not be accomplished in a fit of passion, because when acted out of passion, such actions rarely end up being just. Instead, justice must be enforced, when necessary, but through a desire for the good of all involved, both the victims of injustice (if they are still around), and, moreover, the ones who violated justice. They are humans with human rights, who we must treat with compassion, seeking their salvation not their destruction. Of course, by their violation of justice, they can be (and sometimes should be) forced to act contrary to their desires, if they want to continue on the path of injustice. That is not a violation of their rights. What is, however, is to seem them are a mere object, or to ignore their humanity and the good contained in them because they have been given human life; when either of these are done, they can become the victims of injustice as well. One cannot deal with injustice by more injustice. Thus, as Vladimir Solovyov notes, there are two errors which we must confront: first is the theory of retribution, the second is the belief that persuasion alone can bring someone to their senses and lead them to justice.

Let us look at what Solovyov has to say on justice, and how he comes to this conclusion. First, he explains the two aspects as two feelings we feel when we face an act of injustice, such as when a strong man beats up a weak one:

When one man is doing injury to another, e.g., when the stronger man is beating the weaker, a person witnessing the injury – if he takes the moral point of view – experiences a double feeling and an impulse to a twofold course of action. In the first place, he wants to defend the victim, and in the second, to bring the injurer to his senses. Both impulses have the same moral source – the recognition of another person’s life and the respect for another person’s dignity, psychologically based upon the feeling of pity or compassion. [3]

The two desires which come together are for the sake of the victim, that they are defended (and what wrong they have suffered is overcome), but also for the sake of the injurer, that they not only are stopped from harming someone else, but their state of mind is changed so that they willingly stop such injustice. Here we can see the foundation for both errors, for the first, when taken by itself, leads directly to vengeance, while the second, when taken by itself, ignores the harm done to the victim and so will lead one to pamper the injurer until they change their mind (which, of course, can be forever, because they will see no need for that change as long as they are coddled and find no demands are placed upon them). The two must go together, the two must always be preserved in any act of justice, otherwise, greater injustice ensues.

Solovyov takes greater pains to deal with the notion of pure retributive justice which ignores the personal demands of justice that the injurer places on society because most legal systems fall under this ideology. It, in the end, becomes self-contradictory, because it leads to the creation of a new victim, as justice and its demands upon society are ignored. The basis of pure retribution is that one cannot ignore victims, but because it makes a victim it ignores, by such action, the whole theory is overridden:

Psychologically, our feeling for the victim is very different from our feeling for the aggressor – the first is pure pity, and in the second anger and moral indignation predominate. But to be moral, that indignation must not pass into injustice towards the wrong-doer, into denying his human right, although that right materially differs from the rights of the victim. The latter has a right to our defence, the former has a right to be brought to reason by us. The moral basis of the two relations is, however, in the case of rational beings, one and the same – the absolute worth or dignity of human personality, which we recognize in others as well as in ourselves. The twofold violation of that dignity taking place in criminal assault – violation passive in the injured and active in the injurer – calls forth a moral reaction in us, which is essentially the same in both cases, in spite of the fact that its psychological expression is different and opposed. [4]

We can require the one who has violated justice to seek its reparation. However, we must not confuse this with vengeance. It doesn’t have to be. If someone is killed, destroying their murderer does not bring back the one who is killed, but it does eliminate someone else from society who, according to their nature, is good. This means capital punishment destroys more good, and it does so without creating any kind of restitution. Indeed, it justifies murder because it says one can kill someone else if one believes it is for the greater good. We must see beyond this nonsense and see how the death penalty never restores justice but creates more injustice. Even if one suggests capital punishment must be allowed (as with other questionable punishments, such as torture), because they provide a threat which will prevent people from doing what is wrong, this principle ends up destroying the dignity of the human person and can be seen as immoral:

The moral principle asserts that human dignity must be respected in every person, and that therefore no one may be made a mere means of or an instrument for the advantage of others. According to the deterrent theory, however, the criminal who is being punished is regarded as merely a means for intimidating others and safeguarding public safety. The penal law may, of course, intend to benefit the criminal himself, by deterring him, through fear of punishment, from committing the crime. But once the crime has been committed, this motive obviously disappears, and the criminal in being punished becomes solely a means of intimidating others, i.e., a means to an end external to him; and this is in direct contradiction to the unconditional law of morality. From the moral point of view a punishment inspiring fear would only be permissible as a threat; but a threat which is never fulfilled has lost its meaning. Thus, the principle of penal intimidation can be moral only on condition of being useless, and can be materially useful only on condition of being applied immorally.[5]

Society as a whole can be shown to be immoral when it gives out punishment due to anger. It lashes out in cruelty, ignoring the good of a given human person, a good which can never be violated:

All this systematic cruelty is revolting to the moral feeling and brings about a change in our original attitude towards the criminal. Pity to the injured person and the impulse to defend him set us against the injurer (the criminal).But when society, which is incomparably stronger than the individual criminal, turns upon him its insatiable hostility after he has been disarmed, and makes him undergo prolonged suffering, it is he who becomes the injured party and excites in us pity and a desire to protect him. Although the legal theory and the legal practice have decidedly renounced consistent application of the principles of retribution and intimidation, they have not given up the principles themselves. The system of punishments that exists in civilised countries is a meaningless and lifeless compromise between these worthless principles on the one hand and certain demands of humanity and justice on the other. In truth, what we find are simply the more or less softened vestiges of the old brutality, with no uniting thought, no guiding principle involved.[6]

The self-contradiction involved explains why a justice system based upon retribution cannot be accepted. It must be rejected. Capital punishment is, of course, the extreme representation of this system, but it is also the extreme which, when followed, shows the extreme willingness of a society to undermine the principles which make murder criminal:

The special evil and horror of murder consist, of course, not in the actual taking of life but in the intrinsic renunciation of a basic moral norm, to sever decisively by one’s own resolution and action the connection of common human solidarity regarding the actual fellow creature standing before me, who is the same as I, a bearer of the image and likeness of God. But this resolution to put an end to a man more clearly and completely than in simple murder is expressed in the death penalty, where there is absolutely nothing apart from this resolution and carrying it out. Society only has left an animus interficiendi in absolutely pure form with respect to the executed criminal, completely free from all those physiological and psychological conditions and motives which darkened and obscured the essence of the matter in the eyes of the criminal himself, whether he committed the murder from calculation of gain or under the influence of a less shameful person. There can be no such complexities of motivation in the death penalty; the entire business is exposed here: its single goal — to put to an end to this man in order that he not be in the world at all. The death penalty is murder, as such, absolute murder that is in principle the denial of a fundamental moral attitude toward man. [7]

Anger and its desire for revenge cannot be used to justify punishment. When it is done following the path of anger, injustice, not justice is served, because compassion is left out. Virtue requires us to love our enemies, to seek after the welfare of those who would do us harm. It is not because we approve of their desires, but rather, we should seek for their betterment, to turn those who would be our enemies into our friends. We must seek for justice, and make sure, when injustice is being done, it is stopped, but we must not allow such injustice to justify other, worse injustices. When we act, it must be out of compassion for everyone; we should see justice for the injured as well as for aggressor to be changed, to be rendered no longer an aggressor but another just actor in society. Punishment must be done which keeps this in mind. One reason why we can lock someone up is not out of anger, but because it can do them some good. Thus:

Protection of individuals, public safety, and the subsequent good of the criminal, demand in the first place that the person guilty of a crime should be for a time deprived of liberty. In the interests of his relatives and of his own, a spendthrift is rightly deprived of freedom in the administration of his property. It is all the more just and necessary for a murderer or a seducer should be deprived of freedom in his line of activity. For the criminal himself deprivation of freedom is especially important as a pause in the development of the evil will, as an opportunity to bethink himself and repent.[8]

If we keep someone confined, not for their better good, even our acts of incarceration become unjust. We must remember why they are imprisoned; it is for the good of society, yes, but also for their own good. We must keep their good involved and not ignore this. We cannot turn them into mere objects of vengeance. When we keep forgetting their good, we end up promoting injustice and ideals which end up promoting injustice. Justice demands restitution, and can require incarceration so that those who do evil, can be stopped from doing evil and hurting themselves more in the process; but we must not think such incarceration is itself justice, nor can we think about “locking them up and throwing away the key,” because when we do so, we ignore what justice itself demands from us. But if we remember this, then we can begin to see how and why, and to what limit, society can deprive someone of “liberty,” of “freedom.” Persuasion alone, without some sort of social force for the sake of justice, would ignore this, though of course, we must try to persuade, and we must recognize our penal system can be a tool for the moral restitution of criminal. We can force them to stop doing evil, as long as we do not do evil in return, and then, once they have been stopped from doing evil, it is our duty to convert them to the cause of the good. We must love them and treat them with compassion. If we do so, we show we, too, find the cause of the good is our own, showing an element of our virtue in the process.

Can we see the semblance of these beliefs in other Anthonite literature? Yes. Anthony, for example, connects justice with temperance and many other virtues, all which we should seek:

Further, we should consider that even if we do not relinquish them for virtue’s sake, still afterwards when we die we shall leave them behind–very often, as the Preacher saith, to those to whom we do not wish. Why then should we not give them up for virtue’s sake, that we may inherit even a kingdom? Therefore let the desire of possession take hold of no one, for what gain is it to acquire these things which we cannot take with us? Why not rather get those things which we can take away with us–to wit, prudence, justice, temperance, courage, understanding, love, kindness to the poor, faith in Christ, freedom from wrath, hospitality? If we possess these, we shall find them of themselves preparing for us a welcome there in the land of the meek-hearted. [9]

We find, similarly, Anthony’s exhortation to St Constantine to be one which follows the ideals of our passages, that of justice mixed with mercy.[10] This, of course, is also how he acted, as a spiritual authority. Though he could, and would, make tough demands on people, he also understood the struggles monks faced, and he made it clear, those who falter and yet lift themselves up are to be respected, not denounced:

It happened one day that one of the brethren in the monastery of Abba Elias was tempted. Cast out of the monastery, he went over the mountain to Abba Anthony. The brother lived near him for a while and then Anthony sent him back to the monastery from which he had been expelled. When the brothers saw him they cast him out yet again, and he went back to Abba Anthony saying ‘My Father, they will not receive me.’ Then the old man sent them a message, saying, ‘A boat was shipwrecked at sea and lost its cargo; with great difficulty it reached the shore; but you want to throw into the sea that which has found a safe habour on the shore’ When they brothers understood that it was Abba Anthony who had sent them this monk, they received him at once.[11]

Anthony worked with the monk, to strengthen him and make sure he overcame sin. Mercy is needed in order to make sure one does not destroy someone who would otherwise be converted and become a force for good. The monk, Anthony believed, had need of help, not condemnation; justice is for the promotion of the good, and that promotion can only be had by helping a sinner overcome sin, not by destroying the sinner. Thus, if someone falls into sin, that is, shipwrecked, they should not be destroyed, but rather, helped to get to the habour safely, so that the ship can be mended. This, of course, shows us Anthony lived out in person what we find suggested in these passages. It is not that there is no work, no restitution which must be demanded from the one who sins, but rather, such demands must be made through compassion, understanding how and why they failed so one can turn them around and respected for overcoming what sought their own personal destruction.

This, of course, is the point of monasticism; monasticism is a tool by which a sinner is able to be made into a saint. It relies upon the recognition that sin hurts the sinner, and it is God’s compassion which allows the sinner to overcome sin, a recognition Anthony made clear in his letters (once again connecting to our text here):

For this cause, therefore, he who sins against his neighbour sins against himself, and he who does evil to his neighbor does evil to himself; and he who does good to his neighbour, does good to himself. Otherwise, who is able to do ill to God, or who is there who could hurt Him, or who could refresh Him, or who could ever serve Him, or who could ever bless Him, that He should need his blessing, or who is able to honour Him with the honour that is His due, or to exalt Him as He deserves? Therefore, while we are still clothed in this heavy body, let us rouse up God in ourselves by incitement of each other, and deliver ourselves to death for our souls and for each other; and if we do this, we shall manifesting the substance of His compassion for us.[12]

While what we see here, for the most part, appears like what Anthony would say, one could question whether or not he would write, in an otherwise monastic document, on the treatment of criminals. However, he was asked for advice by secular authorities, such as Constantine, and his plea was that they acted mercifully. Thus, it should not surprise us if, after he was called to reflect on this topic, he wrote down notes in case he, once again, was asked to advise some authority

[1] [1] “On the Character of Men and on the Virtuous Life,” 340 (#69).

[2] Ibid., 342 (#81).

[3] Vladimir Solovyof, The Justification of the Good. Trans. Nathalie A. Duddington, M.A. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1918), 300.

[4] Ibid., 301.

[5] Ibid., 313.

[6] Ibid., 314.

[7] Vladimir Soloviev, “On the Death Penalty” in Politics, Law & Morality: Essays by V.S. Soloviev. Ed. and trans. Vladimir Wozniuk (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 180-1.

[8] Solovyof, Justification of the Good, 323.

[9] St Athanasius, Life of Antony, 200-1.

[10] “He begged them to be merciful and to give heed to justice and the poor,” ibid., 217.What is important here is that Constantine is the authority of Anthony’s time, and so he is given a message which follows what our text here says authorities should embrace: mercy.

[11] The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, 6 [#21].

[12] Chitty, The Letters of St Antony, 20 [Letter VI].

Previous Post

April 18, 2011

Estrangement (As It Were) Enters the Divine Communio; Love Infiltrates the Loneliness of Our Hell

Next Post

April 19, 2011 Input for Msgr. Charles Pope

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: 2 John is addressed to Gaius, the beloved friend.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE