Нравственное

6. Moral Imputations

The conditions of imputations.

From the fact that a person has a free will, it directly follows that he is responsible for his actions. The fact that human actions are imputable means that one must receive either a reward or punishment for them, depending upon his merit or guilt. The expression “imputation” is found in the Book of Genesis: Abraham believed in the Lord and imputed to Him his righteousness (15:6), in the Book of Psalms: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity” (32:2), — in the Epistle to the Romans: “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (4:4-5), and to the Corinthians: “that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them” (5:19).

The imputation or appraisement of human action is effected — before anything else — within the person himself, in his own conscience. Here, the person directly perceives that the committed acts are inalienably his, which the judgment of his conscience either approves or condemns him. However, the judgment of the conscience is not flawless — at least not while a person is on earth, in the state of incomplete moral development. That’s why the Apostle states: “In fact, I do not judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; He who judges me is the Lord” (1 Cor. 4:3-4). Thus, the highest judge of human deeds is God: “there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Heb. 4:13). According to Apostle James, He is Lawgiver and judge (4:12). However, as each one of us belongs to the human society — the society which holds to the idea that it must be the custodian of justice, and consequently judge our actions and either reward or punish us for them — then we are subject to spiritual and secular courts, represented by individuals. The expression of “judge not that you be not judged” refers to the private relationships between individuals and not in relation to a person as a member of society, to the society. And the fact that in a secular court — on the basis — there is a manifestation of God’s law-court, is especially evident in the Mystery of Confession; here, whatever is bound or released by the Church’s representative is bound or released by God Himself. However, as the society’s court is at the outset a human court, and everything human is not perfect, we again reach the conclusion that only God is the complete and fully just judge.

The primary rule of imputation is that we are imputed only with that which is complete, autonomous and free. Consequently, everything that is carried out during our childhood, when an individual speaks like a child, reasons as a child (1 Cor. 13:11), cannot be imputed to him. That’s why the Church does not call the children to confession until they are 7 years old. Even the civil laws send the under-aged offenders to correctional institutions instead of jails. However, even an adult can be found in the state of imputation. We have no right to speak of imputation about those that sin in their sleep, lunatics, mentally disturbed, etc., whose moral being, so to say, is manacled (Gen. 9:20), although this situation must be somewhat qualified. Thus, a person committing a crime while drunk is guilty because he voluntarily brought about his state in which he involuntarily committed the crime. He is guilty, if not directly in the act itself, then in the state, in which he was, while committing the crime. Here, the imputation is indirect. Dreams can also be imputed if they are the result of an immoral lifestyle. Actions that are forced upon us cannot be imputed. A person falling from a roof and killing a passer by is not guilty. If during the Christian suffering, the heathens forced the Christians to place incense into fires before idols with their hands, or defiled the Christian women, the latter were blameless. Martyr Glikiria said: “You have full authority over a body, but our spirit belongs to Christ. The body is not defiled where there is no agreement of the will and mind; and you will never be able to bring our will to agree to the sinful acts; God looks upon the concordance of the will, rather than the acts of a body brought about by force.” Likewise, there is no imputation in cases of ignorance, concerning the law. The Lord said to the Pharisees: if you were blind, you would have no sin (John 9:41). But in the relation to adults, it has to be said that in the main, their ignorance is not pardonable and has to be imputed together with their actions, performed consciously — even in ignorance. This is precisely the judgment that the Lord enunciated about the Pharisees. He states that His appearance on earth and the works that He performed, should have led them out of the state of ignorance; and that’s why they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22 and others). About the servant that was ignorant of his master’s wishes and made himself worthy of punishment, the Lord states that he too will be beaten, although to a lesser degree (Luke 12:48). By the words of the Apostle, the heathens that have bowed down to idols are culpable, because they had the opportunity to know God (Rom. 1:19-20). Also the Old Testament demands a cleansing sacrifice for the sin of ignorance (Lev. 5:17-19).

Let us examine the particular rules of imputation. Currently, it is necessary for everyone to know these rules, because anyone can be called for jury service and be obliged to judge people.

First, it is necessary to pay attention to the circumstance, if this is the first crime against the law, whether it is single or the law is frequently infringed by this person and it might be one of the whole series of unlawful actions. If the man for the first time, once, came across the unlawful action, then his fault is mitigated, but if he frequently transgressed the law, then his guilt augments. Secondly, it is necessary to investigate, if the unlawful action proceeded out of the mature decision, or it is committed without thinking. The misdeed on impulse is not as grave as that thought over. Thirdly, it is necessary to learn, if a crime was committed under the affect of the strong passion, i.e., greater emotional excitation, agitation. Fourthly, there occur cases, when the man is under the extremely difficult circumstances, for example, in the dire need, great grief or fear: in this case the punishment can be mitigated. Fifthly, it is necessary to ascertain, if the man was not tempted to commit a crime. That who committed a crime without any direct temptation, is guiltier than the one who was led into a crime. Sixthly, we are imputed not only the fulfilled action, but also all its consequences (Kings, 3:11 and f., Math. 18:6). For example, if the parents lead a dissolute and disorderly life, then they are imputed not only their own immoral life, but also the similar life of their children, since it is a consequence of the negligent upbringing. Generally, the more clearly one could foresee the ruinous consequences of his actions, the guiltier he is, and the more these consequences were not realized by him, and he could not foresee them, the less guilty he is. As the seventh reason, the basis of the mitigation of guilt can be the negligent upbringing, obtained by that misbehaving. Finally, one should focus attention on the repentance of a criminal in the crime. It is possible to think that the one who confessed the crime will regret about it, and therefore he has already been found on the way towards correction.