Recently, a friend of mine invited me to attend his son’s Little League baseball game. I was surprised to see one of the teams fielding two of their opponent’s players.  The Little League association emphasizes friendly competition and good sportsmanship, but it seemed unusual that teams would share players. 

As it happened, the team using its opponent’s players had a depleted roster due to injuries.  One young player had a broken leg and the other had a broken wrist.  It seemed quite a coincidence that two players would have such serious injuries at the same time until I realized that Spring Break had just ended.  The two injured baseball players weren’t injured in baseball games; they were injured in Spring Break mishaps.  Almost certainly, it would have been a better idea for them to forgo Spring Break and remain in school. 

Some things that look like good ideas, aren’t so.  Risk taking behavior of the sort that can lead to serious injury is a bad idea that can appear to be a good idea at the time.  Sin is another example of something that usually appears to be a good idea but is always a poor choice.  Obviously, the accidents that led to those young players’ broken bones are entirely unlike the conscious choices that lead to sin, but there is a useful comparison to be made between the two. 

Today’s Gospel reading poses a rhetorical question, “Who is better off when we avoid sin?”  Is it God that benefits when we resist temptation or is it ourselves? 

In the Gospel reading, some scribes and Pharisees brought Jesus a woman “caught in the very act of committing adultery.” (Jn 8:4)  The woman’s sin is obvious, but so is the sin of those who caught her “in the very act.”  The scribes and Pharisees who accused her would have known about her intentions, but they did nothing to prevent her from sinning.  By allowing her to commit sin, they failed in their obligation to teach the Law in its entirety.  They failed in their responsibility to the spouse who was being cheated on, as well. 

As the scribes and Pharisees were much more interested in shaming Jesus than the sinful woman, it is likely that they colluded in arranging the sinful situation they presented to Jesus.  The choice they gave Jesus was intended to trap him regardless of his response.  If he said the woman should be stoned, he could be accused of disregarding Roman Imperial law which claimed the sole right to deal with capital criminals.  On the other hand, if he let her go, he could be accused of disregarding the Law of Moses. 

Jesus’ answer to the challenge posed by the scribes and the Pharisees was the same one he had used earlier with the infirm man at the Bethesda portico. (Jn 5:14)  He told the woman, “from now on do not sin any more.” (Jn 8:11)  

In both situations, Jesus seemed to have had a limited expectation that his words would be heeded.  This raises the question mentioned above, “Who is better off (or harmed) when we avoid sin?”  As no created thing can alter God’s perfection, God is neither harmed when we sin, nor better off when we avoid sin.  Our sins then, have an effect only on ourselves.  Jesus’ discomfort about the case of the sinful woman was not discomfort for himself or the Father, but for the sinners involved, including the scribes and Pharisees. 

The sinful woman and the scheming scribes and Pharisees are excellent examples of the nature of sin.  Sin is moral failure that the sinner misunderstands to be advantageous.  Even if she was lured into sin by the plotting of the scribes and Pharisees, the woman was a willing participant in adultery.  The scribes and Pharisees intended to enhance their status by discrediting Jesus.  All thought their sins would work to their advantage, and all were completely mistaken.   

This is the nature of sin; it is moral evil that looks like a good thing at the time but turns out to be harmful to all involved.  It makes sense, then, that the meaning of the biblical word translated as “repentance” or “conversion” means “to change one’s mind.”   

The penitential practices of Lent intend to help us change our minds about sin.  We fast during Lent to help us see that self-indulgence is destructive, even though it might seem enjoyable.  We give extra attention to almsgiving during Lent to help us understand that reliance on created things is self-defeating, even though it might seem wise.  We spend extra time in prayer to teach us that pursuing our personal agendas will never benefit us in the way that God’s favor benefits us.  We choose a voluntary penance to learn that selfless sacrifice benefits everyone and harms no one.  Lent intends to change our behavior by first changing the way we think about our actions. 

Who, then, is better off when we choose to avoid anger, retribution, self-indulgence, self-righteousness, and other sinful behavior?  God’s nature is unchanging and, therefore, God can neither be harmed by our sin nor helped by our virtue.  We are the ones who benefit when we resist sin.   

Oftentimes, sin looks like a good idea until we face the consequences of our sin.  If those young baseball players had a second chance to enjoy Spring Break, they would probably be more careful than the first time.  That wise lesson is applicable to all of life’s experiences.  Regarding our relationships with other people and God, the best idea is always to repent, to change the way we think about our actions and, thereby, resist temptation and avoid sin.