A very good question!
Sin must be punished […] a sinless man […] took upon Himself all the condemnation that we so richly deserve. […] God's holy outrage against sin has been meted out on Jesus on the cross, and now all who believe in Jesus as their only hope are reconciled to God […]
This doesn't answer it.
God satisfied his outrage against sin by meting out justice (sounds more like injustice to me!) to a sinless man?!
How could a just judge (like God) accept the propitiatory sacrifice of anyone but the guilty party himself? How could such a sham sacrifice satisfy him?
I'm not trying to be dense - I was raised in the Western Judeo-Christian culture - but as soon as anyone carefully, calmly examines this conundrum, he realizes that it really is a brain-teaser.
Regards,
Father Benedict is not sure that the classical "judicial" model of looking at Jesus' death --- as elaborated by such Fathers of the Church as St. Anselm --- comprises the whole explanation, or even speaks to modern man's spiritual need to connect in an other-than-judicial way.
If you are really interested, Benedict's interview is a moderately long read but I truly think it speaks to your question and is worth your time:
POpe Emeritus Benedict - rare interview
I will quote part of it in the next post. I'm not putting it in this one, because I don't like real long single posts.
Benedict:
However, in my opinion, there continues to exist, in another way, the perception that we are in need of grace and forgiveness. For me it is a "sign of the times" the fact that the idea of the mercy of God should become more and more central and dominant --- starting from Sister Faustina, whose visions in various ways reflect deeply the image of God held by the men of today and their desire for the divine goodness.
Pope John Paul II was deeply impregnated by this impulse, even if this did not always emerge explicitly. But it is certainly not by chance that his last book, published just before his death, speaks of God's mercy. Starting from the experiences which, from the earliest years of life, exposed him to all of the cruel acts men can perform, he affirms that mercy is the only true and ultimate effective reaction against the power of evil.
Only where there is mercy does cruelty end, only with mercy do evil and violence end. Pope Francis is totally in agreement with this line. His pastoral practice is expressed in the fact that he continually speaks to us of God's mercy. It is mercy that moves us toward God, while justice frightens us before Him.
In my view, this makes clear that, under a veneer of self-assuredness and self-righteousness, the man of today hides a deep knowledge of his wounds and his unworthiness before God. He is waiting for mercy.
It is certainly no coincidence that the parable of the Good Samaritan is particularly attractive to contemporary man. And not just because that parable strongly emphasizes the social dimension of Christian existence, nor only because in it the Samaritan, the man not religious, in comparison with the representatives of religion seems, so to speak, as one who acts really so in conformity with God, while the official representatives of religion seem, as it were, immune to God. This clearly pleases modern man.
But it seems just as important to me, nevertheless, that men in their intimate consciences expect the Samaritan will come to their aid; that he will bend down over them, pour oil on their wounds, care for them and take them to safety. In the final analysis, they know that they need God's mercy and his tenderness. In the hardness of the technologized world in which feelings no longer count for anything, the expectation however increases of a saving love that is freely given. It seems to me that in the theme of divine mercy is expressed in a new way what is means by justification by faith.
Starting from the mercy of God, which everyone is looking for, it is possible even today to interpret anew the fundamental nucleus of the doctrine of justification and have it appear again in all its relevance. When Anselm says that Christ had to die on the cross to repair the infinite offense that had been made to God, and in this way to restore the shattered order, he uses a language which is difficult for modern man to accept (cfr. Gs 215.ss iv). Expressing oneself in this way, one risks likely to project onto God an image of a God of wrath, relentless toward the sin of man, with feelings of violence and aggression comparable with what we can experience ourselves. How is it possible to speak of God's justice without potentially undermining the certainty, deeply established among the faithful, that the God of the Christians is a God "rich in mercy" (Ephesians 2:4)? The conceptuality of St. Anselm has now become for us incomprehensible. It is our job to try again to understand the truth that lies behind this mode of expression. For my part I offer three points of view on this point:
a) the contrast between the Father, who insists in an absolute way on justice, and the Son who obeys the Father and, obedient, accepts the cruel demands of justice, is not only incomprehensible today, but, from the point of view of Trinitarian theology, is in itself all wrong. The Father and the Son are one and therefore their will is intrinsically one. When the Son in the Garden of Olives struggles with the will of the Father, it is not a matter of accepting for himself a cruel disposition of God, but rather of attracting humanity into the very will of God. We will have to come back again, later, to the relationship of the two wills of the Father and of the Son.
b) So why would the cross and the atonement? Somehow today, in the contortions of modern thought we mentioned above, the answer to these questions can be formulated in a new way. Let's place ourselves in front of the incredible amount of evil, violence, falsehood, hatred, cruelty and arrogance that infect and destroy the whole world. This mass of evil cannot simply be declared non-existent, not even by God. It must be cleansed, reworked and overcome.
Ancient Israel was convinced that the daily sacrifice for sins and above all the great liturgy of the Day of Atonement (Yom-Kippur) were necessary as a counterweight to the mass of evil in the world and that only through such rebalancing the world could, as it were, remain bearable. Once the sacrifices in the temple disappeared, it had to be asked what could be opposed to the higher powers of evil, how to find somehow a counterweight. The Christians knew that the temple destroyed was replaced by the resurrected body of the crucified Lord and in his radical and incommensurable love was created a counterweight to the immeasurable presence of evil. Indeed, they knew that the offers presented up until then could only be conceived of as a gesture of longing for a genuine counterweight. They also knew that in front of the excessive power of evil only an infinite love was enough, only an infinite atonement. They knew that the crucified and risen Christ is a power that can counter the power of evil and save the world.
And on this basis they could even understand the meaning of their own sufferings as inserted into the suffering love of Christ and included as part of the redemptive power of such love. Above I quoted the theologian for whom God had to suffer for his sins in regard to the world. Now, due to this reversal of perspecyive, the following truths emerge: God simply cannot leave "as is" the mass of evil that comes from the freedom that he himself has granted. Only He, coming to share in the world's suffering, can redeem the world.
c) On this basis, the relationship between the Father and the Son becomes more comprehensible. I will reproduce here on this subject a passage from the book by Henri de Lubac on Origen which I feel is very clear: "The Redeemer came into the world out of compassion for mankind. He took upon himself our passions even before being crucified, indeed even before descending to assume our flesh: if he had not experienced them beforehand, he would not have come to partake of our human life. But what was this suffering that he endured in advance for us? It was the passion of love. But the Father himself, the God of the universe, he who is overflowing with long-suffering, patience, mercy and compassion, does he also not suffer in a certain sense? 'The Lord your God, in fact, has taken upon himself your ways as the one who takes upon himself his son' (Deuteronomy 1, 31). God thus takes upon himself our customs as the Son of God took upon himself our sufferings. The Father himself is not without passion! If He is invoked, then He knows mercy and compassion. He perceives a suffering of love (Homilies on Ezekiel 6:6)."
Now, the Saints use the term Mystery in a sense which is different, I think, from its more common usages. When a 21st century American says "mystery," it usually means something like a Murder Mystery, where once you find out whodunnit ("the butler") the mystery is done.
Or it is something like a jigsaw puzzle, where if you put together enough of a countable number of pieces, the whole gist of it will be clear.
Or it is dimly-understood phenomenon where an unknown number of "unknown unknowns" have to be discovered, but presumably research will eventually settle all the questions. How does the very rare male Deep Sea Squid find, in all the wide ocean, a female Deep Sea Squid so they can successfully mate? GPS? Geomagnetism? Fragrant Eau de Cephalopod? Mysteries of the Deep!
But the Saints use the word Mystery to mean, not a puzzle, nor yet a brick wall, where you run into it and you just can't go any farther. Rather Mystery means something that you will always be learning more about, but, look as searchingly and go as far as you will, it will always be so big that the entirety of it will exceed your grasp.
So a Mystery is not something totally obscure, but something luminous. Makes a kind of cumulative and tantalizing sense but yet you never see the end of it.
The aphorism is, "A Mystery is not a puzzle to be solved, it is a reality to be lived."
And --- I think I've said this before --- there's no reason why "extraordinary claims" would require "extraordinary evidence." Claims of any size just require...evidence.