DEAR EDITOR: I have two basic questions and would really like a response from the theologians among your readers.

We say that all moral actions are acts of the will. In fact the decision to do something and the actual carrying out of the action can be taken as one action of the will. When applied to the death and resurrection of Jesus we have a unique situation. We are taught that before time itself, God decided to redeem us through the actions of God the Son. Therefore, I would conclude that although Jesus came in a particular time in history, his actions have a timeless dimension. Does this mean that the fruits of his death and resurrection could quite naturally be applied to periods before his incarnation (as in the Immaculate Conception)? Is it that each and every good act anyone ever performed in the whole of history was only possible because of the death and resurrection of Christ?

Secondly, if a mother knows that her son is a career bandit and accepts ill-gotten gifts from him without ever encouraging him to change his life, we would say that she is in some way complicit in his crimes. Spiritually, the mother becomes one with her son in his actions. We might also say that she deserves a similar punishment as her son.

Is there a positive side to complicity? Jesus performed a certain action for the redemption of the world. From his action he also obtained gifts for us, (the Holy Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit). Now, if we accept his gift are we complicit in his action? I know that the dogma of the Eucharist is much deeper than this but can we still broach the dogma of the Eucharist to unbelievers by appealing to their understanding of complicity? Is this approach wise? Can we argue that at a natural level, by receiving the Eucharist, are we redeeming the world with him? Can we say that by such natural justice (apart from the fact that it is all grace), we are going to receive the same reward as he did – Eternal Life?

Lawrence Fortuné, El Dorado