Maybe five or so years ago, my mother–in a very emotional state–flatly accused me, saying “You just want to avoid unpleasantness!” I couldn’t help myself–I actually laughed! I told her, “Mom, that is WHY it is called ‘unpleasantness’–it’s something that sane people, if they have a choice, opt to avoid!”

So I still do confess that, when possible, I want to avoid unpleasantness. This is certainly not to say that I don’t face it when I must (frankly, under those circumstances, I’d rather deal with things and get them over with), but if I mustn’t and needn’t, then I don’t.

But what is my moral stance when I avoid unpleasantness toward others in terms of how they deal with unpleasantness? If I’ve successfully avoided unpleasantness that did not represent avoiding duty on my part, do I have any claim to pass judgment upon the actions of those who were either unable to avoid unpleasantness or who even sought it out?

This was the situation facing Peter of Alexandria, an Egyptian bishop of the 3rd and 4th centuries who successfully “withdrew” and sidestepped various anti-Christian persecutions when they arose (I personally knew a Liberian United Methodist bishop who consistently managed, along with his family, to be out of the country whenever serious outbreaks of civil unrest arose!). It’s quite likely that, being highly placed, Peter received advance information of when to vacate Alexandria…and when it was safe to return.

There were, however, other Christians under Peter’s charge who were subject to these persecutions. Those who died for their faith of course were treated as Christian martyrs, worthy of immediately finding themselves in the eternal presence and pleasure of God in heaven. But then there were The Others. In fact, Peter identified four specific categories of Christians who failed to acquit themselves ideally when cornered by murderous forces:

1. Some began facing their torments “with excellent resolutions” and even endured several rounds of mistreatment, but “had been weak enough to yield at last.”
2. Some were fully willing to face the hardships of imprisonment, but shrunk at the sight of torture, and at that point renounced their faith.
3. Others simply renounced Christianity at the first sight of the oppressors and quickly commenced newly non-Christian lives.
4. Still others (with more resources) either arranged to have pagans sacrifice to the gods in their stead, or paid off magistrates to give them a pass–this way, they could maintain some idea that they never actually or personally renounced their Christian faith (while also avoiding torturous miseries).

When the persecutions receded, and Peter resumed his Alexandrian bishop duties, he then had to figure out what penance (if any) to require of persons from these four categories who sought to rejoin the Christian communion. And indeed there were those (like the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son) who felt that none of these persons should be re-admitted. Yet Peter maintained that, in consideration of his namesake–the apostle Peter–there must be a way back for those who denied their relationship with Christ upon showing proper penance.

That said, this Alexandrian Peter is regarded as a saint and even a doctor of the Church, primarily on account of his wisdom, his grace toward the lapsed, and his recognition of the necessity for proper penance (what is often referred to nowadays, conceptually, as “restorative justice”). Yet…what in fact is the moral difference between Peter taking steps to avoid the unpleasantness of persecution where he was not forced to choose between imprisonment / torture / death and renouncing his faith, and any of those “lapsed” Christians in categories 1 through 4?