Interesting subtext between Huntress and the Question....

[richardak]

In the recent Question back-up feature in Detective Comics, the new Question, Renee Montoya, teamed up with the Huntress, Helena Bertinelli.  What makes this interesting is that, while they don't know each other all that well, they were both close, at different times, with the previous Question.  This leads to what, to me at least, is a very interesting conversation between the two of them:


What makes this such an interesting conversation is that Helena is saying that Charlie/Vic tried to save her, and succeeded.  It must be noted that she measures this success in terms of her physical and emotional well-being: she's still here.  Now consider this scan from Batman/Huntress: Cry for Blood, which was, as far as I know, the last meeting between Helena and Charlie/Vic:

Here, Helena has just successfully murdered Santo Cassamento, and in such a way that the law can't touch her.  Charlie is especially angry because she tricked him into helping her, in such a way and so that neither he, nor Batman, Robin, Nightwing, nor Oracle would realize what she was up to until it was too late.  Charlie is damning her, and she insists that she has been a damned soul for a long time.  So here, it definitely looks like he has failed to save her.  In this case, though, they are discussing salvation and damnation in the traditional Catholic sense of going to heaven or hell when she dies. 

So the question (sorry) is, has she revised her thinking, such that she now believes that she can still be saved, in the sense of going to heaven, or, has she come to be so at peace with the inevitability of her ultimate damnation that she is, in effect, only worried about her temporal welfare.  Just what does she mean, exactly, when she tells Renee that, since she's still here, Vic must have saved her? 

It should be noted, as an aside, that both these comics were written by the same author, Greg Rucka, so I don't think any of this is at all coincidental.  I just thought it was a fascinating conversation with a very interesting subtext. 

Comments

[richardak]

I have to question your use of the word "mere," but I think you hit the crux of the matter when you say that it's "also a kind of philosophical acceptance....she's also seen to be more at peace with her religion." The thing is, acceptance and being at peace do not mean that she doesn't still think she's damned; it's possible that she may just be at peace with that fact. Remember what she said when she killed Mandragora in Year One: "This is worth going to hell for."

[salinea]

Yes, sorry, I meant "not only" or "not exactly". Or something >_>;

Someone with better knowledge of Catholicism corrects me if I am wrong; would it not be considered a sin in itself for a Catholic to think that they are beyond redemption?

The thing is, acceptance and being at peace do not mean that she doesn't still think she's damned; it's possible that she may just be at peace with that fact.
True. I don't know which it is for Helena.

(I can has Helena icon! :D)

[icon_uk]

would it not be considered a sin in itself for a Catholic to think that they are beyond redemption?

I'm not sure it's seen as a sin to believe you're beyond redemption, just a human failing, and an incorrect one.

[salinea]

Thanks!

[junipepper]

Actually, I think it's a sin against Hope (Hope being one of the most important theological virtues).

I've done a fair amount of reading about world religions, but am not a Catholic, so I could be wrong. Easily.

[shadowpsykie]

suicide is a sin against hope.

feeling you are beyond redemption skirts the line dangerously close because this usually leads to suicide.

[elf]

would it not be considered a sin in itself for a Catholic to think that they are beyond redemption?

The sin of hubris, maybe; "I'm so bad even God couldn't fix me." But I suspect anyone who thought that, wouldn't be worried about whether or not it was a sin. And if they later repented of whatever convinced them they were damned, thinking they were unredeemable in the interim wouldn't be a major concern.

[heckfire]

SO, by saying you've sinned beyond redemption, you're sinning MORE. *headdesk* That's why I'm functionally agnostic, folks...I believe in God, not the churches.

[elf]

Not my theology; my gods tolerate hubris as long as it entertains them. From what I know of Catholic doctrine, it'd be a sin to assume one is unredeemable, but that's probably minor in comparison to whatever sin(s) one committed to reach that conclusion.

[heckfire]

VERY valid point, there...I suppose the "sin of unredeemability (sp?)" is sorta there to keep people from saying "Fuck it, I'm going to Hell anyway" like Huntress did. Better to offer an out that allows for redemption (by guilting it on the sinner still, but that's Catholic doctrine for you) than to just toss them to the proverbial wolves, huh?

[richardak]

Indeed: "For forgiveness is with You, that You may be feared." --Psalm 130:4. The point is that, as you say, without forgiveness, what stops someone from concluding he has nothing more to lose?

And aren't you supposed to feel guilt when you do something wrong?

[salinea]

... yes, truly, saying that someone is never unredeemable is horribly intolerant of any Church (note that the only people who said this was a sin were people who ware not Catholics, myself included).

[richardak]

I'm not a Catholic, or any variety of Christian, but my understanding is that the answer is yes. To say that one is beyond forgiveness is a form of the sin of pride: one says, in effect, that one's own sin is so monumentally and uniquely bad that even G-d cannot forgive it. To put it another way, it is to claim that G-d's mercy is not infinite.