Didn't watch the 1966 movie, but the title could fit the definition of 'guilt' ...as there's 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly'. And it will follow a 'man with no name', as it names itself, 'Guilt'.

Guilt works differently with different people.  And it definitely depends upon the magnitude of the offense, or the perception of it ...if one even exists.  

Sadly, some people are taught to feel guilt, while others use it to deflect guilt from another person onto themselves. Still others will in no way face guilt, and will readily direct it towards others.  These forms of guilt go way beyond the simple fact that we are all guilty of something.  But, these types of guilt seldom find a pathway towards healing.  And that can be 'ugly'.


Guilt can fester, or it can be relegated to the ranks of mostly being forgotten.

If guilt is not associated with a criminal offense, then why must one carry it with them throughout a life plagued with struggles?? That can be very 'bad'.

Discussing, or acknowledging what has happened can allow for an exchange of love and forgiveness ...and this type of love can also exist in the absence of full admission of the offense.

If a criminal offense takes place, and it is not dealt with, what happens??  Well, too often the person can continue to go in the direction of the offense, and may even get worse.  The person's conscience can become seared if they refuse to deal with what they truly know is wrong.  Most cases are more severe than jaywalking, and they almost always involve other people. So, the recipients of the offense should have some confidence that what is being addressed will be dealt with and there will be some correction and possible healing.

If there is no correction, then healing is difficult ...and the person who got away with doing something wrong without any consequences, may find it more difficult to change if they are labeled as a 'bad' person.  And the legal system has done no one any benefit in this case.

Of course, the severity of the offense should have much to do with the course of action following the act.

How and when to meter out consequences is often not a clear decision.  If a child takes an extra cookie out of the cookie jar, it is usually not a big thing. But, if the child is explicitly told they are not allowed to take any cookies from the jar, then how can it be ignored if they do.  Certainly, the family is supposed to serve some function of learning.  A child should never get the impression, or be taught that rules are meant to be broken.

But, as is often said, "The punishment must fit the crime."

Your child should not be kicked out of the family for any degree of offense, whether it be one cookie, or ten. (That's not just how the cookie crumbles.  And it is critical to the survival of the family and preservation of values in general.)

And if your son gets of a certain age where he is stealing cars instead of cookies, he will likely have to face criminal proceedings, and also will probably have to serve some specified length of time outside the home.  But, though your son may be physically taken from you ...he should never be taken from your heart.   You should make it clear that he is always a part of your family.  (Girls can get into trouble too, but I am already too wordy, and I am saying 'boys' and 'sons' to shorten this by at least a few letters.) 

But, most occasions do not reach this level.  Most of the hurt usually is because of unkind words, or misunderstood words. At some or another, all of us are guilty of this ...and often frequently guilty of this.  Saying we are 'sorry', thoughtfully and calmly discussing it, and forgiving one another ...this is a way to not allow guilt or anxiety to fester.  And the guilt leading to healing and forgiveness is a 'good' guilt.

Well, there we have it ---nothing like the movie, I'm sure, and in reverse order ---but, saving the best for last, the ugly, the bad, and the good.  And the good does have a Name, as we address each other ...and do it out of love, in the Name of Jesus.