1. Conscience versus extrinsic norms The “internal forum” (a juridical term) was the place to unburden oneself of the guilt of having acted out of line with the restrictions on human choices that God had given. It was a private “court” whereby a “sinner” confessed to a wrong doing and promised to never again perform the forbidden acts which he/she confessed. “Sin” described objectified as actions, thoughts, or words that were deemed to go against God’s intent and will. People stood outside those sins, like one on a diet might be looking at a candy shop display. “Temptation” was a word to describe our inclination or desire for the satisfaction promised (falsely) by those actions, words, or deeds. The relationship with God was thus something extrinsic. One fell into a state of sin as a result of breaking serious rules. One exited that state and some of the punishments that would have to be paid in the afterlife through the mediation of a ritual specialist who was to judge whether the penitent had a firm purpose of amendment. As Ivan Illich noted, it was an almost fool-proof system of self-policing, of enforcing a dominant moral code that served as a means of social control. In the 1960s there was a move toward a more personalist-relational approach to sin, where one relied more on conscience than extrinsic norms. At the same time, the perception of the Church as morally out of step with the times, left us to our own devices within the cross currents of changing social values that seem to view traditional morality as something quaintly naive or even oppressive. Notions of social justice also came to the fore leaving many with a greater consciousness to the evil of structures and systems that hurt people; but the difficulty of linking individual choices to social injustice left many with a lessened sensitivity to the guilt-absolution model that was typical of the old approach. The idea of an ethic of relationships to me seems rather difficult, because as Appiah points out, most of us don’t as a rule think through our actions before deciding. Deluz Parks suggests that this approach actually reduces the sense of morality to our loyalty to a small circle of those with whom we are consciously in relationship. The individual conscience model and the relationship-responsibility model do not address a more fundamental problem: the need to restore a communal identity among Catholics, wherein their choices and actions have an impact on the witness of the Church in the world. That identity once lay in the command-control model of “church teaching and authority” now incapable of exercising any credible moral influence. I believe that an authentic sense of sin can be restored – but requires asking questions like; who are we as a Church? What kind of a community are we called to become? Restoring a compelling moral consciousness in the Church is a process of community building and discernment. Richard Shields, richshields@sympatico.ca 2. Ama et fac quid vis (Love, and then what you will, do) If we agree that “sin…is …a failure to render a faithful response to God or to God’s creation, and that it weakens relationships” (Alice Laffey), then it is theological correct to ask: What happened to sin in light of the shift in emphasis of Vatican II on love and forgiveness? The shift from the fear of punishment for unfaithful responses, to the celebration of God’s love and forgiveness, does not exempt us from the responsibility with God and his creation. By positioning the pendulum on the positive side of the equation (God loves you, he knows you better than anybody else, he forgives you, he will go with you everywhere you go, he listens when you talk to him, you are unique, you are his child, he is the greatest father, he wants you to be happy, he has a place for you, you have an important job to do for God), the relationship between God and individuals also experienced a drastic change. If I feel loved by God, wanted by my father, protected, and unique, why would I do anything that would constitute a failure and disrespect towards God and his creation? With the focus on love, sin becomes something I would try to avoid because I want the continuous blessing of the Lord. I also know and understand that if I sin, God forgives me because I am on the road to heaven. Thus, I no longer need to fear sin. I know that if I break the law, not on purpose (more because I am learning), I find out more about how wonderful God is, and how to proceed to accomplish his objectives. I feel I am part of a greater plan! For example, if one of my many weaknesses is helping people in order to receive the glory (how a wonderful person she is, what a big heart she has, she is always thinking about other people, where does she finds the time to do all of this for other people, she gives it all to others), I would need to continuously be doing things for people (to get the acclamation), and my feelings are going to be hurt if people are not enthusiastic about my actions (lack of love and appreciation). That’s a sin! God wants me to love others (not necessarily do things to be held in high regards). What is the lesson that God wants me to learn from this? He wants me to do things that help the implementation of his plan, find ways to please him and protect his creation, and always give him the glory. My response should always reflect the relationship I have with the Lord and my expression of love towards his children. Anneris Goris, ctresperanza@aol.com
3. The englightened and Pelagian mode of life of secularism In all fairness, I have reduced this very rich document down to this one point leaving out much but, in my estimation, John Paul II is correct in his analysis. I think that the secular age in which we live socializes people into a sort of “enlightened, Pelagian” mode of life where many people come to believe that what they accomplish or achieve is due ultimately to their own autonomous reason, labor and power. To counter this modern emphasis on autonomy, or autolatry, I agree with John Paul II, and, more recently, Pope Francis who both called for a revivification of the sacrament of reconciliation. If this sacramental practice could be made more in vogue, more desired, Christians could, in Lacostean language, come to see their empirical “I” in light of their eschatological “I,” which would lead them, hopefully, to consider transforming those parts of their lives that lead them away from Christ. Robert Pennington, Rpennington@stu.edu
4. What happened to sin? Nothing, really Jeff Marlett, marlettj@mail.strose.edu
5. The need for more communitarian forgiveness rituals Frank Berna, berna@lasalle.edu 6. For a social-scientific discourse of sin Whether one focuses on sin as active ‘transgression of the law’ (ten commandments, for example), or as failures to do what we ought to do (sins of omission), or as grounded in primordial root impulses (the 7 cardinal sins of envy, lust, pride, greed, etc.) that eventuate in other sins, or as failures to exemplify the moral virtues and character traits of God (such as failures of love), it is human realities that ought centrally to be in view. And in part because theology made philosophy its conversation partner, its ancilla theologia, but not the human sciences, the discourses of sin that contemporary Christians generate are abstract and distant from contemporary lived realities. By contrast, the human sciences produce rich discourses about all of human life – but they do so in ways that are disconnected institutionally and cognitively from any language or concept of sin. So the most compelling narratives of our day, compelling because mapped closely onto human experience, are secular (disconnected from any viewpoint that makes God and biblical understandings central). By contrast the limited efforts of Christians to sustain discourses of sin seem dated, anemic, and removed from contemporary life, and do not carry with them the power of compelling insight. My own view is that compelling discourses of sin are possible today, but only if we can bring Christian understandings of sin into closer connection with the rich texture of contemporary lives as actually experienced. For that a closer partnership with the human sciences, especially in their more qualitative dimensions, is needed. Robert Priest, rpriest@tiu.edu 7. Re: Social-scientific discourse of sin: the authority crisis I would like to add to Bob Priest’s view “that compelling discourses of sin are possible today, but only if we can bring Christian understandings of sin into closer connection with the rich texture of contemporary lives as actually experienced. For that a closer partnership with the human sciences, especially in their more qualitative dimensions, is needed'--from a Catholic perspective. The present crisis of authority in the Catholic Church—particularly in regard to the Church’s moral magisterium—has been brewing since the early days of modernism, when people began to feel the pain of disconnect between religious discourse and the language of the new sciences that dominated the world of their experience. People wanted more from Church teaching than was given. As the Catholic sub-culture became unnecessary (to a no longer immigrant Church, in a country where Catholics were no longer excluded), the explicit commitment to Church moral teachings faded in the religious identity of many Catholics. What at first sight might seem to have been a decisive, though quiet rejection of Catholic morality was more likely an unspoken yearning for God and the exhaustion from the struggle to keep a Catholic identity in a world that we were not to be part of. This yearning became overt and given hope in the Second Vatican Council. A programme of reform emerging in the process of the Council itself prompted a vision of and commitment to the Church as Sacramentum Mundi, a world church (K. Rahner), called to live in a secular and pluralistic society, where it carries out its mission and makes itself present in cultures as diverse as the peoples of the world. It became clear that the Church does not exist apart from the world, protected by infallible leadership and a closed system of sacraments. An identity shift of such proportions greatly disturbs familiar habits of thought and requires new approaches to making meaning and discerning values. It calls for transformations—unanticipated and unplanned for—in how believers think about religious power and authority, how the Church discerns its vocation, and how we talk about sin and redemption. Negotiating this shift, however, was not automatic; it required that Catholics embark on a passage driven by a free and personal commitment, won in the struggle to come to terms with their faith in a pluralistic milieu. But instead of the support that facilitates such transformation, fear seems to have overtaken Church leadership, who imposed authoritarian moral teaching, encapsulated in ecclesiastical categories, that continued to treat “natural law” as ultimate and unchanging. It was an un-pastoral approach that shut down the necessary dialogue (within the Church and with the larger world) and stifled the ability of believers to articulate what the faith means for Christian moral practice. Many Catholics experienced it as an impossible task to follow teachings that, in Bob's words, they saw as "dated, anemic, and removed from contemporary life, and [that] do not carry with them the power of compelling insight." A dialogue will surface difference and division on what sin is and what the ethics of the Gospel require. It involves not only new processes, but a new understanding of Church. Diversity is an inevitable characteristic of authentic communio. The Church is plural—many churches, a community of communities, local, specific, and contingent. The status of these communities or congregations as churches depends less on the ecclesiastical institution and its authority and more on their ability to again and again constitute themselves through faith and practice, historically discerned and realized as grace. These local churches accept as their own the responsibility and authority to be a tangible sign of the world’s salvation. At this time the Church lacks the places and resources for Catholic communities to grow into that responsibility and to develop a consciousness of faithfulness that makes concrete the moral demands of Christian life in the world and the consequences of ignoring those demands. Much has to be done to undo the negativity that has built up over the past decades. To see the Church as an eschatological sign of salvation is a radical ethical activity. It is an activity that brings together the challenge of decentralizing authority in the institutional Church and the critical issue of moral knowledge in the collective consciousness of the people of the Church. To articulate a meaningful sense of sin and hope in the world, there is need for local, accessible communities to interpret and engage the Church’s solidarity with the “joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the [people] of our time.”(Gaudium et Spes, par. 1) A crisis of “sin and reconciliation” in the Church is, from this perspective, a symptom of the unforeseen difficulty of moving away from a natural law view of the Church and its authority to one of engagement with history and society. As Bob says, "compelling discourses of sin are possible today, but only if we can bring Christian understandings of sin into closer connection with the rich texture of contemporary lives as actually experienced." But I would add, it is not simply the doctrinal understanding of sin that eludes the grasp of many Catholics; it is the interpretive horizon itself that leaves them baffled. Richard Shields, richshields@sympatico.ca University of St. Michael's College Toronto, ON, Canada 8. Re: A social-scientific discourse of sin: social psychology This is a follow-up on Robert Priests' observation to view sin not from philosophy but from social science. My observations are rooted in social psychology: Sin, some say today, is trouble that drags down the person and prevents him / her and others from realizing their potential to love. The ten commandments are bottom line behaviour that keep one out of trouble but do little to solve the world's problems. Matthew 25 delineates how to deliver people from trouble but comes at a price. The ten commandments save our pocket-book; Matthew 25 empties it. Social sin leaves persons neglected. Francis calls us to remember the other. Failing the call of Matthew 25 weakens society. Giving back marks young people of good will today, i.e. gratitude. Ingratitude to God and others hurts the givers' feelings. Some critquers today would use a new set of personal and social evils to replace the capital sins: "cruelty, hypocrisy, snobbery, treachery, self-negation, aimlessness." These are all attitudes to self and / or others (in my lingo they are negative, isolating, often power-filled behaviours.) These, young people, even sociopathic ones, identify social transgressions as sin. Francis comments that those who do not agree with us but do what they think is good find salvation. Who are we to judge! Sin is going against one's conscience. For the young, victimless 'crimes' are not sin. Only when victimization can be proved from an action will it be taken by many as a sin. Look at how this affects church attendance and participation, extramarital sex, cheating on taxes when the net benefit to society is to do so, etc. The capital sins are not sin in their way of thinking if they do not affect personal or social health significantly. I remember asking a 15 year old when drinking was / was not a sin. His answer: "What lessens my capacity to be myself is sinful; what increases it is virtue." I wish our pedagogues today were as wise. Chris Rupert, ctrupert@aol.com 9. Suffering in the world requires re-thinking sin I would like to add my voice to what Robert Priest and Richard Shields are saying. With one addition: suffering. Remember that there is a great deal of suffering associated with adhering to the hierarchy’s view of sin, especially those associated with their interpretation of the biological sciences (natural law?) such as the “sins” associated with end of life, conception, birth, gender, marriage and divorce. These are only a few selected because they are always in the news. When one does what is loudly declared as sinful and discovers no repercussions in one’s current life one begins to reflect on the meaning of sinfulness and its consequences. When one follows the law proclaimed as God’s revelation and in that following discovers deeper suffering in one’s life, then the question of sin is no longer one of intellectual discussion among academics but one of committed action to reduce that suffering. It may also be the Spirit’s demand to re-think what is called sin. Nathan R. Kollar, nkollar@yahoo.com
10. Two good-looking definitions of sin.
I have read all the posts. Obviously with some I agree, with others less. What has been worthwhile about the endeavor is that good people have been thinking about sin in a way that does not dismiss it, that in fact takes it seriously, but yet is free to let go of traditional abstract definitions (e.g., "the guilt-absolution model;" "the command-control model of church teaching and authority") to integrate people's genuine contemporary experience, individual and communal. Vatican II enabled the church to grapple with modernity at a time when society was moving toward post-modernity. No one could have anticipated the degree of individualism rampant in first world culture, the disappearance of the common good, and even the dissolution of ecclesial communities. After all, Vatican II was meant to re-invigorate ecclesial communities! Even as Vatican II moved to replace its emphasis on fear of God with an emphasis on God's love and forgiveness, the Council's return to biblical roots never intended to obliterate teaching about the reality of sin, but rather to properly contextualize it. Young people today, believers but not church goers, are helping us to re-define sin. For them, relationships can be global and environmental, not just familial, as social justice/social sin takes precedence over sexual sin. As a woman participating in this conversation, a young adult in 1967 when the pill was discovered, I am very aware that people younger than I were born into a world of sexual relationships very different from the one in which I was raised. Fear of pregnancy is no longer a compelling reason for sexual abstinence. On the other hand, college students who visit developing countries are faced with the disparity of lifestyles between Americans and Africans, for example, and the almost total silence of our ecclesiastical leadership on this issue speaks volumes to them. The church's emphasis on sexual sins doesn't ring true for them-with respect to their own sexual behavior or their divorced and re-married parents, or even their gay brothers and sisters, or... For many youn g people , the church hierarchy has lost its authority and credibility; they experience sin but they understand sin very differently from "official church teaching." Alice Laffey, alaffey@holycross.edu College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA 01610 |