Sin, Conversion and Virtues

7/27/2019 Sin, Conversion and Virtues

1/17

PHL 5 / SIN, CONVERSION and VIRTUES ForPrivate Use OnlyTeacher: Susan Ong

I. Key Concepts / Topics

1. Sin: The Biblical PerspectiveBiblical Terminologies: Hatta, Pesha, Awon, Hamartia, Anomia,Adekia, Skotos

The Concept of Sin in ScriptureSin as a religious realitySin as an arrogance of Power

2. Traditional Understanding of SinSin as an actSin as a factSin as a stateSin as direction

3. Diversity of SinOriginal SinPersonal SinMortal SinVenial SinSocial Sin

4. Conversion5. The Universal Call to Holiness

II. ObjectivesAt the end of this unit, the students are expected to

1. know and understand the Christian concept of sin, the many ways ofunderstanding this reality known as sin, and the diversity of sin;

2. understand the Christian concept of conversion and its implications inour daily life;

3. appreciate the sacrament of reconciliation as channel of conversion.

III. Discussion

SIN

No one doubts the presence of evil in the world. We experience it in avariety of ways: national and international conflict, domestic and street violence,political and corporate corruption, violations of justice, etc. All these seen from atheological perspective are rooted in sin.

Moral life then requires that we recognize in ourselves the tendency to sinand acknowledge ourselves as sinners when we have done evil. PCP II presents

33


2/17

Jesus mission to liberate from sinfulness as well as his call to us forovercoming the reality of personal sin and sinful structures.1 Today this senseof sin seems to have radically weakened by secularism; we are caught up in theoutrageous consumerism that surrounds us. And through the radio, TV, printmedia and the internet, we continually face so many examples of bribery,corruption in business and government, cheating in family life, and lying in

personal relationship, that we often end up rationalizing for our own misdeeds:Anyway, everybody is doing it or I have to do it because. Some concludethat the sin of the century is the loss of sense of sin.2 Despite the naturalpiety of the Filipino, an authentic Christian sense of sin is gradually being erodeddue mainly to religious ignorance and the consequent secularistic set of attitudesand values. (Secularism as we all know questions the relevance and meaning ofall Christian symbols, and even of religion itself.) A true sense of sin is a grace aswe perceive in the saints, who manifested a far keener sense of sin than theordinary sinner.

SIN: The Biblical Perspective

A. Biblical Terminologies

Both the Old and New Testament use a very rich vocabulary to describe thereality of evil and sin. The three words used most often in the Old Testament todescribe sin are as follows:

1. Hatta which literally means missing the mark. It stresses that sinis the voluntary rejection of the will of God.

2. Pesha which means rebellion; it shows how in sinning the person

rejects God and his love3. Awon which denotes guilt; it basically refers to the way sin disturbs

the inner being of a sinner.

In the New Testament the words used to signify sin are as follows:

1. Hamartia is like hatta, designating sin as the freely chosen act toreject Gods loving norm for human life. It connotes adeliberate action rooted in the heart and missing the intendedmark.

2. Anomia which means lawlessness. It is used often in the singular

thus denoting that sin consists in the spirit of rebellion andcontempt for God and his law.

3. Adekia which signifies injustice. It stresses that sin is a refusal toaccept God and his reign revealed in Christ and a refusal to livein the justice that God has given.

4. Skotos which means darkness. It shows that sin is an opposition tothe truth of God, to Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth, and

1 PCP II 53-54; 81-86; 266-702 RP 18; Reconciliato et Poenitentia, John Paul II, 1984.

34


3/17

the life, to ones fellowmen and to the truth of being a humanperson.

The story of the fall of Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:1-14 portrays dramaticallythe reality of sin and its essential features. Analyzing the event we can have thefollowing:

a) Deliberate violation of a known precept of God (Gen. 3:3-6).The violation constitutes the outward act of disobedience of theprotoparents. It is an expression of their inner rebellion. They move tosin partially by suspicion of Gods love for them, partially by theiryearning beyond the limits of their freedom given to them by Godthrough his precept, partially because of their desire for the immediategood, that is, to know the good and evil, promised by the performance of

the sinful act.b) The rebellion caused them harm (Gen. 3:7)c) They were alienated from God, from one another, from

themselves, and from nature: (Gen. 3: 8-24)d) Forced by sin, they tried to resort to all types of

rationalization (Gen. 3: 8-15)e) They were not able to do anything to prevent the disastrous

effects of their rebelliousness or sinfulness (Gen. 3:14-24)

The first sin would produce a long train of successive sins: Cain killed hisbrother Abel (Gen 4:8f), the reign of violence and vengeance in the practice of

Lamech (Gen. 4:23-24), the overall evil which provoked the great floods (Gen.6:5-7), and the blasphemous intention of reaching the heaven with the building ofthe tower of Babel (Gen. 11:4f).

B. The Understanding of Sin in Scripture

1. Sin is a religious reality.

This means that for the biblical authors, sin is meaningless apart from thepresence of God and our obligation. The God of the Bible is the God of the

covenant who has made a commitment with us and who expects from us ourcommitment in return. I will be your God and you shall be my people.

The covenant expresses the most personal kind of relationship betweenGod and us. The primary claim of the covenant is that God loves without havingdone anything to attract Gods attention or to win that love. Gods covenant is abond of completely gratuitous love, pure grace. But Gods initiative of love doesnot destroy our freedom. God makes an offer we can refuse. Gods offer of love

35


4/17

awaits our acceptance; once we accept the offer of love we commit ourselves toliving as the covenant requires.

The covenantal context of sin is not understood within the legalisticframework in relation to personal relationship with God. In worshipping thegolden calf (Ex. 32), Israel missed the mark of covenantal love, or sinned not so

much because Israel broke one of the laws of the covenant, but because Israelbroke the personal bond of love of which the love was an external expression.God and not the law was the final object of Israels fidelity. Sin in the Bible is notmerely breaking a law. Sin is breaking or weakening the God-given bond of love.The law was an aid to Israels fidelity and pointed to the responsibilities of beingin relationship with God.

To speak of sin in legal terms is to miss the important aspect of sin as areligious reality, relational reality which expresses our refusal to respondappropriately to Gods love and mercy. Sin, simply put is refusing to live out thegift of divine love. The response to which the gift of divine love in the covenant

calls us may be summarized in a threefold manner:

1. to respect the worth/dignity of ourselves ans others as constituted byGods love;

2. to live in solidarity with creation and with one another as covenantalpartners; and

3. to develop the virtue of fidelity as the proper characteristic of everycovenantal relationship.

Sin would be to act contrary to these covenantal requirements. Let us brieflyelaborate each of these covenantal requirements.

Worth / Dignity (Dangal)

Our hearts hunger for love; we have a passionate longing to know that wecount in the eyes of someone special. We long to know that we are loved, valuedand the source of delight for another. The persistent cry of the heart, Do youlove me? is asked not just of people significant to us, but ultimately of God. Thecovenant responds to this cry of the heart longing for worth with a firm yes.The covenant insists that grace is the first move. We are not so much ofsearchers but the ones searched out. Because God has taken the initiative toenter into covenant with us, we matter to God in a most serious way. This is what

it means to have worth. Our worth (as persons) comes from Gods offer of divinelove as a free gift and is not conditioned by our achievements.

The following biblical passages and images help us understand divine loveas our true source of worth and security:

a) Is.43:1,4;Is. 41:8-16: I have called you by name you are mineI willgive you the whole nations to save your life, because you are precious tome and because I love you and give you honor. Here we read of God

36


5/17

loving the people of the covenant for their own sake and not for the sakeof being useful or powerful.

b) Hosea 11:1-9. One of the most powerful texts which communicate thatour worth is established by divine love by using the image of a child toexplain our relationship with God. Gods love for a rebellious people isexpressed through the image of the parent for a child.

c) Mt. 18:1-5. One of the favorite images of Jesus for those whose lives aregrounded in Gods unconditional love is the child. When Jesus is askedwho is the greatest in Gods reign, he reaches into the crowd, sits a childbeside him and says, Unless you become like this, you will neverunderstand greatness. What makes a child such a powerful image?The childs worth is not based on its achievements, but simply bygenerous love of the parents. That is what we are like before God.

From this perspective, therefore, we recognize that our worth and securityremain grounded in God and not in ourselves. However, the modern heresy ofindividualism insists that we generate our worth with our own power.

Sin refuses to believe that we are lovable apart from our virtue. Instead ofgrounding our worth in divine love, sin attempts to establish worth on the basis ofsurrogate loves which we create for ourselves to give us the security of beinglovable and acceptable. But when we rest our worth on something besides divinelove, we create an idol. Creating surrogate loves is the sin of idolatry. Theseloves may be our talent, our goodness, our efficiency, our charm, our wit, ourbright ideas, our wealth, our social position and prestige, or whatever else wemight create in order to secure our worth and make ourselves somebody.

When we fill ourselves with these self-created loves, we have no room for

divine love. Not until we overcome the temptation to regard ourselves as self-sufficient that we are able to let go and surrender to the deepest truth aboutourselves as being grounded in divine love. But letting go is hard; yetsurrendering is the only way to allow God to secure us in divine love.

Solidarity (Pakikiisa, Pakikipagkapwa-tao)

The covenant establishes our worth or dignity as well as cultivates ourrelationship with one another and with all creation. In Jesus Christ we affirm thatall creation is under the covenantal grace of God and we recognize that our

responsibility to care for all things is related to the sovereignty of God (Col. 1:15-20). Because the covenant is all-inclusive, we have no other way of relating toGod except in and through our relationship with everything else.

Gods love in the broadest sense is not limited just to humanity but isdirected also toward all creation. We who consciously accept their covenant withGod accept responsibility for all that is included in Gods love. One vital lessonhere that even science would confirm is everything in the universe is bound

37


6/17

together by an unbreakable bond of relatedness. In short, nothing exists by itselfas an independent entity. Everything exists in dynamic relationship.

Obviously, the covenant also includes the human moral community. Bycalling us into covenant, God calls us to be social. The moral community lives bythe same covenant principle which governs the working of the universe, namely,

the principle of cooperative community. From this perspective, it means that wehave no life without community and cooperation. Of course, we have individualdifferences, diversity, and tensions which come out with are part of life. In fact,we can enhance our lives to the extent that we are able to sustain a high degreeof diversity within a cooperative community. But our covenantal commitmentrequires that we develop communities with respect to integrity of creation oruniverse; always bearing in mind the interrelatedness of things.

Jesus version of this covenantal commitment is friendship. The amazinggrace of the divine choice for us in covenant is Gods friendship with us. Jesussummed up the witness his life had given to this divine choice when he said to his

disciples: I no longer call you servants but I have called you friends becauseeverything I have heard from my Father I have shared with you (Jn. 15:15).Jesus final command to his disciples is to love one another as he loved them, i.e.with the love of friendship (Jn. 15:12). Sandra Schneiders interprets the result ofthis divine choice to be friends as Christian solidarity:

the mutual interdependence that can put every gift at the serviceof the community, that can sustain mutual challenge and correctionfor the good of all, that can enhance the dignity of each withoutdegrading any, that can govern itself without recourse to coercionor violence.

In his social encyclical Solicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concerns, 1987),Pope John II spoke of solidarity as a virtue, a moral and social attitude:

This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distressat the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On thecontrary, it is firm and persevering determination to commitoneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and ofeach individual, because we are all really responsible for all. (n.38)

The covenantal laws express the responsibility we have to and for oneanother by virtue of our sharing in the same divine love. This is the core of theinseparability of the great commandment to love God and others as we loveourselves. The great commandment requires that each of us recognize that theother person matters for his/her own sake and not just as the means to an end.Pope John Paul IIs encyclical on social concerns advocates or promotes this sameaspect of responsibility in its understanding of solidarity:

38


7/17

Solidarity helps us to see the other whether a person, peopleor nation not just as some kind of instrument, with a workcapacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and thusdiscarded when no longer useful, but as our neighbor, apartner, to be made a sharer, on an equal footing with ourselves

in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God. (n.39)

Christian solidarity (from this covenantal perspective) means that our livesextend beyond a private relationship with God and neighbor to embrace thewhole social order social structures, institutional structures, economic systems,etc. Our lives are unavoidably characterized by the structural relationships whichcan act for or against the fundamental worth and well-being of all. The fruit ofChristian solidarity is shalom that peace which is not just the absence ofviolence, but the peace which is the justice of communal wholeness and well-being wherein competing rights and claims are achieve in a proper balance.

Sin, from this of an inclusive covenant and solidarity, affects all therelationships to which we are called. It is rooted in radical independence. Sinfails to respect within a cooperative community by promoting the domination ofone form of life. In cannot be limited to breaking the law. Sin is an offenseagainst God in a sense of failing to respect what God loves. Personal sin showsits effects in society and creation as a whole. It shows itself as a violation of thecovenant by introducing disorder and strife into the interdependence ofcovenantal relationships. We have come to recognize the structures (institutions,systems, policies, political practices) which support this disorder as social sin.

Throughout life we have the opportunity to make better our world. Whenwe live with indifference, jealousy, envy, contempt, domination, possessiveness,or prejudice and ignore situations of need requiring works of justice, mercy andlove, we are failing to heed the summons of divine-human solidarity. In so doingwe pronounce a judgment against ourselves. One of the meanings of the greatjudgment scene in Matthews parable of the sheep and goats (Mt. 25:31-46) isthat people did not recognize in the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisonedthe summons of divine-human solidarity. Our obligations inherent in being socialare inseparable from the bonds that link us to God. Isaiahs image of true fasting,for example, shows that within the covenant anti-social behavior is similar toirreligious behavior. The kind of fasting I want is this: remove the chains of

oppression and the yoke of injustice, and let the oppressed go free (Is. 58:6).Human solidarity is a part of our relationship with God. To betray a socialcommitment demanded by justice is to betray God and to perpetuate social sin.

Fidelity (Faithfulness)

Christian solidarity as demanded by the covenant relationship (whichimplies responsibility to and for one another) needs fidelity, in order to come to

39


8/17

its fullest expression. What I want is loyalty, not sacrifice (Hos. 6:6). Fidelity,trustworthiness and loyalty are various ways of expressing the central virtue ofthe covenant. From the perspective of virtue, covenantal living asks, What sortof person should I be? The answer: be faithful, be trustworthy. Live a life thatdemonstrates hesed, Gods faithful love for us. Imitating this faithful love whichbinds the covenant together is the moral mandate for living in covenant. Fidelity

is the very weave of the fabric of the covenant. To rend this fabric throughinfidelity is to ruin the whole cloth. Therefore, fidelity or trustworthiness binds thecovenant partners or people together. Dominating control by some andsubservient submission by others pull them apart.

For the covenant to be sustained, each person must be trustworthy. Whenone cannot trust another, the relationship of love breaks. We have experiencebetrayal of trust when a person we believe to have commitment but actedotherwise. If this would persist in the community in the community, it wouldinfect all our relationships with fear and suspicion that fidelity is not beingpracticed in our commitment to one another and the community.

There are a lot of bible stories about fidelity and betrayal but let us mentionone here. In the story of Judas of Gethsemane, Judas is an important forunderstanding covenantal fidelity. Judas shows us the real possibility of betrayal.His betrayal provides the contrast to Gods faithfulness to Jesus and Jesus fidelityto God. With Judas in the story, we see more clearly the centrality of fidelity in thelives of those who made covenant with Jesus as disciples. To violate fidelity is toviolate the call to follow Jesus in the imitation of Gods covenantal, steadfast love.

Sin from this perspective is the power-play of infidelity. Sin is refusing tobelieve that God can be trusted and that others are worth trusting. In making

acts of trust, we entrust the other with power. We hope that power will not beabused. Sin, however, abuses the power because sin cannot let go of the fearsand suspicion which keeps us from regarding the other as gift, entrusted by Godwith personal worth. Sin abuses the power we give to one another when weentrust other persons with something of value to ourselves: a personal secret, ourhealth, our property, etc. Sin abuses this power by not keeping the trust whichhas been entrusted to through our various types of commitments. Rather thanliving in trust as creatures empowered with gifts to set one another free, we livein suspicion of anothers gift and abuse our power by controlling, dominating ormanipulating these gifts to serve our own self-interest. This is sin as infidelity, anarrogant use of power.

To summarize our first concept that sin fundamentally a religious reality,which means that sin makes no sense apart from the presence of God in Christand through the Spirit, and our awareness of being in relationship with God.However, we are using sin in a similar way other than this fundamentalrelationship to God. The three common similar uses of the word sin are asfollows:

40


9/17

1. original sin a theological code word for the human condition of living in aworld where we are influence by more evil than which we do ourselves;

2. material sin transgressions of a law or acts of wrongdoing like killing,abortion, sex outside of marriage;

3. social sin the consequences of individual choices which form oppressivesocial structures like racism, sexism, anti-poor policies, etc.

2. Sin as arrogance of power

To understand sin primarily as a matter of the quality of our relationship inthe covenant suggests both a transcendent and immanent dimension of sin. Thetranscendent3 dimension expresses a break in our relationship to God. This is ourrefusal to the invitation to live with God in love. But we do not experience orexpress this relationship to God apart from our relationship with all things,especially other persons. Our sins is our way of rebelling not only against God(which we rarely do if ever) but also against the living images of God other

persons. This would lead us and accounts for the immanent4

dimension of sin.We understand the immanent dimension of sin when we see the importance ofthe human community as a place in and through which we receive and give love.Sin in its immanent dimension is our refusal to love our neighbor/others and atthe same refusing also to be loved by them. We sin when we turn inward and cutoff the dynamics of receiving and giving love, care and concern for others. In thissense, sin always a type of self-absorption. Whenever loving, peace-keeping, andjustice-doing relationships are weakened or destroyed, sin is present in someform; whether that form be lying, gossip, stealing, abusing, ignoring, prejudice,etc.

In the American bishops pastoral letter on moral life, To Live in Christ Jesus(1976), we read:

Personal sin is a spirit of selfishness rooted in our hearts and willswhich wages war against Gods plan for our fulfillment. It isrejection either partial or total, of ones role as a child of God and amember of his people, a rejection of the spirit of sonship, love andlife. 5

In this statement, sin is some form of selfishness. Sin as selfishness is firsta matter of the heart, before it becomes manifested in external actions. Webecome sinful to the extent that we turn inward, refusing to respond, and so cut

off the dynamic of giving and receiving love. This is to harden ones heart inthe biblical sense. In sin, we cease to pay attention or care about anyone outsideof ourselves. Selfishness is self-absorption; it is the failure to love and accept

3Transcendence (Latin surpassing) refers to the Otherness of God, whose existence goes beyond the universe and is

not to be identified with it.4Immanence (Latin remaining in) means God also exists apart from and beyond the whole universe. The revelation of

the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit came through the history of salvation, which culminated with the incarnation of the Son

and sending of the Holy Spirit.5 To Live in Christ Jesus (Washington:USCC, 1976), p. 5; cf. Sharing in the Light of Faith (Washington : USCC, 1978),

#98.

41


10/17

love. Some metaphors6 used today to convey this meaning of sin: rebellion,isolation, alienation, estrangement, and arrogance of power. Each expresses adifferent nuance of love turned in on itself. Let us have a look at arrogance ofpower.

Rollo May in his book, power and Innocence provides a powerful scheme

for understanding sin as arrogance of power. First, May establishes the point thatall of us have power. But not all of it is demonic. His analysis changes thecommon understanding that the more loving one is the less powerful one is. Loveand power, in fact are not opposites. We need power to be able to love in thefirst place, since power, as May defines it is the capacity to influence change inothers and situations for good or ill.

Rollo May then distinguishes five kinds of power which can be in all of us atdifferent times. The moral issue is concerned with the proportion of each kind ofpower within the total spectrum of ways of expressing ourselves in relation toothers.

1. Exploitative and manipulative power is destructive. These are forms ofpower over another and often can be equated with force or violence. E.g.dictators, bullies, etc.

2. Competitive power acts against another. It can act destructively when itputs another down, or it can act constructively to bring out dormantcapacities in another (and yourself) and bring vitality to a responsibility.

3. Nutrient power acts for the sake of another by giving care. This kind ofpower is vital in relationships between friends, and loved ones.

4. Integrative power acts with another to draw out the best in the otherperson.

The arrogance of power in the misdirected hearts (of some people) seeks agreater proportion of exploitative, manipulative, and competitive power overnutrient and integrative power.

Sin as the arrogant use of power separates us from loving, life-giving,peace-keeping and justice-doing relationships. Our responsibility as covenantalpartners is to care for and to serve one another through nurturing and integrativepower. Jesus great commandment of love makes this all clear. Sin arises out ofour desires and efforts to protect the self we have made in order to guaranteethat we are lovable and loved. When we set out to protect the self we have

made, we set ourselves against God, against nature, and against one another.Self-serving interest destroy bonds of peace and justice, and spread conditions offear, hatred, and violence which usher in disharmony of the world which we knowas social sin the cooperation in the continued maintenance of oppressivestructures in society and in the world.

6 Metaphor is a figure of speech which comprise of a word or phrase that transfers its meaning to another use, as means of

illustration.

42


11/17

We break the dynamic power of sin our lives when we realize that we are infact profoundly loved apart from our achievements and our virtue. Only Godslove is so permanent and profound as to release us from our sins. This is offeredto us through the sacrament of reconciliation. Divine love is the only love whichwill satisfy our longing hearts. Divine love opens our hearts to nurture the life-giving, peace-keeping and justice-doing potentials in ourselves and in others so

that we might transform human relationships and institutions. When we acceptthe gift of divine love, then we are taking Jesus words: No longer do I call youservants; I call you friends (Jn 15:15). As friends we become united with themission of Jesus to use our power so that all may have life in abundance.

Traditional Understanding of Sin7

Tomothy OConnel categorized four traditional understanding of sin: sin asan act, sin as a fact, sin as a state, and sin as a direction.

Sin as an act

A sin is an action by which I refuse to do what I believe God wants me to do,and thereby injure or harm my neighbor. This action implies the use of freedomand knowledge on the part of the person performing it. In other words, sin issomething actual.

Sin as a fact

Tradition in the church affirmed the existence of original sin. This we maycall sin as a fact, that is, something we do not do, but as something we are

subject or expose, vulnerable to. In other words, original sin exists prior to ourpersonal acts of freedom. It is a human condition of living in a world where weare influence by more evil that we do ourselves. Our whole being andenvironment is infested by this condition of evil and brokenness. We feel theeffects of its presence and poison our lack of freedom and our inability to act aswe should. St. Paul knew the force of this evil when he said: I do not do the goodI want to do, instead I do the evil I do not want to do (Rom. 7:19).

Sin as a state

A person in a state of mortal sin describes the situation in which a person is

continuously cut off from God, and is no longer in a state of grace. It describessin as a quality of that person in that particular situation, so that the personwould be described as being in sin.

Sin as direction

The human person is a free being that possess the power to choose thedirection of his/her life. Ones freedom gives the person to say yes or no. This

7 Timothy OConnel,Principles for Catholic Morality, rev. ed., New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1990, p. 80-87.

43


12/17

power to decide either for good or for evil defines the direction of his/her life. Tochoose sin means giving up the better world that one deserves; it means lettinggo of the dreams for ones happiness; it means isolation from God and addictionto all forms of idolatry. Because the human person is free, he/she charts thedirection of his/her life by the very option he/she takes.

The Diversity of Sin8

In moral living, we find ourselves using sin in various ways without takingthe time to distinguish clearly what we mean. Perhaps the most familiar use ofsin is personal sin; this is the classic notion of actual sin (mortal and venial). Itrefers to personal culpability for choosing, in knowledge and with freedom to beunloving and selfish. This is usually the sense of sin we confess. Sin, however, isalso a fact a force or power in the world which is greater than the sum ofindividual acts of sin. Some theologians call this sin as sin of the world. Todaywe are hearing more about a third kind of sin which has some features of the sinof the world but which is also related to personal sin in that we share some

responsibility for it, this is social sin. Let us try to discuss each of this kind.

Original Sin

Original sin is the theological code word for the human condition of living ina world where we are influenced by more evil than what we do ourselves. Ourwhole being and environment is infected by this condition of evil and brokenness.As a result, we find ourselves somewhat alienated from our deeper selves, fromothers, and from God. We need redemption, or the healing of divine love.

Despite our brokenness, we can still become who we were made to be

through Gods redeeming love or grace which enables us grow toward wholenessand in communion with ourselves, others, God and nature. While the original sinfall us in the direction of radical selfishness and independence, the energy ofgrace moves us toward interdependence and communion. However, these twoopposite forces within are not easy to deal with especially the negative pull oforiginal sin; that is why we need to open ourselves to the presence of redemptivelove. This gift of redemptive love is mediated to us in and through the humancommunity our families, our neighborhoods, and the wider community like thechurch, our countrymen, etc. which witnesses to justice, truth, peace, and othervirtues. In fact, one of the ways of the interpreting the effects of baptism is tosee it as initiating us into a life-giving, peace-giving, and justice-doing, supportive

community committed to living according to the gospel. The fact that the powerof grace and original sin are part of being human makes responsible moral livinga truly demanding task. Because of original sin, struggle and tragedy will alwaysbe part of our moral striving.

Personal Sin9

8 Gula, Richard. 1989.Faith Informed by Reason. New York, Paulist Press. pp. 106-121.9 Gregory the Great (+604) drew up a list of 7 capital sins pride, avarice, envy, lust, gluttony, anger, sloth capital not

because they are necessarily grave but because they easily become vices and sources of sins.

44


13/17

In the Bible, sin is primarily and always a rupture in our relationship withGod. The greatest sin is the direct rejection of God. This is idolatry. The directrejection of the true God and the setting up of idols are the first offensementioned in the Ten Commandments. One of the great missions of the prophetswas to call Israel away from idolatry and back to fidelity to the one true God of

the covenant.

In the New Testament, Paul lists those sins which can exclude one from thereign of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21). The synoptic gospels have the sayingof Jesus about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the sin which will not beforgiven ( Mk 3:28; Mt. 12:31-32; Lk 12:10). This sin will not be forgiven becausethe person who commits such blasphemy is closed to power of the Spirit to save.The clearest reference to degrees of sin is found in 1 Jn. 5:16-17. There we findthe designation of sins as deadly or unto death and which are not deadly ornot unto death. But no examples are given by the author. However, this is thehint in the Scriptures about degrees of sins, which takes development in the

church. Let us have brief discussion of the present understanding of mortal andvenial sins as degrees of sins.

Mortal Sin

The Catholic tradition has required three conditions to be present in orderfor a sin to be mortal:

1. sufficient reflection2. full consent of the will3. serious matter

The first two have to do with the person and the third have to do with the actionas expression of the person. The condition of sufficient reflection is fulfilledwhen we reached evaluative knowledge. Only then is mortal sin possible, for onlywith evaluative knowledge have we reached the kind of knowledge which entailsthe self-involvement of a personal commitment to a person, event, or action.

The traditional requirement of full consent of the will implies personalfreedom. The kind of freedom which fulfills the requirement of full consent ofthe will is what the theologians call basic or core freedom. This is the freedom ofself-determination which gives expression to the basic character or dominant

direction of our lives. It gets expressed in those significant choices which arisefrom a deep level of self-awareness and self-possession (master of oneself) sothat they can significantly reinforce or redirect the fundamental direction andcommitment of our lives.

The basic question of serious matter is not how much of a big deal theaction is in itself, but how deeply involved we are in the action, the quality of theaction and the effects of the action. The gravity of the matter implies the two

45


14/17

conditions. In some cases matter is considered grave when its object isdeliberately opposed to the love of God and neighbor.

Some theologians speak of mortal sin as a negative fundamental option.This means that mortal sin, as an expression of the person from the deep levelsof knowledge and freedom makes a conscious decision to act in a way which

fashions a style of life that turns us away from relating to God, others, and theworld in a positive life-giving, peace-keeping. And justice-doing way. Throughmortal sin we no longer build up and promote wholesome relationship, nor do wecontribute to the well-being of human community and all creation.

Venial Sin

Venial sin is something similar to mortal sin. We have already discussedthat mortal sin demands a significant degree of self-awareness, self-mastery/possession and self-determination in order to be an expression of oneswhole life in a way that radically reverses ones positive relationship with God,

others and all creation.

Sin so often enters our lives through some form of avoiding the call ofconscience to exercise nutrient and integrative power (caring and loving) andmeet the demands of love and justice. We psychologically detach ourselves fromthese demands and become submerged in our own self-interest. We act againstanother with destructive forms of competitive power by telling our piece ofgossip, delivering a nasty sarcasm, or exercising any other power-play to keepourselves secure. Our sin only quickly escalates through defensive efforts tokeep guilt away. We persevere in our pride until the fruits of sin come forth projected blame, self-pity, angry attacks, cruelty, distrust, cynicism about

anothers goodness, and other forms of arrogant power. While these may not bemonstrous evils, they put us seriously in the realm of venial sin.

Venial sins however, do not embody the whole of our lives in such a radicalway as to turn us away from God. Every act does not really carry such weight asto change radically the direction of our lives. For one reason, many of our choicesand actions are not done with open eyes of clear vision. We do not see what isbefore us rightly, and so do not respond to what is really there. Furthermore,many of our daily choices do not appear to our consciousness so it does notexpress full freedom. Most of our daily choices are not relevant enough to alter ina radical way our whole life plan or direction of life towards God.

Simply put then, venial sin is acting inconsistently with our basiccommitment to be for life and love. Venial sin does not spring from the deepestlevel of our knowledge and freedom so as to change our fundamentalcommitment to be open to God, others and the world.

Social Sin

46


15/17

The notion of social sin articulates how social structures can shape ourexistence for the worse. It describes the consequences of individual choiceswhich form structures wherein people suffer various forms of oppression andexploitation.

Social sin reflects the dialectical nature of human existence. Social

sciences would help us see that through our freedom we create society byembodying meaning and value in social structures and ecclesial structures arealso embodiment of meaning and values. These structures in turn affect usthrough the process of socialization particularly the way we use our freedom. Asa result, what we see, what we think, what we believe, what we value, and whatwe do depend a great deal on the social context of our lives. By participating inthese structures we sustained them and help to produce their effects whether wewant to or not.

Sinful social structures are the result of acts of personal freedom in the firstplace; the relationship of personal sin to social sin is inevitable and inseparable.

Since we participate in the process of creating society, we share in theresponsibility for causing social sin. But being responsible for causing social sindoes not automatically mean we are morally culpable for it. Culpability demandsknowledge and freedom. So once we become aware of the social structureswhich influence our lives for the worse, then we need to be attentive to thedecisions we make and to the actions we take that supports such structureswhich are destructive and oppressive of human well-being. However, as oftenhappens, we get so caught up in the worldview and spirit we have created bythese structures that we cannot see clearly the evil we perpetuate. As a result,our moral sensitivity to evil grows dull; our blindness and ignorance consequentlylimit our culpability for social sins.

Since the real responsibility for social sin lies with each individual, sinfulstructures will not be transformed until we who are responsible for them alter theway we use power to influence change in ourselves, others, and structures withinwhich we live. The right use of power lies behind the reality of social sin andremains a major moral issue in our world and in the church.

Modern Social Sins10

On March 9, 2008, the Vatican newspaper published a list of seven modernsocial sins. The list was included in an interview with Monsignor Gianfranco

Girotti, who suggested they were new sins which have appeared on the horizonof humanity as corollary to the unstoppable process of globalization. The modernsocial sins are:

1. destroying the environment2. genetic manipulation3. obscene wealth4. creating poverty

10 Giraldes, Manuel. The Weapon Against Envy. World Mission. October 2009.no. 227 Vol. XXI. P.25.

47


16/17

5. drug trafficking6. immoral scientific experimentation7. violation of fundamental rights of humans

Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, oneof the most influential figures of our time had already elaborated his own list of

the sins most spiritually perilous/dangerous to humanity. And curiously, theyarea also mainly social sins:

1. wealth without work2. pleasure without conscience3. science without humanity4. knowledge without character5. politics without principle6. commerce without morality7. worship without sacrifice

Conversion

The Greek word for conversion is metanoia (which means change ofheart). The first conversion that takes place in the life of a Christian is broughtabout by faith and baptism. This conversion is accompanied by repentance whichimplies turning away from sin and turning to God. One of the best descriptions ofmetanoia has been given by Pope Paul VI. Metanoia he says, meansconversion, repentance, inner change. It means a change of outlook a changeof ones thoughts, ideas, way of judging oneself and others, to change onesconscience from false to true. Conversion also means correcting our moral

orientation in line with the truth which directs our lives to order, love and God.

To change ones erroneous and faulty mentality calls for humility andcourage to say to oneself: I have been wrong which requires considerablestrength of character. To give up certain fixed ideas, attitudes, mentality, andbehavior calls for a spiritual revolution, possible only for one who sacrifices whatis most personal in him/her own convictions to the truth. For those who areusually dominated by passionate instincts or by illicit interests, to change coursein the direction of righteousness and virtue, is a very sufficient and meritoriousprocess, as overwhelming attempt at renewal. To forgive an offense, toovercome a capricious dislike, to reject opportunity to use violence, etc. can be

an exercise of penitence along the right line of Christian love.

Christian repentance/conversion is first of all a virtue an interior force, abasic tendency in a person which leads the sinner to detach himself from sin anddestroy in him the forces of evil. It is essential in the life of the Christian andforms an important part of his program of life.

Pope John Paul II reminds that conversion to God always consists indiscovering his mercy, that is in discovering that love which is patient and kind (1

48


17/17

Cor. 13:4) as only the Creator and Father can be (Dives in Misericordia, 1980 n.13).

Dimensions of Total Christian Conversion11

1. moral conversion

2. affective conversion3. intellectual conversion4. religious conversion

The Universal Call to Holiness

You therefore, must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt.5:48). For he sent the Holy Spirit to all to make them to love God with their wholeheart, with their whole soul, with their whole understanding, and their wholestrength (Mt. 12:30), and to love one another as Christ loved them Jn. 13:34;

15:12). The followers of Christ, called by God not in the virtue of their works buthis design and grace and justified in the Lord Jesus, have been made sons (anddaughters) of God in the baptism of faith and partakers of the divine nature, andso are truly sanctified. They must therefore heal on to and perfect in their livesthose sanctifications which they have received from God. They are told by theapostle to live as is fitting among the saints (Eph. 5:3), and to put on as Godschosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, love, meekness andpatience (Col. 3:12) to have the fruits of the Spirit for their sanctifications(Gal.5:22; Rom. 6:22). 12

11 CFC n. 179712 Vat. II Lumen Gentium n. 40 (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).

49

Sin, Conversion and Virtues

Documents

Transcript of Sin, Conversion and Virtues