SIN
Sin is the dark side of morality and it involves many thoughts and considerations. Long ago Pope Pius XII th said that ‘the greatest sin of the time is the loss of the sense of sin’. It is the greatest because there is no possibility of repentance and conversion. Here the sinner is in a sort of fool’s paradise and there may be other who consciously refuses to acknowledge sin. There seem to be many reasons behind this state of affairs.
1. Presentation of morality: Positive presentation of morality as against the traditional negative presentation of morality and Christian living with emphasis on Sin and its consequences especially eternal punishment. Such negative presentation is practically absent today, while emphasizing the positive demands of Christian life, like love, social justice etc. This gap may be contributing to some extent to define a sense of sin. The remedy is not returning to negative presentation but sufficiently emphasizing the reality of sin and its consequences, which are very evident in daily life.
2. Emphasis on personal conscience: Though conscience has been always acknowledged as the personal guide in moral life, recently its role and significance is very much emphasised. Besides the influence of personalistic and existentialistic thinking in theology and philosophy. Vat II also contributed much to that. The council in various places refers to the dignity of conscience, the obligation to follow it and the duty to form it well. The declaration of religious liberty is a very notable step in the line. Besides people on the whole are very conscience of human dignity and their own dignity all of which at the level of moral thinking and decision making enhances the significance of personal conscience. Consequently many tend to think what their conscience tells is right and follow it without critically checking whether the conscience is well formed. This tendency together with emphasize on the personal freedom makes people’s sense of good and bad rather subjective and relative which consequently weaken their sense of sin. The remedy is not to re-emphasize the role of conscience but to emphasize the obligation of forming one’s conscience well.
3. Waning sense of God and religiosity: Progress in science and technology always gives man, a mastery and independence. The considerable progress of recent times has added to this tendency. Though man seeks spiritual comfort and experience, we also seems to think more independently about religion and religious belief, and even about God. They tend to make their own concept of God. This introduces flexibility and subjectivity also in their idea of good and bad, making sense of sin, very personal and relative add contribution to its general decline.
4. The prevailing Hellenistic Philosophy of life and consumer culture: Pleasure has become the goal of life and making money anyway and enjoying life is the guiding philosophy. In this philosophy moral values do not have a strong standing, because anything is allowed for making money and enjoying life. This message is strongly carried and propagated by the powerful media, what a moral instructor builds up step by step through laborious effort is simply under, by the various media items. The biggest block for inculcating sense of sin today is perhaps the media. Especially with regard to the younger generation. Media can not be ignored, what is needed is critical appreciation and us of the media. There are also opinions that the decline in the sense of sin is due to the restoration of balance in the importance of various commandments. Another psychological explanation is that in the past, sense of sin prevailed because the society was more rigid and the laws strictly enforced. Today on the contrary society is more liberal, relaxing the sense of sin. That may be true; however, there is another aspect to this problem. Because of decline in sense of, we do not see any decline in mental or emotional problem. It is said that there are many who refuse to acknowledge their sin and guilt. Such refusal also causes psychological and emotional problem.
Sin itself can be understood in various ways, known as individualistic concept of sin; where sin is considered to be a foul between himself and God, the community is excluded from the understanding of sin. Horizontal concept of sin understands it as a defect or deficiency in the personal and social life, not acknowledging any role for God in its understanding of sin. Legalistic idea sees morality as some of laws and sin predominantly as a violation of law, which will be definitely punished by the strict law giver. Here sin is understood without a personal dimension. Compare, between the attitude of the prodigal son and his brother. The second can understand only law, but not an exception of law or the compassionate heart of father. The above 3 concepts have their positives and negatives. The Bible, especially OT, provide us with a concept of something taking into account all the positive dimensions, and not falling into the negatives, namely sin as the breach of the covenant, i.e. Covenant relationship. Sin is thus not so much a violation of law as wounding a love or hurting a relationship.
The Bible is very strong about the reality of Sin. It is said that sin reflects on every page of OT. However the Hebrew language does not have a specific term to denote the reality of sin. But OT uses various expressions to denote their reality of sin like iniquity, foolishness, transgression, stiff neck, missing the mask etc. (cf. Gen 3, 11; Ex 20, 5; Ps 139, 21; Ez 2,4). However the predominant concept of sin in the Bible especially in the OT is covenant cantered namely breach or rupture of the covenant. It is mainly the Prophets, who use that expression and call Israel back to the covenant relationship. Many text for eg. Ez16, 29; Isa 24, 5; Jer 11, 10; 31, 32; Ez 44,7 etc. speak of sin as breaking the covenant. Prophet Hosea calls Israel a prostitute (whore) for rejecting YHWH and going after the god, like a faithless wife deserts her husband. The message of Isaiah saying, they are it defined, because they have transgressed law, violated the commandments and broken the covenant, is a clear illustration of the reality of sin.
NT also speaks about sin and its consequences, though not pervasively and frighteningly. It speaks perhaps more about repentance and forgiveness. Jesus sends his disciples to call people to repentance. John the Baptist very strongly condemns, people’s self-righteousness and call them to conversion. However regarding the idea of sin the NT presumes the OT concept of sin, based on covenant relationship. The parable of the prodigal son(Lk15, 11f) depicts in as wounding Father-Son relationship, the pain of which motivates the son to return. Besides, of course, his own pathetic condition when separated from father. (Lk7, 47) Jesus says about Mary, that her many sins are forgiven because she has loved much. The antidote against sin is Love, indicating that sin is negation of love. 1 John 3,4 says that sin is lawlessness and i.e. lovelessness in the light of St. John. In short Bible gives us moral laws and wants us to be faithful to that sin is considered not so much of violation of law, but as refusal of love or unwillingness to rise up to the demands of covenantal relationship. It is correct to say, one’s idea of sin flows from his idea of morality. The Biblical idea of morality is covenant centred and so is its concept of sin.
Such a concept of sin implies a 3 fold ejection. Rejection of God, self and the other (community). Since God offers the covenant calling us into his partnership, refusing by abide by that is a rejection of God. Covenantal relationship is meant for the salvation of men and rejection to be participant in that is paradoxically a rejection of the self.
Sin also involves a rejection of the community or the other. Any sin a person commits, even the most private includes this rejection because every individual is part of the community. In that sense moral status of everyone affects the moral laxture or ugliness of the community also. This becomes clearer as people become aware of the social dimension of their existence. If existence is to existence, everyone’s existential choice whether good or bad affects also the others. It is said that the strength of a chain depends on its weakest link, similarly the moral status and quality of a community. In short, just as covenant involves a 3 fold relationship, Sin involves a 3 fold rejection.
Sin in theology is defined in various ways from different aspects. It is a violation of God’s Commandment with knowledge and consent, the traditional definition known to us all. Try not to make it very legalistic. Here sin requires a violation of God’s Commandment and does it on his free choice. Usually a sin may be doing something forbidden (sin of commission) or not doing something commanded (sin of omission). When people unfortunately happen to break the moral commandments without due knowledge and consent it is called material sin; when it is with knowledge and consent it is called formal sin. Sin proper is formal sin.
Another definition is sin is formal violation of conscience. When we violate a moral commandment what we immediately violate is the dictate of our conscience which tells us what our moral obligation here and now is. Going against a certain conscience, which command or prohibits is also sinful. As St. Paul says whatever does not proceed out of faith is sin. (Rom.14, 23). Here faith means bona fides or good belief or honest conviction generated by the judgement of his conscience. Sin is also defined as a choice of freedom. Freedom is the ability for rational self determination. It’s meaningful exercise, therefore should be for the actualization of the good for oneself as well as for others. Moral laws are basic guidelines binding on all indicating what is good and bad for the human person as a person. In committing sin one goes against this meaningful and obligatory exercise of freedom. However in sinning one does not choose evil as evil but in the guise of something good which appeals to him here and now. It may be something responding to the one or other needs and desires of man. But such good we know are partial goods, In sin partial good is preferred to an integral or genuine good and thus the hierarchy is upset through the sinners wrong choice. One is lead to sin by the complex needs and desires of human person, the incentives around him, his own selfishness and the weakness of sin tainted nature.
All this is part of human nature and life situation. And the gift of freedom implies the risk of sin. Therefore it is the duty of every morally responsible person to avoid the path of sin. We are usually led to sin through temptations. Temptation is an alluring situation; it is a debating and disputing situation, attracted by the prospect of enjoying some partial good at the cost of integral good or moral good. It is in fact, toying with the idea of sin. Though temptation is not a sin and does not become sin unless one consensus to it. It is a morally dangerous experiment. The more one toys with the idea of sin the more likelihood of falling into it. As it is said the ‘the tree falls where it leans to’. Therefore one who wants to avoid sin also earnestly avoids the occasion of sin and temptation. If one comes face to face with temptation one should try his best to resist the temptation. For this strong conviction about and commitment to moral values is very important. No theoretical knowledge of moral values is simply s quarantine against sin. One should also be very prudent is his life and behaviour. First of all one should know one’s own strength and liability in front of different types of temptation. Accordingly one should seriously discern the person, the place, the occasion etc. to be avoided or to be very careful about. In order to avoid temptation many people know their strength and liabilities, but one should also have the readiness and humility to act in accordance with that. Reliance on God and praying for God’s grace is very essential for leading a life free from sin, because what is not possible for man is possible for God. Jesus instructs us to pray that we may not fall into temptations (Mt 26, 41).
The effects (consequences) of sin
A sin brings about 3 immediate consequences namely guilt, stain and punishment.
The immediate subjective effect of a sin is an awareness of having violated a law or wounded a love; it generates a sense of ill being, usually called guilt. Normally people feel this guilt according to the gravity of sin. And that normal feeling is a morally healthy feeling. However some people may feel too much as in the case of guilt complex or the guilt feeling of a scruple. Such imbalanced feeling is usually the symptom of some emotional sickness, which has to be handled accordingly. And some people may feel very little guilt like a lax conscience, also has to be helped to become aware of the evil he has done. This category of people will have very little sense of sin.
Stain refers to the damage or loss or hurt or disorder or violation that has been effected by sin. This is something that occurs in the objective order. Straining, weakening or rupturing relationship to God, it is better to speak of deprivation of Grace. After all, every sin is a rejection of God and therefore there is a privation of Grace in every sin, besides the damage, straining etc. in interpersonal relationship.
Punishment refers to the remaining task of the sinner, who has to repair the violated order or the wounded relationship in as far as it is within his power. This is usually done by undergoing the accepted or prescribed reparatory measures.
These 3 effects of sin are removed through repentance, forgiveness and penance; as it will be discussed in detail in the Sacraments of Penance.
Specific and Numerical distinction of Sins
Sins are distinguished in their species and number. This became a concern for moral theology in the Council of Trent, which demanded that grave / mortal sins be confessed according to their species (kind) and number.
Species refers to the kind or type of sin. We know there are several moral commandments, involving different matter, and different styles of action. Species corresponds to the specific mode of sin. It is therefore said, there are as many specifically distinct sins as distinct moral obligations are violated. Murder and adultery are so distinct. Sometimes 2 different obligations can become part of 3rd obligation; for eg. A week day Mass and an act of Charity as penance received in confession, not fulfilling the 2nd obligation here amounts to only one specific sin, namely not fulfilling the sacramental penance. Similarly someone who misses a Sunday Mass which was also part of Sacramental penance commits 2 specific sins, i.e. not fulfilling Sunday obligation and not fulfilling Sacramental penance.
Regarding number of sins, the important criterion is the ‘act of will’. Therefore there are as many sins as there are numerically different acts of the will, opting for sin. For e.g. one wills to commit theft 3 times a day, it becomes 3 sins. However different acts can also be the object of one act of will. For e.g. in the process of robbing some valuable things from a person he may robe several other things like a ladder, a knife, a torch and so on from different people, but all that needs to be counted only as part of one intention of robbing and hence only one sin. This is a point that can give rise to a lot of unnecessary casuistry, which may be avoided.
Another criterion is, there are as many sins, as there are different specific sins. For e.g. one goes out with the intention of going to a prostitute, steals money from another and then seriously wounds somebody else, who came in the way of his stealing the money and finally goes and commits prostitution. Though his final intention was a sexual sin and the others came as a means for that. Here each sin is a numerically distinct one, because they are specifically distinct. The reason is that the act of the will is determined by its object, and if the objects are specifically distinct then it follows that there are so many different acts of the will.
Divisions of sin
Sin of omission and commission
A general distinction is into original sin, personal sin and social sin. Though we are concerned about personal sins, just a clarification about the other two.
Original sin refers to, the sin of the first parents and our sinfulness through participation in the same human nature or through being members of the same human family. We are therefore not personally responsible for original sin, though we are affected by its consequences like self-centeredness, self-seeking, seeking our own enjoyment even at the cost of others etc.
Social sin refers to the evil or sinfulness acquired by the social setup or structures (as a result of the accumulation of the evil consequences of personal sins), the operation of which lead or prompt people to commit sinful acts. Nobody particularly is responsible for social sins, but we all perpetuate that by tolerating or cooperating with it. Cast systems, corrupt system of bribery etc are good examples.
Sin may be divided into internal and external. External sins are those executed outside, while internal sins are those committed within the person, by inner faculties of man like thinking, fantasy and imagination. These are confined the inner world, while external sins happens in out world. Internal sins are often called bad thoughts by people. As a popular use it may be alright, but remember that thoughts as such do not constitute a sin; besides ‘bad thought’ should not be restricted to unchaste thoughts alone; internal sins can be committed against any commandment. Especially nurturing hatred, bitterness etc. against other is very sinful.
Internal sins further distinguished into morose delectation (mental complacency) which consists in deriving pleasure by thinking about immoral objects. For e.g. some sexual activities, revengeful thoughts and so on. It can also be desire to do something evil, which may be inefficacious and efficacious. The first one is not meant for execution; but the other one may executed when opportunity presents itself. The latter is, more crones to become external execution.
Another type is joy in an accomplished sinful act. Therefore it refers to something past, but it reaches the fruit of joy now. It should be remembered that internal sin also requires the consent of the person without which there can be no sin. However a practical difficulty is that, since the internal faculties are very closely related and often influence one another, it may not be very easy always to be sure whether one has given consent to a bad thought or imagination. Here people can only examine themselves as sincerely as possible and make sure whether they have committed a sin or not. Remember that our internal faculties, fantasy and imagination for e.g., can be engaged by spontaneous stimuli from the external world or from within, without our necessary cooperation; such thoughts may come also motivated by subconscious. As long as the person is not aware of that and does not cooperate wilfully, it does not become a sin. Besides the object of internal operation should be something immoral, without which the act can not be sinful. When these are put together all that are internal sin by people need not always be sinful.
No comments:
Post a Comment