April 6, 2018 at 1:53 p.m.
LENTEN REFLECTION
Whatever happened to sin?
The word "actual" distinguished personal sin from "original" sin, over which we had no control. But despite the catechism's clarification that there needs to be knowledge and full consent of the will along with an evil action, the emphasis in the classroom was almost entirely on the act performed.
Most Catholics identified sin with the act: something I did or did not do which really annoyed God, the heavenly judge, and condemned me, the dull-witted servant! It was normal for people to ask, "What are my sins?" and respond with a list of things we thought, said, did or did not do.
This was achieved by an exercise known as the examination of conscience. More often than not, it was the preparation of a laundry list of failures, shortcomings and bad deeds that we could present to the priest-confessor who sat behind a screen in a dark booth.
Over-emphasis on the action as sin tended to focus attention on the many actions in our daily lives: Sins seemed to be everywhere. As we approached adolescence, we would have to throw sexual thoughts into the mix, and now we had a real mess!
Then along came the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, with its emphasis on the human person. Talk about sins and lists of sins became passe. Whereas before it seemed that everything was a sin, now it seemed that nothing was a sin. Both are equally tragic and produced a good deal of confusion.
Some people felt that the so-called "new" theology was watering down the faith, while others found the lifestyle of "nothing is sin" to be rather pleasant. No longer did we have to go to confession every week to present our laundry list of bad thoughts, swear words and missed prayers.
As adults seeking to make responsible moral decisions, we need a more adequate notion of sin than that presented by the old catechism. The theology in many of these old tools was not so much wrong as inadequate for persons seeking to live the Christian life amid the complex demands of contemporary society.
We must change our language when it comes to the notion of sin. It would be far better if sin were understood in terms of my basic total disposition or attitude toward God, rather than as actions performed which break laws. The real essence of sin consists in breaking or rupturing the loving personal relationship with God - a relationship initiated by God and accepted by me at my baptism, either personally or through my sponsors.
It is as appropriate to talk about being in a state of sin or "brokenness" as it is to speak about being in a state of grace or "wholeness." The emphasis in both sin and grace talk should be on "being," rather than "doing." Sin is really not something that I "do," but is something that "I" do: something that I do because I am in a state of broken relationship.
One of the inadequacies of the "sin-as-law-breaking" concept is that it makes law far too central in the Christian life, with the result that it fosters a kind of negative minimalism: I just want to do what is required within the boundaries and no more, no less. The renewal of the sacrament of reconciliation lends itself to more of a dialogue style of discussion, where the real question is not, "What sins did you commit?" but, "How well do you think you are living the Christian life?"
(Dr. Avvento, coordinator of the "Amazing God" initiative for the Albany Diocese, is a lecturer who holds a doctorate in moral theology and the author of two books on spirituality.)[[In-content Ad]]
250 X 250 AD
250 X 250 AD
Events
250 X 250 AD
Comments:
You must login to comment.