HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE ROOT OF SIN?

In light of a critical apprehension of History, Scripture and the human person, how do we understand the root sin of humankind?

Modern thinkers questioned about original sin and with their criticism of the classical explanations of original sin the whole of the Christian creed appeared vulnerable. Christians had to meet these challenges in two ways. First, holding firm against the onslaught of modernity by defending the classical formulation of the doctrine of original sin as intrinsic to the divine revelation of sin and redemption. Second, acknowledging that the conception of original sin belonged to a different age with different questions and a different apprehension of the world than shared by persons today, hence a deep and profound consideration of the doctrine was in order. Contemporary theologians have voiced concern that original sin be disengaged from pre-modern assumptions incompatible with empirical scientific and historical knowledge. Two distinctive interpretations of original sin have come from the twentieth-century religious thinkers, Piet Schoonenberg (Catholic) and Reinhold Niebuhr (Protestant).

Schoonenberg argued that legal categories previously used are incapable of capturing the personal relationship that exists between human beings and God. The primary category in his theology of original sin is the notion of being-situated. Being-situated correspond with the classical doctrine of “the condition of original sin, but not with the event of Adam’s sin. Original sin is not a loss of supernatural gifts because this is against evolution. From the OT he grounded the problem of alienation and evil in texts that speak of Israel’s sinfulness as a people or the sinfulness of humanity as a whole rather than in the story of Gen. 3. He contends that the fall is existential and it occurs in each person, occasioned by the refusal to seek and to love God. From the NT he appealed to the Johannine sin of the world as an affirmation of the social and ideological dimension of human sinfulness. Being-situated is a universal feature in human nature operative in all acts of freedom. Each person makes decisions and lives in a world already shaped by refusal of God. It is impossible to be outside this existential and social context. This dimension of being situated in a world alienated from God is what was named original sin. In first John, Schoonenberg discovers that the Christian proclamation is of God’s love and redemption, not original sin. God is offended when human beings disregard His summons to love others. The privation of grace refers to the absence in a person of an interior life of faith and love of God. The historical situation is simultaneously one of being-situated by sin and being-situated by redemption.

The concept of will to power is a central feature of Niebuhr’s reinterpretation of original sin. He argued that inasmuch as sin is a factor in the dynamics of historical existence it must be included in a social analysis of the human good and evil. In a social ethics, the categories of good and evil correspond to those of justice and injustice. Schemes of justice are redemptive. The roots of injustice are in psychological reality of individual and collective egotism. For him, original perfection is the apprehension of what ought to be. The image of God remains after sin and it is identified with mutuality, the inner normative orientation of the law of love. Mutuality is the source of human good and egotism is the source of human evil. The symbol of original sin pointed directly to the persistence and universality of individual and collective egotism.

Liberation theology advocated the inclusion of the social sin. They asked questions regarding the relation between social and original sin. Some theologians equated them, but others differentiated between them. For instance, the Dutch Catechism rejected an equivalence between the biblical sin of the world and the doctrine of original sin. It portrayed the transmission of original sin sociologically rather than biologically.

Is the classical formulation of humankind’s sin equivalent to the meaning of humankind’s alienation from God? Or can we talk of the root of sin without appealing to Adam’s sin as a historical event? Here we need to understand that the understanding of the root of sin developed in and through the experiences of individuals. This thesis deals, in one way or another, with the essence the Dogma of original sin. We shall present first the teachings of Genesis 3, afterwards, news developments in the understanding of the meaning of the Dogma will be presented in order to draw what can be the understanding of the root of sin.

Gn3: Originating original sin : the sin of Adam

In narrative form, chapters 1 through 11 of the Book of Genesis depict this somber fact about humankind. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis tell the story of creation by God. God created all things, including man and woman, and saw that they were good.

But into this good world entered sin. In chapter 3 of Genesis, the man, Adam, rejects God and tries to become his equal. As a result of this original sin, the man feels alienated from God. He hides. When God confronts him, Adam blames the woman, Eve, for his sin, and she in turn blames the serpent. The point is simple and tragic: the man's guilt has distorted all his relationships. Sin has turned life into a harsh burden.

Chapters 4 through 11 of Genesis depict the escalation of sin in the world, rippling out from Adam's original sin. Cain murders his brother Abel. Sin reaches such proportions that God sends a great flood that covers the earth - a symbol of the chaos and destruction sin brought to creation. In chapter 11, human folly reaches its peak: man tries again to become God's equal by building a tower reaching to the heavens. This rejection of God spills over into man's rejection of his fellow humans. There is now division and complete lack of communication among nations.

According to Genesis, a world of beauty was deformed by sin. The ongoing result has been division, pain, bloodshed, loneliness, and death. This tragic narrative has a familiar feel to it. The reality it points to is a basic part of human experience. It is no surprise that this reality is what could be considered as original sin and its effects.

Original sin becomes a problem once one sticks on a historical aetiology and on an evolutionary perspective. These will rise the question : Do we still need the story of Adam’s fall to explain the root of sin? Some theologians say : “NO”. But this answer does not do justice to the sources of Revelation. Some catholic theologians (including H. Rondet, A. Vanneste, G. Martelet and Peter Schoonenberg) try to discuss the question from two different perspectives, the systematic point of view and the dogmatic point of view.

-          As lack, original sin is not a thing, it is not a positive reality (it is not a stain on the soul (cfr the notion of macula originalis));

-          Original sin is a deprivation, a state of want : it as a state which ought not to be since grace ought to be there. Lack, deprivation and want are against God’s will, since man is destined to God.

-          The lack of holiness and grace is antecedent to our moral decision : freedom is prior to moral act, and to the orientation for good and evil. Original sin as a lack and a deprivation explains the moral impotence of the sinner.

 

The Christian Tradition Teachings

The Christian Tradition and dogma distinguish two aspects of the mystery of original sin :

-          The originating original sin (originans in Latin) or the personal sin of Adam

-          The Originated original sin (originatum in Latin) or the hereditary sin.

This teachings of the Church is based on Genesis 3, the story of the Fall, and Rom 5, where Paul affirms that sin entered the world through one Man, Adam. He implies that sin is inherited from the sin of Adam.

 ROOT SIN IN CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

 Hereditary sin as Originated original sin

This is inherited sin which is passed to us by our first parents (Adam and Eve). This conception is challenged by personalistic and existential philosophy and by modern psychology. How does one connect the affirmation of inherited sin with personal freedom and personal responsibility? In other words, how can one connect the notion of hereditary sin with the untransferable character of sin as a moral act? How to connect personal sin and original sin?

To overcome this fundamental objections, original sin should not be understood univocally, but analogically. Analogy shows that there is similarity and dissimilarity between personal sin and original sin.

1.      Similarity :

Similarity consists in the situation in which both personal sin and original sin put man; a state of mortal sin.

-          Original sin and Personal sin are the lack of grace or the loss of sanctifying grace, the estrangement from God, the inability to enter eternal life.

2.      Dissimilarity:

Dissimilarity consists in the origin of the situation. Personal sin is linked to personal act and to personal responsibility. Original sin is a state of sin inherited from our first parents.

Thus, original sin is a sin only in an analogical sense. It is not a committed sin, but a contracted one. Adam’s act is untransferable, but the mortal state in which he fell after sin is transferable to us.

Karl Rahner: sin as a lack or a deprivation of grace.

For Karl Rahner, original sin can be understood from the perspective of grace. As grace is a mystery, original sin is also a mystery. Original sin is a LACK OF HOLINESS which is antecedent to a moral decision. It is also a lack of the Holy Spirit (lack of grace). In this sense he with the Pauline affirmation in Roman 5 that “Sin entered the world through one man, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned...” Rahner also agrees with the Council of Trent which asserts that by his sin Adam lost for his posterity the holiness and justice in which they have been constituted.

 Trying to understand the root of sin of humankind, contemporary theologians, in a systematic view and a dogmatic view refer to the sin of Adom. The systematic point of view, (Genesis 3, Rom 5 and Trent) attributes the origin of sin and evil to Adam. From a systematic point of view, it is an obvious intention of Gen 3 to attribute the origin of sin and evil in the world to human freedom characterzed by Adam. Otherwise, it should be attributed to God.

From a dogmatic point of view: Theologians like Rahner and M. Flick situate the first sin the original justice. Human history begins with the divine invitation to human beings to rise up, beyond itself, to the dignity of sons and daughters so that they may enter into the life of grace.

In this sense, the first sin consisted in the rejection of God’s call. So it has a unique impact: the sin of Adam had a constitutive function on humanity as a whole. What happened in the beginning impressed its mark on the rest of history. Human refusal became a foundational event. It determined the order in which salvation had to unfold. So, by the sin of Adam or by the refusal of Adam, humanity inherited sin. ZOLTAN & FLICK say that original sin is the dynamic incapacity, the innate and absolute inability to enter into dialogue with God the Father by free and personal choice. Peter Schoonenberg defines sin as the refusal to enter in a relationship, the no to relationality, or the breakage to relationality, the failure of persons to respond to God’s invitation to intimacy, the failure to seek and love God.

Sin is an alienation from God. Actual guilt does not pass from one another, but the influence of guilt and sin passes from one another. This is due to the fact that human beings are situated in a sinful world. So, there is fellowship in sin. In this sense, one does not inherit sin, but he or she inherits the condition of sin by means of his/her participation in this sinful world. This refers to the condition/state of original sin but not with the sinful act of Adam. Schoonenberg understands the state of sin has humanity’s solidarity in the refusal to love God, and the evil incurred as a consequence of the universal human sin. Man’s freedom is situated in a context of sin. Communities are situated and pushed by social pressure. To be in this world is already to be in a situation of sin.  Therefore, Schoonenberg defines original sin as the thorough impossibility of a human being by birth to make a fundamental choice orienting his or her existence into conformity with God’s design. This structural impossibility flows from the fact that a human being is never an isolated entity.

For JOSEPH RATZINGER, Sin is a renunciation of the truth, Gen 3:3 means that when we deny our limitations, we deny our finitude. In other words, human beings who deny the limitations imposed on them by good and evil deny the truth of their existence. The idea of original sin means that no human is closed to himself. Our existence is realized in a network or relations. Human beings are relational, in a relation of love of and love for. In this sense, sin means the destruction of relationality, because it wants to make human being a god. Sin therefore is an offense; it touches others and alters the world. Original sin means the radical impossibility for one, unless he opens himself to the grace and love of God, to establish and enter into the right relationship with God and others by his own personal and human effort.

What is a structure of sin?

            It is the sum total of “the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome. (No 36) ”  Structures of sin are “rooted in personal sin [such as greed and the lust for power], and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people’s behaviour.” ( Sollicitudo Rei Socialis No 36)           

1        Selfishness

2        Shortsightedness

3        Mistaken political calculations

4        Imprudent economic decisions

These are the same negatives effects that we find in the book of Genesis chapters 3-11. The first people (Adam and others) were afflicted by these especially selfishness and shortsightedness and that led to the sin we now call original sin. The contemporary world continues in the sinfulness of the world that we find in Genesis chapters; 3-11.

The classical formulation of the doctrine of original sin was defined as intrinsic to the divine revelation of sin and redemption. Here, Tatha Wiley discusses ideas of theologians who acknowledged that the conception of original sin belonged to a different age with different questions and different apprehension of the world than shared by persons today. Theologians argued that the meaning of the doctrine is true, but that the insight into what it means and how to express it adequately to modern believers requires more than repetition of its classical formulation.

Is the classical formulation of humankind’s sin equivalent to the meaning of humankind’s alienation from God? Or can we talk of original sin without appealing to Adam’s sin as a historical event? Here we need to understand that the idea of original sin developed in and through the experiences of individuals. Reading the story of Adam’s fall one finds that it is a symbolic narrative, not historical. This story situated in a primordial time and place of perfection mediates an idea that the focus is not on what happened but on what is always happening in human existence.

From the Scripture, Tatha Wiley finds the foundation of the doctrine of original sin in the Pauline letter to the Romans 5:21-21. As Trent mentioned it, Paul’s own concern lay with the original death, not with the origin of sin.  With other Jews, Paul believed that death was a punishment for sin. The universality of death gave sufficient evidence of the universality of sin.

The contemporary theologians have discovered that rethinking the meaning of original sin or the root of sin invited a reexamination of the theologies of redemption and Church. Schoonenberg took modernity’s challenges seriously. He affirms the universality of sinfulness. For him, what makes sin a reality is the guilt resulting from the free decision to do evil. It is a refusal to enter into the relationship of love with God. And because this refusal of God has entered the world, each person meets it in some ways. He talks of being situated as primary category in his theology of original sin. Human existence is a situatedness, the free acts of human beings are unavoidably situated, the situated character of human existence is an inner realty in each human being, as an existential determination, being situated is a universal and permanent feature of human existence. Being situated is a universal feature in human nature operative in all acts of freedom.

Niebuhr on his side wanted to address the modern eclipse of the doctrine of original sin. He talks of egotism results in life taking advantages of life. In Niebuhr’s judgment, collective egotism is the chief cause of humanities’ callous brutality and inhumanity. Self-regarding tendencies foster tribal limits to mutual obligations. He defines original sin as the persistence and universality of man’s self-regard or egotism. For him the story of Genesis 3 is a true myth because it situates the origin of evil in human freedom. Evil is a possibility because human beings have the capacity to choose between alternatives.

Can reason, after sin, know what is just? In Niebuhr view, human reason was essentially unaffected by original sin. Against Luther who thought that Adam’s loss of original righteousness was also the loss of the image of God, Niebuhr argues that the image of God remained after sin. Against Augustine, he argues that original sin is not transmitted through sexual intercourse. He found it in the universal lack of compliance with the law of love. Niebuhr found the truth of original sin in the gospel. For him, the gospel exposes egotism as a betrayal of the law of love and the fundamental contradiction in human nature. As a denial of the human order, egotism is sin against the divine order.

The way out from this situation resides in the change of collective egotism to collective mutuality. It requires that human living not be restricted to the interests of the self or the group but be open to the well-being of others. Niebuhr believes that collective egotism generates social sin and collective mutuality promotes harmony in social relations. In this line, he understands that redemption does not eliminate sin because it is permanent. The power of sin as an egoist interest is too great to obey the inner law of love by a simple act of the will. The divine grace of mercy is there to enable human beings to attend to the welfare of the other, reorienting human freedom to meet the demands of mutuality.

Taking this perspective, liberation theologians started to criticize the metaphysical theology of the Catholic Church. Like Niebuhr, they argue that the redemptive message of the gospel should take into consideration the social situation of people in which decisions and actions take place. For them, the theology of the Church attributes evil in the world to the problem of original sin, but without insight into the way in which social systems and structures perpetrate evil. Without denying personal or original sin, liberation theologians advocate the inclusion of the third category, social sin. Social sin is a consequence of individual sinful act, yet goes beyond the individual because it is embodied in customs, personal relations and social structures.