A Succint Moral Theology of Sin

These 8 pages will rock your moral world.

The first of our Theo 4.0 papers. We're damn proud, so hell, I'm posting it!

A Succinct Moral Theology of Sin

by

Mic Cabauatan

Ley Capili

Charls delos Reyes

Chan delos Santos

Kesy Pormento

based on the lectures of Fr. Adolfo Dacanay SJ J.C.D.

1. Explain the 3 reasons for asserting the notion of person

It is often said that a man is only as good as his actions. This in a certain sense is an undeniable truth. The human person is both with and of his actions. It can be said that it is precisely his humanity that gives him his will to act, and therefore by transitivity, and through the fact that actions are not merely manifestations of will but rather the will itself, the actions show the reality of a person. What we tend to forget though is the continuity of human experience. Humanity cannot be defined simply by how it acts, it is not simply of its actions. It is with its actions as well. There must be a dividing line that separates the action from the person. If this line is forgotten, humanity is objectified. It is precisely the ‘person’ of a human that gives importance to the actions they do. This simply points out that experience is personal. All acts are done by the person in relation to itself or to other persons. It is precisely the personality of experience that ensures that action which is a response to experience is just as personal.

The person is then seen gain responsibility for his actions. Human action is human will, which is personal, and relates to itself and to others. We must also remember though the continuity of human experience. We are not simply freeze frames in time, but entities constantly undergoing formation, which can only be brought about by action. We can never truly say that we are not the same person as yesterday because of human continuity. We must also remember that responsibility for our actions must be taken, as our actions are of our person. It is the reality that we are both of and with our actions, and that our actions are personal, deliberate acts of will, that allows us to understand human continuity, and the accountability and responsibility that are tied to human actions.

2. Show me that you understand the distinction between the human being as agent and human being as person

The basic difference between human as agent and human as person is in how one looks at the actor. Human as agent sees the actor merely as a doer of the action. Emphasis is given on the action, and not the human person. A thief is merely the act of thievery, as a person enrolled in university is merely a student. In this sense, the actor is seen as an object, or maybe the person is said to be a circumstance of the action. He is merely the actor, who is an observable empirical object. This is then contrasted by the paradigm of human as person. The paradigm looks at the actor precisely as ‘person.’ Person gives the objectified actor his humanity. The actor is then seen as more than his action but as a being whose actions affect him as human person. In this paradigm we see not merely the act of thievery, but also the fact that the act is consequential to the human person. We see the circumstances behind the act, and how this singular distinct act, affects the reality and outlook of the actor. The person’s actions are not merely physical manifestations of the person’s will but it is the will. It is said that a person is both one and separate from his actions. This basic philosophical concept is the foundation of human as agent. If a person’s will is his actions, then can we not say that his actions are what matter? The problem with this though is that it forgets that although actions are objectifiable, the human person, and his changeable nature is not. Man’s nature as person transcends objectivity.

3. Distinguish between categorical freedom and transcendental freedom

Man’s answer to the superabundance of reality is precisely organization. The human mind works as a machine that organizes and categorizes all incoming data into usable packets and classifications. The same is true for decisions. Decisions are basically the product of a choice between alternative possibilities for action. This is categorical freedom: the freedom of choice which is derived precisely from man’s innate nature of categorization. Categorical freedom though is bound by its very namesake, categories. Although humans are a species of categories, they can only truly categorize when there is an observable, empirical, objectified ‘truth.’ Categorization and decisions in actions are bound by the physical capability of action, as colors are categorized by what we have defined, and by what we see. Objectification is a precursor to categorization. What then of the truth that is person hood? The human person cannot truly be objectified, by virtue of the fact that one cannot objectify itself. This then provides evidence that categorization can only go so far. The human person then is faced with the superabundant reality that a reality exists. When then we are faced with the entire idea of reality, we are faced with the question, “do I choose to accept this reality?” These existential questions that lay beyond the realm of categorization are precisely what we call transcendental freedom. In this case there is only a single answer to be made, “yes” or “no.” Categorical freedom understands that choices can be made, and alternatives are there to suit the choice. Transcendental freedom understands that at the very foundation of everything, the initial question is that of reality.

4. Concerning this human identity, explain:

i) that it did not always exist

Human identity is something that is formed. It is a life long process. It is not something that is automatically there when we are born, but it is a characteristic that all humans will develop.. When we are children, we lack fundamental stance and because of this, our identity and actions are easily swayed and influenced by external factors like our family, friends and society in general. We have not, as of then, yet chosen a certain path by which we will live our lives.

ii) how was it formed

There are certain characteristics that we cannot change like our gender, race, and physical attributes. More importantly though, there are characteristics that are self-determined, which constitutes a significant portion of who we are. Therefore, we actively participate in this process of building ourselves until we assume a certain stance. That instant, that defining stance is what we refer to as fundamental option. We can say that as we make categorical decisions as we go on with life, it defines us and we find that we are turning into a certain kind of person and that is the fundamental stance.

5. Clarify the three observations of O’Connell concerning the fundamental option.

The first observation of O’Connell about fundamental option states that, “we approach the concept in this rather circuitous way.” The main focus remains in the fundamental stance because this is the identity of the person. His chosen stance defines what kind of an individual he is becoming. Fundamental option is that instance that the person realizes his fundamental stance. Therefore, when we talk about fundamental option, we also, ultimately, are concerned about the fundamental stance.

Another observation is that the fundamental option does not exist all by itself. We cannot separate fundamental option from categorical freedom that has helped shaped the identity of the human being. In other words, we cannot separate fundamental option from other decisions and actions in our lives because our identity is reflected on the things that we usually do or the kind of decisions we habitually make.

Third, fundamental option is not a once-and-for-all reality. It is important to understand that fundamental option is dynamic; it can change and may even be reversed. It is also possible that it may be heightened. What is important is that we recognize that the fundamental option may be temporary and the individual might find the need to change himself as he realized that he no longer wants to be that person he has become.

6. What is the fourth dimension and what is its relevance in our understanding of the human person?

Time is considered to be the fourth dimension. Its relevance to our understanding of the human person is that to fully understand the human person, a certain amount of effort in time must be undertaken. Another relevance of this to understanding the human person is that growth, especially in the moral sense is seen only through the passage of time. Since we are all subject to change and seek out answers as to our identity and so on, all this can only be done in the context of time. Human beings live a life that is progressive, continuous, and in time.

7. Why is all sin a form of idolatry?

All sins are to be, almost if not all, a form of idolatry for a number of reasons. We know that the given definition of sin is defiance to God, and also doing wrong to other people. Given this, we consider sin a form of idolatry precisely because we disobey God and all the responsibilities he has given us. We put another thing, whether act or object above God. Something then becomes important enough to surpass God’s will. Sin is also considered a form of idolatry because of our pride in the sense that we try to outclass Him and refuse whatever His plans are for us. The issue of self-sufficiency could be one also because our dependency to God lessens and we try to have it all. This means that we do not depend on God anymore and seek to be independent through our own effort especially on the moral and spiritual aspect

8. What is the social dimension of sin; why is sin against neighbor ultimately a sin against God too?

We consider a sin to our neighbors a sin against God as well for a number of reasons. One is that pride makes us believe that whatever wrong actions done could be done by other people by imitating the act that can spread throughout that particular society. Another thing why we consider this as such is because we in effect have failed in our commitment to God by not loving our neighbor as we love ourselves. Also, we refuse to follow, either intentionally or unintentionally, God and whatever He plans us to do. Lastly, since we are created in His image and likeness, we can say that God is present among all of us and when transgress against others, we could say that we have sinned against God. A possible proof to further support this is a verse from Matthew 25:40 wherein “And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” We are called to splagchnizomai. Denying others our love and respect directly disobeys our God given mission. We in this sense transitively deny God the love and respect he deserves.

9. Regarding original sin:

i. How is it understood popularly among Catholics?

The popular belief among Catholics is that original sin originated because of an act done by Adam and Eve. They sinned by acting against God’s will and therefore made us sinners as well. Adam and Eve committed actual sin that is sin is an act that defies the covenant made with God. We can look at actual sin as the moment of rejecting the Lord so because Adam and Eve had gone against God’s wishes they had committed actual sin. Because of this their act, the sin is passed on to the next generation. That is to say that original sin is like actual sin only that it is the sin we did not commit. Original sin is a result of the sin committed by your ancestors and even though you yourself did not commit the act you are guilty of it. Due to this common understanding most Catholics are confused or embarrassed about it. In connection to the belief of original sin, Catholics believe forgiveness can only be attained through Baptism, where we are forgiven for original sin.

ii. Especially, in what sense is actual sin paradigmatic, and original sin derived from actual sin?

Based on the traditional vision, the root understanding of sin is that it is an act. Actual sin is paradigmatic because it became the basis for our definition of sin. Even if there are three definitions people concentrated on the definition of sin as just an act and did not go beyond it. In doing so they also associated this definition (of sin as an act) with the other definitions of sin that is to say original sin is understood in the way of actual sin because it is the paradigm of understanding. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and therefore acted against God’s will. It was something they did that was sinful; their action was sin. This understanding of sin could be termed ‘actual sin’. Because original sin is a result of an act of sin, it might be right to say that original sin is derived from actual sin. Original sin can only be understood in the context of actual sin, because original sin is a variation of the paradigm of actual sin. If there were no act that is to say no actual sin from Adam and Eve then there would also be no original sin.

iii. Why is this explanation/understanding unsatisfactory?

This traditional view of sin is unsatisfactory mainly because it focuses on actions alone. To define sin as an act is not enough. It is thought to be a mere violation against God’s will, there is no consideration for the depth of the person. The explanation of sin is shallow in a sense that it does not explore the different aspects of a person; they do not explore his or her intention or the circumstances or even moral law. The understanding of sin is clearly shown as an act and nothing beyond that. A better explanation should include what sin can do to you. It should include how sin can affect the decisions you make.

10. Convince me that you understand the relationship between sin as FACT, ACT, and DIRECTION as proposed by O’Connell, and why is this a more satisfactory explanation.

Sin is fact, because our experience of sin started with knowing of sin’s existence. When we were growing up we had this notion of wanting to be better, to be as much as possible perfect. We wanted happiness and excitement and ultimately we wanted to be in heaven. However, there is something that is holding us back. That is sin. We express a knowledge of “wrong.” Sin is an act because it is through the doing of evil, and even the not doing of the good, we fail to obey God’s vocation for us to be in His image, the image of being good. Therefore, we sin whenever we fail to meet what we think God has called us to do. Sin is a direction because sin can affect our decisions in life. We stand on a crossroad, a decision to choose between sinning, the path of evil, or living a Christ-like life, the path of good. It is a lifelong spiritual battle between doing the good and doing the evil. It becomes the rudder of our life.

To understand the relationship between sin as Fact, Act and Direction is a more satisfactory explanation mainly because it does not show us a paradigm, that is, it is not limited to one explanation or understanding of sin because it goes beyond mere actions. It explains that sin is present and delves into the state of a person, how sin affects him. It has a broader view on the definition of sin because of the this broader viewpoint people are not restricted to thinking of human being as an agent but more importantly, human being as a person.