Moral theologian, Bill Cosgrave, gives some of the views from mainstream theology on the nature of sin in Christian belief.
Since Vatican II (1962-5) we have made significant progress in our understanding of sin. Not everyone has been able to keep up to date with the new thinking. With that in mind we present in these articles the main fruits of the renewal in the Church’s understanding of this basic Christian belief.
We start by looking at some of the ideas and images that biblical writers of the early Christian centuries used to understand and explain sin. It is clear from the Bible and from those early centuries that attempts to understand sin back then were quite varied. Indeed, as the centuries rolled by, the Church found that many of them were not very illuminating and so they were not widely developed or long lasting. We follow this by focusing on the legal view of sin that prevailed in the Catholic Church in recent centuries right up to Vatican II.
Biblical images
The Bible has no systematic account of sin. Rather, it uses images or metaphors to express its teaching. However, even these do not add up to the theological concept of sin elaborated by the Church over the centuries. Here are some of the biblical ways of understanding sin.
‘Missing the mark’: This image is very prominent in the OT especially. It means failing to attain a goal or falling short of God’s will for us. It can also have the meaning of breaking an agreement between two nations.
‘Rebellion against God’: This is seen in terms of the Covenant and is viewed as a personal offence or revolt against God. It provokes the divine anger and brings punishment on the offender.
‘Infidelity’: This image is frequently used in the setting of the God-humanity covenant. Hence, sin is viewed as adultery or unfaithfulness to God.
‘Iniquity and guilt’: Here sin appears as a distortion of reality and even of the inner being of the sinner. It gives rise to guilt, corrupts the sinner and becomes an insupportable burden.
Some special metaphors or images are found in the NT presentation of sin. While sin is seen as an individual action, it is viewed also as a state or condition of the sinner. The NT tends to shift the focus from individual sinful acts to sin itself. One falls into a state of sin as a result of committing many individual sins. But sin is a power in the human community too. It pushes us to commit further sins and so strengthens its power even more. Sin reigns in our world, St Paul says. But most significantly of all, the NT presents Jesus as the one who conquers sin. He shows us the Father’s love and so sin appears as the refusal of that love.
Other images of sin in the Bible are lawlessness, unrighteousness, a state of death, a lie, folly. Note too that in the literature the Pharisees produced we find sin understood as a breach of the law. This latter view was to become very influential, as we will see.
Images of sin in Christian tradition
Other important images of sin are found in the Christian theological tradition.
‘Turning from God to a creature’: This was one of St Augustine’s “definitions” of sin and was developed by St Thomas Aquinas. It means putting some created good ahead of one’s love of God and so turning from the Creator to a creature. But as it is not always easy to recognize the turning in one’s daily life this approach may not be very helpful in practice.
‘Sin as a stain’: This quite physical image sees sin as a contamination of the person. It does not succeed well in distinguishing between what is moral and what is non-moral or between the voluntary and the non-voluntary and so is not very illuminating.
‘Sin as sickness’: This image goes back to Jesus himself and links with the images of sin as state and power. It suggests healing as a way of understanding reconciliation. It can be valuable, though it may present difficulties in regard to responsibility for sin.
‘Sin as addiction’: Here sin appears as a power that can progressively enslave a person. Alienation and disintegration can follow. Conversion from such sin will clearly be a process here, This can be an illuminating image but has some difficulties, especially in regard to freedom and responsibility. In addition, it may not apply equally well to all sins.
We are now ready to look in some detail at the understanding of sin that was for centuries found to be very illuminating and helpful throughout the Church. This is the legal model.
The legal understanding of sin
In this view sin was seen primarily as the breaking of a law, whether human or divine, eg, one of the Ten Commandments. So, sin was understood as an act of disobedience. Because law focuses for the most part on specific, identifiable actions, the legal view of sin did the same. In the process it over-emphasized the sinfulness of such actions, while under-emphasizing the sinfulness in moral realities that are not so clear-cut and visible like our attitudes, tendencies, values, goals and priorities. Because of this, theologians often refer to the legal understanding of sin as act-centred and so as defective.
Tendency to exaggerate
This approach tended to focus on areas of Christian moral life where there were clear laws to break, eg, the Ten Commandments, the six commandments of the Church, sexual laws. Also it tended to exaggerate the importance and frequency of these sins and to say, eg, “It’s a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday”, or, “It’s a mortal sin to masturbate.” As a result of this over-emphasis, the legal model of sin displayed a corresponding neglect of sin in other areas, eg, in relationships and community life. Furthermore, the legal view of sin, as it developed, was very individualistic to the serious neglect of the social aspect of sin.
Confusing immorality and sin
Another weakness of this legal approach to sin was that it made the matter – the act – the primary element in a sin. The ready assumption then was that the agent acted with knowledge and freedom and as a result we get statements like, “It’s a mortal sin to break the Communion or Friday fast or to practise contraception.” In other words, the legal view of sin tended to blur the distinction between immorality and sin and to see serious sin where it may not in fact have been present. This is one reason why, in the legal approach to sin, even mortal sin was considered to be quite common in the Christian life.
Devaluing both mortal and venial sin
This understanding of sin put major emphasis on the distinction between mortal and venial sin. Its emphasis on mortal sin brought with it in practice a tendency to see venial sins as minor things that one need not worry about very much.
But it wasn’t just venial sin that was under-played. In fact both mortal and venial sin were: mortal sin because it was presented as easy to commit and hence frequent; venial sin because it was regarded as insignificant. So both anxiety and the danger of minimalism (“How far can I go without committing mortal sin?”) were quite common for Catholics living with the legal model of sin.
Common also in pre-Vatican II moral theology and spirituality were legalism and scrupulosity, related distortions of the moral life that found an easy home where sin was understood in legal terms. In addition, one’s sinfulness’ tended to be measured in terms of the number of sin-acts one had committed and God was often imagined as a kind of super-accountant totting up one’s list of virtuous and sinful actions, so as to decide one’s eternal destiny.
Punishment for sin
In this view of things, punishment for sin was a central idea – punishment meted out here and/or hereafter. God was, of course, the punisher as well as the lawmaker, policeman and judge. So the image of God became forbidding and provoked fear and anxiety in many Catholics.
Repentance and confession
Repentance in the legal approach to sin was similar, in one way at least, to sinning: it was easy. One could complete it, even after mortal sin, in a relatively short space of time. Confession was also seen in legal terms as a tribunal with judge and accused. There was thus a quite formal atmosphere in the sacrament where the priest-judge exercised his role as questioner and adjudicator and often dispensed the medicine of severity. The penitent usually experienced the sacrament as an ordeal and was greatly relieved when it was over.
Summing up
In a nutshell then, it can be seen from this presentation of the legal view of sin that it was a valid way of understanding sin. It had significant advantages, eg, it was very clear and gave an objective view of our moral obligations and of sin. In practice, however, it was fraught with many weaknesses and distorted the reality of sin. A move away from it in the wake of Vatican II and the consequent renewal of moral theology was to be expected and has actually happened.
This article first appeared in The Word (December 2001), a Divine Word Missionary Publication.
