CLASS NOTES ON SOCIAL SIN

Theology 141, Sections A, B, C, D and E, Second Semester 2016-2017

Handout No. 10
1. The Development of the Concept of Social Sin 2. Authentic human development
> “Unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at
1.1 Historical context man’s disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an
orientation toward the true good of the human race, it easily
> from the “horrendous moral evil of World War II” to the problems
turns against man to oppress him.” (no. 28)
of poverty, uneven development, environmental degradation
and social disintegration in the world today > critique of “superdevelopment” and consumerism, of the
1.2 Sociological insights drive to “have more” rather than to “be more” in accord
> the “autonomy” of structures beyond individual choices, their with man’s true vocation (nos. 28-29)
vast potential for good and evil, the depth of their influence on > authentic human development = “promotes the good of
personal moral behavior the whole person and of every person” (quoting
1.3 Theological developments Populorum Progressio, 1967); in accord with vocation
> from preoccupation with individual morality to increasing concern of human beings created in “image and likeness of God”
with social morality and redeemed by Christ; respects and promotes human
> understanding of sin as fundamental orientation and as historical rights (nos. 30-33)
sinful environment/ situation > problems of environmental degradation as further
emphasizing moral character of development (no. 34)
1.4 Catholic social teaching on social sin
3. A Theological reading of modern problems
a. Gaudium et Spes (1965) > “(A) world which is divided into blocs, sustained by rigid
> “To be sure, the disturbances which so frequently occur in the ideologies and in which instead of interdependence and
social order result in part from the tension of economic, solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway, can
political and social forces. But at a deeper level they flow from only be a world subject to structures of sin….” (no. 36)
man’s pride and selfishness, which contaminate even the
> Structures of sin “are rooted in personal sin, and thus
social sphere. When the structure of affairs is flawed by the
consequences of sin, man, already born with a bent toward always linked to concrete acts of individuals who
evil, finds there new inducements to sin, which cannot be introduce these structures, consolidate them and make
overcome without strenuous efforts and the assistance of them difficult to remove.” (no. 36)
grace.” (no. 25) > two typical attitudes leading to “structures of sin”
identifiable behind the actions of nations as well as
b. Medellin document (1968) individuals: “the all-consuming desire for profit” and “the
> “...in many instances Latin America finds itself faced thirst for power ...at any price” (no. 37)
with a situation of injustice that can be called > the need for conversion: an awareness of
institutionalized violence ... violating fundamental interdependence, and the moral virtue of “solidarity”--”a
rights…” firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to
the common good, that is to say, to the good of all and
c. Justice in the World (1971) of each individual because we are all really responsible
> Bishops are moved by “the cry of those who suffer violence for all” (no. 38)
and are oppressed by unjust systems and structures” > a positive sign: “the growing awareness of the solidarity of the
> Church cannot ignore “the objective obstacles which social poor among themselves, their efforts to support one another and
structures place in the way of conversion of hearts”--structures their public demonstrations on the social scene which, without
which, for example, would make poor nations “the victims of recourse to violence, present their own needs and rights in the
the interplay of international economic forces” face of the inefficiency or corruption of the public authorities”
> Synod document refers strongly to “education to justice... (no. 39)
(which) demands a renewal of heart, a renewal based on the
recognition of sin in its individual and social manifestations” f. PCP II document (1991)
> “Sin externalizes itself in human interaction. When
d. Reconciliatio et Penitentia (1984) patterns of human interaction become habitual, a social
> “Cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation structure develops. When the habitual patterns of
of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal human interaction are infected by sin—selfishness,
sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit injustice, pride, greed, hatred—then we have sinful
it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or social structures. These sinful social structures can
at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out harden into institutions, and result in a network or
of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through environment that effectively hinders growth in the
secret complicity or indifference; of those who take Christian life. They are inducements to sin and are a
refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the formidable obstacle to Christian living. We can see the
world, and also of those who sidestep the effort and terrible effects of sin and sinful structures in the many
sacrifice required ....” (no. 16) uncared for and malnourished children of our unjust society,
the wretchedness of the jobless and the homeless, the
e. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) proliferation of crimes, the pervasiveness of graft and
corruption, the lack of peace and order, or the horrors of
war. Sin shows itself in suffering, in the myriad suffering
1. Survey of the contemporary world
faces that demonstrate the degradation of the human
> “hopes for development ... today appear very far from being
realized ... (amidst) reality of an innumerable multitude of person and human society, and in the destruction of the
people suffering under the intolerable burden of poverty” environment that lays bare the evil shortsightedness of
(no. 12) human greed.”
2. The Reality of Social Sin b. socio-economic structures associated with
> cronyism/ bureaucrat capitalism
> government policies and programs that result in an inequitable
2.1 Three-fold definition of social sin by Peter Henriot
sharing of the costs and benefits of development (resulting in
further concentration of wealth amidst persistence of poverty,
a. Structures that systematically oppress human widening gap between rich and poor)
beings, violate human dignity, stifle freedom and > market based on narrow and unbridled profit-seeking; market
impose gross inequality pandering to lower desires (e.g. illegal drug industry);
materialism and consumerism
> note: structures = organized patterns of > excessive concentration of property ownership in a few
behaviour of people in interaction with other > exploitation of labor (labor treated as a commodity, no regard
people for rights and welfare, denial of just share in fruits of
production)
b. Situations that promote and facilitate individual
> abuse/ destruction of environment
acts of selfishness > regressive systems of taxation
> note: situations here are associated with
structures of no. 1 c. socio-cultural structures that promote
c. Complicity of persons who do not take > loss of respect for human dignity and human rights
responsibility for evil being done or who silently > materialism and consumerism
allow oppression and injustice > narrow individualism without regard for the common good
> gender inequality/ oppression
> domestic violence and the deterioration of the family as the
2.2 Social sin is manifested in Philippine society in “first and vital cell” of society
> elitism, racism, intolerance and discrimination
a. socio-political structures associated with > ignorance, subservience and uncritical thinking
> lack of respect for indigenous cultures
> terrorist/ extremist political organizations
> crime syndicates, corruption in the police and military
> totalitarian/ authoritarian governments 3. Concluding Notes on the Reality of Social Sin
> violation of civil and political rights of people
> patronage politics (ruled by narrow, self-interested desire for 3.1 “The heart of the matter in the contemporary discussion
power)
on ‘social’ or ‘structural’ sin seems to be that the reality of
> organized electoral fraud and cheating
> chronic corruption in judicial system sin and grace can no longer be understood merely in a
> chronic corruption and dishonesty in government personal framework … (S)tructures and institutions are
bureaucracy (extortive “rent-seeking” and stealing/ misuse the concrete realities where sin and grace are made
of public resources) manifest. Insofar as they foster love, justice and
> technocratic, non-consultative methods of governance liberation, they reveal the presence of grace and the

Proposed frame for reflecting on moral responsibility for social sin

1. “Broadening” the scope of our moral 3.1 When we apply the “broader frame” of
responsibility ! from the “traditional frame” moral responsibility to our participation in
which emphasizes our responsibility for the structures of sin, we understand that we bear
“foreseen and intended consequences of our moral responsibility for them (in terms of being
actions” (and our “moral guilt” for social sin) to a morally accountable) even when we are not
“broader frame” which emphasizes how we are morally guilty.
responsible for “both foreseen and intended, and 3.2 Moral accountability includes the
unforeseen and unintended, consequences of responsibility to help mitigate and/ or undo the
our actions” (and thus are “morally accountable” damages done and choose alternative
for social sin) courses of action when they become
available.
2. Our “moral guilt” for social sin
! Using the “traditional frame,” participation in 4. General implication for ethical behavior
social sin involves lesser degrees of moral guilt ! When we participate in structures that have
because of lack of: harmful/ sinful effects on the well-being of
a. knowledge ( = awareness of the harmful/ people, we are called to discern how we are
sinful effect[s] of one’s participation in the morally accountable in doing so—in terms of
structure of sin and/or failure to challenge this being responsible to: (a) help mitigate and/or
structure) undo damages done and (b) choose
b. harmful/ sinful intention ( = harmful/ sinful alternative courses of action when they
effects which moral agent subjectively aims at) become available.
! “doing the best under the circumstances
3. Our “moral accountability” for social sin while trying to change the circumstances”
 presence of the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, if intended and unintended or unforeseen consequences
these become sources of oppression and misery, they of their actions and omissions, not necessarily in the
reveal the presence of sin and the anti-kingdom….” sense of being guilty but of being responsible to undo
> broader vision of the reality of sin and grace as the damages caused … When we apply this notion of
manifested/ mediated through social structures moral responsibility to sinful social structures, we have
and institutions that pattern social life to admit the fact that we carry moral responsibility for
> “(It) seems reasonable and helpful to approach this them even when we are not morally guilty….”
reality from an objective and subjective point of view.”
*** Objective dimension: “unjust and oppressive 3.3 The relationship between “social transformation” and
situations where there is a persistent domination of one “personal interior conversion”
group by another or a public order which violates
fundamental human rights and suppresses human > Medelllin: “The uniqueness of the Christian message
dignity in a systematic way” does not so much consist in the affirmation of the
*** Subjective dimension: “the conscious and willful necessity for structural change, as it does in the
participation of a group or a society in cooperating with insistence on the conversion of men which will in turn
sinful social structures and thus maintaining them and bring about this change.” (II, 58)
failing to change them when it is possible” > Henriot: “First, personal conversion, then conversion of
> Social sin is not a “black and white” reality in its structures, but no authentic conversion without genuine
objective and subjective dimensions, respectively. commitment to changing structures.”

3.2 “(P)articipation in (social sin) need not be sinful in 3.4 The scope and limits of personal action and responsibi-
every instance and in the case of every person … lity vis-à-vis social sin: “doing the best under the circum-
Someone can be really guilty of participating in … social stances while trying to change the circumstances;” “doing
sin only to the extent that he/ she consciously and willfully the good that is concretely possible in particular situations”
does that. Even in the case of conscious participation in
such situations, we have to take into consideration the > ultimately personal action against social sin is a call to
essential ambiguity of the very necessity of social faith: “(T)he power that Jesus gives us is not the power
structures ….” of the world, but the power of the Cross, of failure. My
faith commits me to the struggle, not to the achievement
> “While someone can be guilty only for the intended or of what I consider the goal. ‘Yes, the heavens are as
foreseen consequences of one’s actions or omissions, high above earth as my ways are above your ways, my
he or she is responsible in a moral sense both for thoughts above your thoughts.’ (Is 55,9)”