www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Theology of Sin

Waaaay back, when I was in training for ordination, and studying theology, we were, of course, given a lot of classes on systematic theology (theology 'theory') as well as on the sacraments, including that of penance.

In terms of 'ethical/sinful' behavior, we were given a paradigm of making judgements (in the confessional) about what would consitute 'sin'.

There are two ethical/sin-producing systems that operate simultaneously. They are: de-ontological and teleological. Teleological means "according to the 'end/goal', i.e., what you desire as the good/evil outcome of an action. Deontological means an action that is either good or evil based upon "itself", i.e., its essence as either good or evil.

These two systems operate in tandem with each other. While the deontological system for Christians says that the taking of another human life is intrinsically wrong, sometimes the teleological (goal-oriented) system comes into play and overrides the deontological one. The classic example is if someone comes at you with a knife to kill you, do you have the right to defend yourself. Deontology says: "No, killing is wrong", but Teleology says: "No, my life is precious and must be preserved" so I can take whatever actions are necessary to preserve my life.

Too often, I think that folks get mired in one or another of the systems and are not willing to understand that the element of human choice and judgement must come into play. St. Thomas Aquinas comes immediately to mind with his theory of 'just war'. The Quakers reject this out of hand; other Christians are willing to say that the teleological goal of preserving MY life is at least as important and I have the right to fight back.

There were a significant number of "casus" (Latin: 'cases') which we had to disambiguate in order to determine eligibility for absolution in confession. Cases of physicians having to decide between mother or unborn child come to mind.

Analogous cases, involving interpersonal relationships, also come to mind. Does one determine that an unmarried couple living in 'common-law' marriage is not worthy of some kind of participation in the Church because, deontologically, their relationship is "disordered" or does one move to the teleological side and say: I'll do whatever I can to bring them to God and the sacraments?

I think that many of our Protestant brethren come down strongly on the deontological side: black or white. Either you're in or you're out. Sin or not.

For Catholics and Orthodox, we do the teleological side more often (even though we do the legal thing to the utmost!!), but we have more loopholes than a 30 year old sweater. Why? To make sure that we can snare the "outsider" folks, 'cause they're OUR folks and we don't want them outside the group. And we make exceptions.

The reality of life, I think, demands that we understand what sin is. Sin is a deliberate distancing of one's self from God and from the community of the baptized. ("Love God with your whole....etc. and love your neighbor as you love yourself"). While there are surely 'deontological' things that must be addressed (as in the commandments) and there is surely "sin" among human beings, there is also the teleological element in which we are obligated to look at where people's souls are, and to try to understand who they are and why they act as they do.

I have two friends, a Jew and lapsed Methodist, two men who have had a committed relationship for 30 years. Deontologically, for some people, their relationship is 'disordered' since it cannot produce children. (This is the usual touchstone for deciding which 'intimacy' is legitimate.) But teleologically, their union/companionship has provided them each individually with the strength and resources to help a LOT of people who are in need. And they draw strength from each other in living their lives.

Is it legitimate, from a Christian perspective, to say that because one is supposedly 'deontologically' disordered (P.S.: In Church lingo, 'disordered' is NOT equivalent to 'sinful'), then there is no 'teleological' perspective that can come into play?

From the fundamentalist perspective: indeed; sin is sin and one is dead meat.

From a Catholic/Orthodox perspective: let's look at the person and the circumstances and find out how we can keep the individual(s) within the fold. (This is the perspective contained in both the Baltimore Catechism and the new "Catechism of the Catholic Church".) [But it doesn't apply to us Easterns. But it serves to make the point among the HIGH CHURCH CATHOLICS among us.]

Just a few thoughts from a 'systematic theologian' who loves to teach and inspire debate.

Discuss among yourselves. (No hitting.)

Blessings!!!

Prelest does not make for a good argument.

Circumstances may mitigate a sin, but never can it turn a sin into a virtue.

Your argument may be reduced to "The end justifies the means", an moral stance roundly and soundly condemned by the Church.

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: NDHoosier ]

Jesus spoke of His, "other sheep."

Perhaps-teleologically-God has His servants who, though predestined to live their lives outside the fold, outside of the orthodox parameters, live the lives God has chosen for them, and to His glory.

Teleologically, it is not hard to imagine that God has many millions of such servants who, though they will never cross the threshold of a church, live unique lives--chosen by God--that are indispensable to His service and for His Kingdom?

Perhaps there are some who, though separated from orthodox and credal Christianity, serve others, to God's glory, in ways they never could if they were credal or orthodox Christians?

Jesus' "other sheep?"

Maybe this is why Jesus taught us we should not be quick to judge others who are "different?"

Abdur

There is merit in your suggestion. I think you would be surprised (perhaps not) at how often the teleological position is used among protestants. "Other sheep" is perhaps an appropriate label to place upon those who live disordered lives outside the Church. I don't know. I'm happy that you drew a line between those within and those outside the Church. It is clear that no one living such a disordered life could rightly be in the priesthood, though apparently many are trying to do so.

It's a fascinating topic.

One problem I have is that beyond the distinction made for the confessional we are still caught on the hook St. Paul observed in Romans 1. There is explained that our suppression of truth (vs. 18) some have brought the wrath of God upon their heads. As a consequence "God gave them up in the lusts of their heart to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves..." which includes "dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameles acts with men and receiving in their own persons the du penaltly for their error." I don't claim to understand all that this passage means but it does not seem to say that homosexual acts "bring glory to God" notwithstanding all of the otherwise kind men and women I've known who live together with persons of the same sex.

Dan Lauffer

Looking at the facts, some theists will never be able to become Christians, in the orthodox or credal sense, for a variety of unique and objectively legitimate reasons.

However, considering their ability to do good in this world in ways and under circumstances forbidden to orthodox or credal Christians, would it still be the position of orthodox Christians that these theists are sinners, without merit and without hope?

Is it possible that even a Muslim is "covered by the blood," even if they cannot accept the dogma(s) of Chalcedon (for example), but believe he is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?"

Abdur

Dear Abdur,

In the Acts of the Apostles, both Sts. Peter and Paul talk of those who serve God outside the Judaic tradition as best as their conscience guides them and that these are blessed by God.

Ultimately, it is we ourselves who convict ourselves of sin in accordance with the natural law implanted in us by God in our conscience.

In the Book of Revelation, the Lamb of God utters not a word when He opens up the record of humanity's sins.

It is we ourselves who will convict our own actions.

Father Thomas Merton who spent many years among different world cultures and religions (and wrote a very interesting essay on Sufism by the way) said that the Church must change its missionary approach.

Rather than "Bring Christ" to these peoples, the Church must acknowledge that Christ is already among them.

The Christian missionary therefore only points out to them He Who is already familiar to them.

Alex

Thank you for your response, Alexander Al-Muddaththir (one endowed with excellent capabilities).

You almost always practice hospitality, the noblest of virtues.

Salam,

Abdur

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: traveler ]

I believe that NDHoosier represents what is the traditional and (latter-day) Western approach to sin. It is deontological - an evil act is just that and there is no real room for interpretation. The 'sinner' apparently has no role to play.

Brother Lauffer has made an excellent point in his scriptural citation. There are indeed situations in which one may determine that an act is 'disordered' or 'unlawful'. The real question, at least from the confessional perspective is: does/did the person really understand the implications of the action and did he/she fully consent to what the import of the act is.

A good (and among seminarians: excellent!) 'inquisitio' (sorry, but the Latin oftentimes comes to the fore) is whether a person is guilty of sin if he/she exceeds the speed limit while driving. It is clear that this is a law of Caesar, and, as a legitimate law, must be obeyed. So, if one goes above 55, is this a willful violation of the valid Caesar law? And should this be confessed in the confessional as a 'failing/sin'?

The sex stuff, as well as other failings like insider trading and participation in usurious credit card rates, represent a real conundrum for moral theologians. (There are those who propose that failure to participate in elections are guilty of sin because they have abdicated their ethical responsiblity to participate in the governance of the community -- again, in the mode of Caesar law. Do we really expect them to confess this? And, if they fail to do so, are they guilty of sin? Not only by virtue of failing to vote, but also by virtue of failing to confess a real sin.)

Moral theology can get REALLY complicated. Especially when canon lawyers get involved.

My only purpose in proposing this topic is to get folks to think about what "sin" really is. Both confessionally as well as morally. There are those who hold to the simplistic perspective and who choose the 'black/white' option as did some of the Calvinist theological school. But when one gets beyond this perspective and is forced to make decisions based upon a broader understanding that involves the person, then the issues become less clear cut and subject to interpretation. And this becomes a problem.

So: what about the "over 55 mph" sinner. Confessible or not? And 'absolvable' or not?

Blessings!

Dr. John,

"Moral theology can get REALLY complicated. Especially when canon lawyers get involved."

Theology might be better formulated if canon lawyers kept their hands off of it.

"So: what about the "over 55 mph" sinner. Confessible or not? And 'absolvable' or not?"

Ah, if only going over 55 could reasonably be compared with consistent and rebellious sexual sins. Often 56 appears on the speedometer before a person realizes they are going 50. Do undrugged persons ever participate in sexual intercourse without knowing what they are doing?
If I did not know the speed limit was 55 and I travelled 65 consistently confession would not be necessary. If I was aware of the speed limit and I persistently broke it "confession would be good for the soul."

If I were raised in a promiscuous environment and knew not the ways of God then I not only would not know of confession I would not know to go to confession. But if I were reared in the Church and within a Godly home I would know both. I would need to go to confession as quickly as I knew that I had sinned. I would gain absolution. If I changed my ways I would move on toward holiness. If I refused to change my ways at some point the sin would not be absolvable.

I need a clarification. In your initial post you said that sins are sins. The only distinction is how they are treated. Am I correct? Whether or not a person intends to sin in the formal sense of the term an act outside the will of God is a sin. Am I understanding you correctly? The only issues that are in question are: Does the person do so knowingly and willfully and what type of penance should be subscribed.?

The Wesleys understood such a distinction between sin in an absolute or formal sense and sin that would cause damage to the soul. I've been charged with being a "Calvinist" by other posters, though I think your understanding is deep enough so that you know that neither I nor the Wesleys could ever be charged with what I consider to be the heterodox teaching of Calvin. The Wesleys were very much influenced by both Orthodoxy and Catholicism and had little use for Calvin. They would probably have been quite comfortable as Catholics except for Papal authority. They would have leaned toward Augustinianism in their view of sin and salvation but certainly not exclusively. Except for their bent toward Augustinianism they would have been comfortable in Orthodoxy. They well understood "growth in grace" and movement toward "holiness".

I often debated against the Calvinist positions.

Dan Lauffer

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Dear Dan,

I was wondering when you were going to bring up the Wesleys!

As you know, I venerate them both very much.

As Arminians, (right?), their view of Grace and human nature was much closer to the Catholic/Orthodox view than to the Calvinist view (which they repudiated in any event).

John Wesley was fascinated by the process of sanctification and how God achieves it in us.

Certainly, he had to guard against the charge of promoting a "works" salvation, but he had a life-long reliance on God's Grace found through prayer, the sacraments and spiritual reading.

He fasted regularly and gave thousands of dollars to charity as well as travelling for miles to preach to many.

Our sinful nature, in such a spiritual context, becomes like hot iron to be welded by the skillful hands of the Holy Spirit throughout our lives.

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, John and Charles Wesley, Francis Asbury, George Whitefield and John Fletcher, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us!

Alex

Dear Abdur,

Thank you!

And, yes, I'm working on that "almost."

I've got a long way to go before I can even think of there being a hint of a halo above this beautiful head of dark hair . . .

Alex

Alex,

As you probably know Whitefield and the Wesleys parted company over Calvinism. The Wesleys wanted Whitefield to remain a Methodism no matter what their differences were. Whitefield liked the Calvinist approaches and often rebuffed the Wesleys attempts at bridging gaps. Sadly, many of Whitefield's followers openly resented John's Eulogy at Whitefield's funeral.

Yes, I was (am?) an Arminian. The only reservation I have about Wesley's theology is his insistence upon the Western (Augustinian) point of view regarding original sin. He modified that with his teachings on Prevenient Grace. I think I like the Orthodox "disease" perspective better.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

You are an Arminian? I'm a Ukrainian!

Seriously though, Whitefield's perspective didn't prevent him from being highly regarded within Methodism which had both "Low Church" and "High Church" perspectives.

John's Augustinianism was inevitable, given his Western roots. While different from the East, it isn't something that would foreseeably cancel out his sanctity!

Some of my best friends are Augustinians, after all . . .

I think though that John's understanding of the slow action of Grace on human nature and his utter reliance on that Grace through active cooperation based on the means of Grace showed an insight into the idea of sinfulness as "disease."

As you know, John knew many Catholics and had their sympathies. He adopted the use of the Rosary in his devotional life and preached a sermon against Calvinist iconoclasm at Walsingham.

In addition to the Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox places of worship at Walsingham, there is also a Methodist Church on the spot where Wesley preached that sermon.

Also, my favourite book on the Rosary is not written by a Catholic, but a Methodist, Neville Ward!

God bless you, Servant of Christ!

Alex

"....this also, though the word lie heavy upon your hearts:

The murdered is not unaccountable for his own murder,

And the robbed is not blameless in being robbed.

The righteous is not innocent of the deeds of the wicked,

And the white handed is not innocent of the doings of the felon.

Yea, the guilty is oftentimes the victim of the injured.

And still more often the condemned is the burden bearer for the guiltless and unblamed.

You cannot separate the just form the unjust and the good from the unjust and the good from the wicked;

For they stand together before the face of the sun even as the black thread and white are woven together.

And when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also."

Kahlil Gibran (Raised in the Maronite tradition.)

Abdur

Christian morality must be more than just prose; there must be a place for "poetry" in the confessional, no?

And I can't be fooled, no matter what one sees and reads at EWTN . There is a very poetic subculture within Catholicism that still attracts many and is the reference point of interpretation for millions of Catholics. This is a fact, no?

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: traveler ]

NDHoosier,

You are correct.

Dan Lauffer