Original Sin or Original Blessing?

click on image to enlarge

Recently  a national Catholic weekly published an article in which several ‘experts’ or academics again tried to explain how ‘Original Sin’ has been responsible for much of the pain and suffering in this world. The article read as follows: 

         

     

Mankind’s natural desires behind our sinfulness

BY EVAN BOUDREAU

The Catholic Register March 24, 2013  p.21

TORONTO

Mankind's capacity to sin comes from an unquenchable thirst to consume rather than a direct desire to act sinfully, according to Kathleen Roberts Skerrett.

The dean of arts at the Uni­versity of Richmond in Virginia was exploring the concept of original sin at a roundtable dis­cussion March 12 at Toronto's University of St. Michael's College. Roberts Skerrett was one of three academics who gave their views during the afternoon discussion The Evolution of Sin: Past, Present and Future.

"Human beings have inde­terminate desires," said Roberts Skerrett. "Our ordinary desires for food, sex and sociality do no have an object that satisfies them. There is always a kind of going beyond the job, not so much insatiability, but more uncertainty of end in human desire."

For Roberts Skerrett, the source of sinfulness is a derivative of our thirst for more rather than a willful desire to sin. In other words, human beings have an innate tendency to sin but do possess the free will to act contrary to these inclinations. Free will means that our sins, although influenced by an innately engrained and often subconscious inclination towards sinfulness, are an expression of freedom.

"There is something that drives us constantly beyond the goals that an animal desire would set for itself," said Roberts Skerrett, author of Original Sin in the 21st Century: The Wanton, the Addict, the Pervert and the Deviant. "We are constantly pressing past or transcending or going beyond the object of an animal or embodied desire."

Roberts Skerrett categorized the tendencies of humanity to push beyond the most basic satis­faction of our desires — the way in which an animal would act — into four characteristics.

The first is the wanton, a tendency towards continual stim­ulation and attention which sac­rifices quality of satisfaction for frequency.

"The wanton wants a little hit of stimulation and attention, a little bit of pleasure on a regular basis. Facebook was made for the wanton," she said.

Second, all human beings suffer from the tendency of the addict who strives for pleasure over pain.

"The addict finds something to fix it for however long," she said. "It keeps going to recalculate the pleasure-pain dynamic in one's soul by hitting that fix over and over again."

This tendency, which can find satisfaction in the practice of devotion through prayer, repre­sents our metabolization of utility — the maximization of pleasure in one's life.

Third, she noted that everyone has a tendency toward perversion, in that humans view all of creation as a means to satisfy our desires.

"There is no sense of these other beings as having a use or value other than the use or value of being bought and sold," she said.

Finally, humanity is plagued with deviant tendencies which have manifested a culture of dis­ciplinary institutions: prisons, militaries, even schools. Roberts Skerrett noted that these institu­tions, which range from punish­ment to employment, function as a means of using individuals for a rational purpose with the expecta­tion they will exemplify self-con­trol of their own desires. "The person who is identified as deviant is constantly and systemically extracted from purpose­ful life," she said. "The end of the deviant is to be extracted from all purpose. What the deviant most needs is mission and purpose in order to orient life in order to orient desire."

By casting the concept of original sin in this light, it becomes the theme of our political and ethical discourse in secular society. Doing so, she said, explains why we sin.

Ephraim Radner, a professor of historical theology at the Univer­sity of Toronto's Wycliffe College, said a more traditional Augustine view better explains our sinful actions — at least those of the past century or so.

Global conflicts, genocides and capitalism's quest for greater satis­faction through further industri­alization without regard for harm caused to creation are all signs that humanity is not just inclined to sin, but that sinful acts are in our nature. "We are all brutal people," said Radner, author of Cross-Cultural Encounters in the 17th and 20th Century Compared: The Miti­gation and Return of Original Sin. To ground this argument Radner focused heavily on the suffering of infants, citing their susceptibility to pain, hunger and disease as signs that we are innately damned and need salvation.

"Infants suffer because they are damned and they're damned because all of us and Adam are damned," he said. "There is no other possible reason to explain why children go through this."

Therefore infants are born with a universal damnation due to original sin's inherent condemna­tion which can only be distanced through the sacrament of Baptism, though he noted we are still at risk of sinning, and will, following this ritual.

Fr. Clement Majawa, a theology professor from the Catholic Uni­versity of Eastern Africa, agreed with Radner that sinning is un­avoidable by man because human beings are damned from the moment they are conceived.

"Like a shadow evil, or sin, is an inseparable reality which follows each person throughout life," said Majawa, author of Sin, Reconcilia­tion and Mission in African Chris­tianity and Global Transformation. Similar to Radner, Majawa ref­erenced the suffering of Africans as proof of the universal condem­nation of humanity which can only be momentarily lifted off our shoulders through religious sacra­ments.

How can we as Christians best respond to this intensely negative view which many  still hold?  Others such as Matthew Fox in his book ‘Original Blessing’ (2000) suggest that it will first be necessary to understand the question of Original Sin in its cultural and theological context.  For example Fox states:

1. Original blessing is far more ancient and more biblical a doctrine.
2. The Council of Trent never said what original sin means.
3. Augustine mixed his doctrine of original sin with his peculiar notions about sexuality.
4. Whatever is said of original sin, it is far less hallowed and original than are love and desire.
5. Doctrine is not the basis of faith or its starting point.
6. Since doctrine is for people, not people for doctrine it is important to consider this question:  How much pain and how much sin have come about because of an exaggerated emphasis on the doctrine of original sin?
7. The sooner churches embrace the more primitive doctrine of original blessing, the more compassionate our living will be.

You will have to purchase Matthew Fox’s book for a detailed explanation behind these points, however they should provide and offer the reader more food for thought.

In the meantime is it not time to re-examine our understanding of `Original Sin`?

The negative focus on mankind`s natural desires (see article above) completely contradicts and detracts from the Good News and Jesus` promise ʺI have come in order that you might have life-life in all its fullness``. (John 10:10)  Have we forgotten that we are ALL Holy Creations capable of untold Holy actions as well as unholy reactions? The Good News is that God is more interested in our potential than our sins.  When we miss the mark, meaning "sin" it can become the stepping stone toward God`s free gift of salvation and renew us in a new life in Christ.  For most of us this can take a life time, yet from the very beginning God promised   ″I will lead you and be with you.  ``I will not fail you or abandon you, so do not lose courage or be afraid.`` (Deuteronomy 31:6)   

Until we realize that God’s greatest gift to humankind is our freedom to choose, we will probably never understand what it means to be loved unconditionally. This universal gift, according to Jesus, is bestowed on ALL of humankind when he said ″for he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil″ (Matthew 5:45).  Nowhere in scripture does Jesus ever suggest that salvation is dependent on baptism. Rather when we choose to be baptized it means that like Jesus we ʺagree to do all that God requires″.  Furthermore, Jesus taught that children are already in the Kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3). The battle against evil was won a long time ago – it is merely our refusal to accept its victory that prevents us from loving God, our neighbor and ourselves.

 Perhaps now we can begin to better understand and  experience Original Sin as God`s `Original Blessing`!   

 

SIN

One of the disconcerting-and delightful

-teachings of the Master was: ʺGod is

closer to sinners than to saints. ʺ

This is how he explained it: ʺGod heaven

holds each person by a string.  When you sin,

you cut the string.  The God ties is up again,

making a know-and thereby bringing you a

little closer to him.  Again and again your sins

cut the string-and with each further knot

God keeps drawing you closer and closer. ʺ

-  Anthony de Mello, One Minute Wisdom

ROMAN CATHOLICS FACE A REVOLUTION

While some people, other than Nero, are calling for a revolution to burn the city of Rome or more precisely its direct neighbour the Vatican; that institution  is calling for a revolution itself so it can put a fiery end to all heresy, secularism and/or  atheism in the world.

The battle lines have been drawn and it appears no quarters will be given.   Both sides are dug in and have built huge defenses.  The Vatican and its Curia have built an impenetrable wall of dogma and dogtrine against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Its chief weapon – excommunication.  The opponents, consisting of just about anyone who has ever dared to challenge the institution on matters such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, masturbation, the role of women in the church, iVF, women’s rights, or anything that has to do with sex. Its chief weapon of choice – leaving the church en masse .  Don’t underestimate that choice. It may turn out to be their weapon of Mass destruction!

Q.  Wait a minute, wait!. Are you saying we should start a revolution or war just about the question of sex?

A.  Yes my dear friend, sex is what sells and makes the world go around for some people.  But most people have experienced sex as a wonderful gift from God and see it  as a pleasurable  act of love between two committed adults.  Yet some individuals, especially the Catholic Church have determined thanks to St. Augustine that  sex is an evil act only necessary for procreation. 

Q.  Are you kidding, we’re going to fight it out on sex?   I thought that had been dealt with in the sixties when the ‘flower children’ our (grand)parents, called for everyone to ‘make love, not war!

 A.  Yes, yes that’s true but a group of male celibate experts in the Vatican have determined that sex is evil and demand that unless we do as they say the world is doomed. 

Q.  What makes these ‘experts’ so sure that they are right?

A.  God told them!

Q.  God told them that sex is evil?  But didn’t God tell humankind to go forward and multiply?  

A.  Well, yes God did say something  about going forth and so on, but Saint Augustine (Benedicts favorite saint) who lived in the 3^rd. and 4^th.century was busy  spreading his seed rather carelessly, got married had a child, left his wife, became a hermit and then determined that sex when it was enjoyed was evil.  No one knows if he ever enjoyed sex with his wife, but he must have heard God say afterwards “Augustine please tell everyone that sex is evil, especially when its enjoyed. Sorry my mistake!".   

Q.  Really?

A.  Yup, really!

Q.  And that’s what’s causing all this division among the people in the Church?  And why so many Catholics  are leaving the church or have been  simply excommunicated  or told to simply leave.?

 A.  Well yes,  it didn’t help when the same people found out more than 10 years ago that the Vatican had a very serious sex issue themselves.

Q.  What did Vatican do about it?

A.  For many years nothing and tried very hard to hide it.  But they were eventually caught red handed.

Q.  Well O.K. I guess the problem was eventually resolved, right?

A.  I’m afraid not. Its gotten worse.  Aside from issuing standard apologies and setting up a few guidelines their senior employees  still haven’t  addressed  the most important item of all.

Q.  What’s that?

A.  The Church must humbly address the internal endemic and systemic problems that led to the problem in the first place.

Q.  Why have they not done so?

A.  Because they are too busy finding fault everywhere else.

Q.  That’s incredible but what should we do now?

A.  Decide for ourselves by trusting in God’s gift of your conscience.  Even the Vatican can’t take that away from anyone . . .  God knows they keep on trying.  So get into some deep dialogue with God decide for yourself and consider the recent comments offered by one of God’s  most devoted Catholic Theologian Fr. Hans Kung.

Wow, thanks.  God bless!                  

          

Same-sex attraction

Canada’s Catholic bishops have published an uncompromising pastoral letter on ministry to young people with same-sex attraction that upholds Church teaching on sexuality yet purports by some to show sensitivity to their challenges. The eight-page booklet prepared by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (CCCB) doctrinal commission and released June 27 comes at a time when publicly funded Catholic schools in Ontario are under pressure from the provincial government’s equity policy.

After reading the Pastoral Letter I felt compelled to write our Bishops as follows:  

I have read the Canadian Bishops Pastoral letter regarding young people with same-sex attraction.  While it may accurately reflect current Church teaching it actually perpetuates the plight of the homosexual.  At the same time it does not offer any insight behind the Church`s position on the subject.  Allow me to preface my concerns and questions against the following true story:  

  

Several years ago, while my wife and I were still actively involved in a Catholic prayer group, we were confronted by the story of a tragic death involving the son of one of our oldest members. Emotionally torn and upset, Fred (not his real name) shared how this death had deeply affected him on several conflicting levels. Tearfully our eighty plus year old friend and father, revealed how his son’s grief had shown him for the first time how much his son had loved his partner who had now suddenly passed away. Wiping away his tears, Fred admitted to us how guilt and church teachings had taught him that love between two members of the same-sex was wrong. He even expressed how these negative feelings had strained the relationship between him and his son for many years. Perhaps, it was his fault that he had raised a child with homosexual tendencies. Or, maybe God was punishing him for his past sins. He had led quite a rugged life, indifferent to others, and so on. But his son’s grief was so real, so honest and so revealing of a relationship that consisted of a love between two caring and giving individuals. For the first time Fred was able to equate the recent loss of his wife with the loss experienced by his son.  

I don`t think of myself as a modern activist or whatever that label is supposed to mean.  But as a disappointed and disenfranchised Catholic convert (1986) I do feel the need to ask questions about matters of faith, and particularly as it affects the homosexual.  Faith for me is a dynamic which requires a deep and often a challenging sense of justice and compassion. As Christians we need to question our beliefs and not arbitrarily accept what is presented to us.  Questions are more important than answers if we are to grow in faith and remain open to change and miracles.  The belief that we or the Church possess all the answers is the only true heresy!  

The Pastoral letter opens with the honest admission that the Church does not really know the psychological causes behind Same-sex Attraction but then, on the next seven pages its author(s) feel perfectly justified to condemn any sexual activity between homosexual persons by insisting that they accept a life of forced celibacy. Is that not somewhat arrogant? To quote noted Catholic social ethicist Daniel C. Maguire “Voluntary celibacy for a good cause is something some can do, but it was seen as a special talent, a special gift that not all have. The Vatican Council called it “a precious gift of divine grace which the Father gives to some persons,” but not to all. Abstaining from all sexual activity is seen by the council as something “unique.” You cannot demand from all homosexual people that which is “unique”. St. Paul recognizes the same thing when he says, “It is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:9). What kind of Gospel “good news’ would it be to tell all gay persons that their only choice is to “burn, baby, burn”? The view that homosexual people are condemned involuntary celibacy for life is as cruel as it is absurd.”

The claim that the Church’s position on homosexuality is based on scripture and Tradition must also be challenged.  The popular post Vatican II Catholic A New Catechism (1969) states that “the very sharp strictures of Scripture on homosexual practises  (Gen. 19; Rom. 1) must be read in their context. Their aim is not to pillory the fact that some people experience this perversion in culpably.  They denounce a homosexuality which had become the prevalent fashion and had spread to many who were really quite capable of normal sexual sentiments.”  As for Tradition, the Catholic Church has a much longer Tradition honouring same-sex attraction.  Saints Serge and Bacchus, a same-sex couple whose marriage is preserved in a seventh-century icon shows Jesus as the official witness, or best man at their wedding.   

It seems to me that our bishops completely failed to understand homosexuality in the context of the critical distinction between Love and a Sexual Perversion. One must admit that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally capable of both. If not are the sins of a homosexual somehow greater than that of a heterosexual? So, why this narrow focus by insisting that genital sex between loving homosexual couples are considered ‘acts of grave depravity? Is it simply because homosexuals cannot procreate? Or is it something more sinister in the minds of some? Remember, celibate members of the clergy must not procreate either. Perhaps, this report is intended to support the tortured and unchanging position by the Church, on human sexuality as promoted by St. Augustine or similar views expressed by some conservative Catholics. 
 

Note (added July 1): Perhaps it was this Augustinian mindset that  brought the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under  Cardinal Ratzinger to issue a document on  Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986)  which demanded that pastoral care for  homosexuals could  no longer  be tolerated and that Church facilities could not be made available for them because it contradicts Church teachings. A subsequent Notification in 1999 silenced and removed Sr. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Robert Nugent from their care towards the gay and lesbian community.

Award winning religion journalist David Gibson, writes the following about a by-chance encounter between Pope Benedict XVI and  Sr. Jeannine Gramick in his biography ‘The Rule of Benedict’ (2006).

“The issue of homosexuality has always been of great interest to Benedict, who wrote far more about the topic while at the CDF than any other churchman ever had. Characteristically, however, Ratzinger also seems to have formed his judgments with little, if any, real-life interaction with homosexual ,men and  women to inform his views. In a telling exchange,  Sr. Jeannine Gramick, the American nun whom Ratzinger would eventually banish from her ministry to gays and lesbians, ran into Ratzinger by chance on an airplane¹ ride from Rome to Bavaria in July 1998. (The cardinal was going to see his brother; the nun was going to pray for aid at the Munich shrine of her order's foundress.)  Gramick struck up a pleasant conversation with Ratzinger, at first not recognizing him and believing him to be a simple priest. When he revealed his identity, they began talking about the issues on which Ratzinger was investigating her. When Gramick asked whether the cardinal had ever met any gay people, Ratzinger replied: "Yes, in Berlin. They were demonstrating against the pope." That Ratzinger's only interaction with homosexuals was at such a remove and under such circumstances does not inspire confidence in his conclusions, nor does it square with the reality that there are many gay priests and bishops, not only in the worldwide church, but most certainly in the Roman Curia itself. That this would be unknown to Ratzinger is either remarkably ingenuous, willfully blind, or simply evidence of the don't ask, don't tell policy that permeates much of clerical life, and in fact can foster sexual dysfunctions of all kinds.”

After finishing the pastoral letter I was left with the following additional questions- Is the supposed sin of a homosexual greater than that of a heterosexual? If not please cease this obsessive persecution immediately. The Church`s present position on homosexuality continues to hurt families and individuals who must bear this burden.  It merely promotes the ongoing hatred for those whose life style is different from ours.    The self effacing emphasis on loving the sinner but not the sin does very little for the victim.

If the Church sincerely believes that the sexual act of a loving homosexual couple is a sin, then how does it differ from a similar sexual act performed by loving heterosexual couples?  Exactly what aspect of the sexual act, when performed by a committed couple in a loving setting, is considered a sin?

Finally, to borrow a phrase from the text of this pastoral letter I believe that in the eyes of God every human person is a unique and irreplaceable gift – however there are many in our Church who do not share that sentiment when it comes to homosexuals.  This negative view is even promoted in the pastoral letter when it is suggested that homosexuals do not fulfill God`s will in their lives.  Agreed, procreation is essential for the continuation of our species but not all heterosexuals can or are able to participate in this part of God`s plan.  Why then punish homosexuals for failing in this regard?  In my search for answers I have learned that homosexuals were held in high regard by some of our native tribes for their artistic abilities.  Why can we not celebrate the gifts homosexuals bring to society instead? 

People are not naturally cruel.  They become cruel when they are unhappy- or when they succumb to an ideology. If religious people had always followed the instinct of their heart rather than the logic of their religion we would have been spared the sight of heretics burning at stakes, widows walking into funeral pyres, and millions of innocent people slaughtered in wars that are waged in the name of God.  Compassion has no ideology.  - Anthony de Mello, 'The Song of the Bird'