Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:03:49.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Changing Paradigms of Sin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Since my experience is probably typical of many Catholics, it might be a useful exercise to begin this paper by sharing with you my own personal journey through various understandings or paradigms of sin. I believe it has been a journey of healing, because my earlier understanding of sin was very crippling and has probably left me scarred for life.

DISOBEDIENCE is the word which captures my initial paradigm of sin. While this model presumed an internal dimension to disobedience, the external dimension loomed far more important. Psychologically ‘disobedience to authority’ was the dominant notion. This was emphasized by the fact that the gravity of the sin was often determined by the commanding or prohibiting authority. Certain actions were commanded or forbidden under pain of mortal sin. Other actions, admittedly, were regarded as mortal sins because the ‘matter’ was grave in itself. Yet even here the determination of grave matter was sometimes a matter of decision by authority—no light matter in the area of sexual sin, for instance! In my teens I once had to write out 100 times: ‘Tintinabulum vox Dei est’. That says it all! The ‘disobedience’ paradigm, in the form I absorbed it, was individualistic, act-centred and voluntarist. It offered no help in developing a capacity for moral decision-making or conscience-formation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

Further Reading

Daly, Gabriel Creation and Redemption, Gill & Macmillan, 1988.Google Scholar
Duffy, Stephen J. ‘Our Hearts of Darkness: Original Sin Revisited’, Theological Studies, 1988, pp. 597-622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Raphael & McConvery, Brendan, ed. History and Conscience: Studies in honour of Sean O’Riordan, Gill & Macmillan, 1989 pp, 181-198: Marciano Vidal, ‘Structural Sin: A New Category in Moral Theology’; pp. 199-211 : Kevin O’Shea, ‘The Functions and Disfunctions of the Idea of Sin’.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Monika ‘Theological Trends: Sin and Sacramental Reconciliation, I, Contemporary Reflection on Sin’, The Way, 1984, pp. 217-223.Google Scholar
LaCoque, AndréSin and Guilt’, The Encyclopaedia of Religion, ed. Eliade, Mircea, Macmillan and Free Press, 1987. vol. 13, pp. 325-331.Google Scholar
McDermott, Brian ‘Original Sin: Recent Developments’, Theological Studies, 1977, pp. 478-512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Sebastian Let this mind be in you, Darton Longman & Todd, 1985, pp. 83-86.Google Scholar
Pohier, Jacques ‘What purpose does sin serve?’, Theology Digest, 1978, 24-28.Google Scholar