Why do people flip out when they hear the doctrine of sin preached?

Monday, September 26, 2005

Ss. Cosmas and Damian

I am continually confronted with the reality that, when I or others preach about the doctrine of sin, there are invariably some who simply flip out. They get outraged. This is an interesting phenomenon of our day, and worth reflecting on, not only for the philosophical and speculative consideration, but also because of the practical consequences it may have in our lives. These practical consequences will be different if you, gentle reader, are the type that gets outraged when the matter of sin is dealt with frankly in preaching, or the type that embraces the message of divine revelation with humility.

1. There are some that get angry, in my experience, because they hold that this doctrine is old fashioned. With childish attitudes of superiority, they wag their heads, wondering why the Church still holds on to these doctrines that appear to them to be... well... simply medieval.

But the doctrine on sin is a matter of divine revelation, and not a matter of a theological consideration associated to a specific moment in time or geographical location, therefore they err.

2. The most distressing reason people get go upset with this issue is that they have made a pact with sin. Many poor sinners react very aggressively against the Church when they have to defend their positions of sin, for their pride is challenged, and their guilt is made manifest to their consciences. The aggression they show towards the Gospel’s message on sin is merely a manifestation of the disturbed state of conscience in which they find themselves. An example of this is found in those who fall into some of the sexual sins, such as those divorced and remarried without annulments and therefore living in a flagrant state of adultery; those who justify habits of the use of pornography or masturbation; those who practice contraception and reject the Church’s teaching on the matter. I have found these particular class of sins obnoxiously pernicious, hard to eradicate from souls, and the type of bad plant that strikes very deep roots. Uprooting them is very, very painful; perverted passions become outraged when they are not overfed the object of their desire. What a distressing mystery, that these sins, which devour persons, ruin them, make them miserable in every which way including sometimes even in the flesh, are so unconditionally defended, obeyed with so servile irrationality, adored as if they were gods in the temple of such poor souls. I think possessed souls attain greater degrees of this abominable attachment.

3. There are some that get angry because they think that the Church preaches a message of love, and therefore any consideration of the evil of sin is simply irrelevant to Catholicism. If the Church teaches love, and sin is understood by them to be simply the opposite of love, then the Church should not preach about sin. Such people, in my experience, are ready to equate love with the emotion or passion rather than the virtue, and therefore sin is understood also as an emotional state and not a vice.

This argument, since it is based on the emotions, cannot be dealt with rationally. One can only hope such opponents of the message on sin will begin to put aside their anti-intellectualism and, to put it bluntly, begin to think, and to do so logically.

            Furthermore, the message of Christ is in one sense about love, but it is not only about love. Yet if it is about love, or about love plus other things, in both cases sin is part of the Gospel message.

             * Case one: the Gospel deals with love. If this is so, and sin is the opposite of love – and I know this partial definition of sin is not sufficient to understand it’s horrible mystery – and  Aristotle teaches us that the knowledge of opposites is the same, much like a medical doctor studies both health and sickness, a mechanic studies both engines that work properly and those that don’t. Therefore the wise student of God studies both the Lord and those things that oppose him. The scientist of the spiritual life studies growth in the spiritual life by grace, and the sickening and death of the soul by sin.

            * Case two: And if the Gospel deals with more than just the raw message of love, then it discusses other things. Some of these things include the message on sin. This is obvious in those many parts of the Gospel where Jesus talks about hell, those who die in sin, the wretchedness of sinners such as the Prodigal son before his conversion, or the hardness of heart of the priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees and the like.

            A certain holy woman I know was teaching her very young daughter matters of faith in preparation for her first confession. As she was discussing sin and the commandments with her and asking her questions, she suddenly burst into tears and said, "Why do people have to sin all the time? It hurts Jesus!" This girl has been given a great gift of Wisdom from the Holy Spirit, far exceeding that of adults. Her interior understanding of sin spurs her on to love God and neighbor more. Oh, if only we could all think truly like she!

            To say that the revelation of the mystery of sin, it’s causes, effects, nature and wickedness, is not in the Gospel, is an erroneous position that cannot be justified by anyone honestly.