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
1.1 Historical context
> from the “horrendous moral evil of World War II” to the problems
of poverty, uneven development, environmental degradation
and social disintegration in the world today
1.2 Sociological insights
> the “autonomy” of structures beyond individual choices, their
vast potential for good and evil, the depth of their influence on
personal moral behavior
1.3 Theological developments
> from preoccupation with individual morality to increasing concern
with social morality
> understanding of sin as fundamental orientation and as historical
sinful environment/ situation
1.4 Catholic social teaching on social sin
a. Gaudium et Spes (1965)
> “To be sure, the disturbances which so frequently occur in the
social order result in part from the tension of economic,
political and social forces. But at a deeper level they flow from
man’s pride and selfishness, which contaminate even the
social sphere. When the structure of affairs is flawed by the
consequences of sin, man, already born with a bent toward
evil, finds there new inducements to sin, which cannot be
overcome without strenuous efforts and the assistance of
grace.” (no. 25)
b. Medellin document (1968)
> “...in many instances Latin America finds itself faced
with a situation of injustice that can be called
institutionalized violence ... violating fundamental
rights…”
c. Justice in the World (1971)
> Bishops are moved by “the cry of those who suffer violence
and are oppressed by unjust systems and structures”
> Church cannot ignore “the objective obstacles which social
structures place in the way of conversion of hearts”--structures
which, for example, would make poor nations “the victims of
the interplay of international economic forces”
> Synod document refers strongly to “education to justice...
(which) demands a renewal of heart, a renewal based on the
recognition of sin in its individual and social manifestations”
d. Reconciliatio et Penitentia (1984)
> “Cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation
of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal
sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit
it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or
at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out
of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through
secret complicity or indifference; of those who take
refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the
world, and also of those who sidestep the effort and
sacrifice required ....” (no. 16)
e. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987)
1. Survey of the contemporary world
> “hopes for development ... today appear very far from being
realized ... (amidst) reality of an innumerable multitude of
people suffering under the intolerable burden of poverty”
(no. 12)
2. Authentic human development
> “Unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at
man’s disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an
orientation toward the true good of the human race, it easily
turns against man to oppress him.” (no. 28)
> critique of “superdevelopment” and consumerism, of the
drive to “have more” rather than to “be more” in accord
with man’s true vocation (nos. 28-29)
> authentic human development = “promotes the good of
the whole person and of every person” (quoting
Populorum Progressio, 1967); in accord with vocation
of human beings created in “image and likeness of God”
and redeemed by Christ; respects and promotes human
rights (nos. 30-33)
> problems of environmental degradation as further
emphasizing moral character of development (no. 34)
3. A Theological reading of modern problems
> “(A) world which is divided into blocs, sustained by rigid
ideologies and in which instead of interdependence and
solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway, can
only be a world subject to structures of sin….” (no. 36)
> Structures of sin “are rooted in personal sin, and thus
always linked to concrete acts of individuals who
introduce these structures, consolidate them and make
them difficult to remove.” (no. 36)
> two typical attitudes leading to “structures of sin”
identifiable behind the actions of nations as well as
individuals: “the all-consuming desire for profit” and “the
thirst for power ...at any price” (no. 37)
> the need for conversion: an awareness of
interdependence, and the moral virtue of “solidarity”--”a
firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to
the common good, that is to say, to the good of all and
of each individual because we are all really responsible
for all” (no. 38)
> a positive sign: “the growing awareness of the solidarity of the
poor among themselves, their efforts to support one another and
their public demonstrations on the social scene which, without
recourse to violence, present their own needs and rights in the
face of the inefficiency or corruption of the public authorities”
(no. 39)
f. PCP II document (1991)
> “Sin externalizes itself in human interaction. When
patterns of human interaction become habitual, a social
structure develops. When the habitual patterns of
human interaction are infected by sin—selfishness,
injustice, pride, greed, hatred—then we have sinful
social structures. These sinful social structures can
harden into institutions, and result in a network or
environment that effectively hinders growth in the
Christian life. They are inducements to sin and are a
formidable obstacle to Christian living. We can see the
terrible effects of sin and sinful structures in the many
uncared for and malnourished children of our unjust society,
the wretchedness of the jobless and the homeless, the
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
faces that demonstrate the degradation of the human
person and human society, and in the destruction of the
environment that lays bare the evil shortsightedness of
human greed.”
2. The Reality of Social Sin
2.1 Three-fold definition of social sin by Peter Henriot
a. Structures that systematically oppress human
beings, violate human dignity, stifle freedom and
impose gross inequality
> note: structures = organized patterns of
behaviour of people in interaction with other
people
b. Situations that promote and facilitate individual
acts of selfishness
> note: situations here are associated with
structures of no. 1
c. Complicity of persons who do not take
responsibility for evil being done or who silently
allow oppression and injustice
2.2 Social sin is manifested in Philippine society in
a. socio-political structures associated with
> terrorist/ extremist political organizations
> crime syndicates, corruption in the police and military
> totalitarian/ authoritarian governments
> violation of civil and political rights of people
> patronage politics (ruled by narrow, self-interested desire for
power)
> organized electoral fraud and cheating
> chronic corruption in judicial system
> chronic corruption and dishonesty in government
bureaucracy (extortive “rent-seeking” and stealing/ misuse
of public resources)
> technocratic, non-consultative methods of governance
Proposed frame for reflecting on moral responsibility for social sin
1. “Broadening” the scope of our moral
responsibility ! from the “traditional frame”
which emphasizes our responsibility for the
“foreseen and intended consequences of our
actions” (and our “moral guilt” for social sin) to a
“broader frame” which emphasizes how we are
responsible for “both foreseen and intended, and
unforeseen and unintended, consequences of
our actions” (and thus are “morally accountable”
for social sin)
2. Our “moral guilt” for social sin
! Using the “traditional frame,” participation in
social sin involves lesser degrees of moral guilt
because of lack of:
a. knowledge ( = awareness of the harmful/
sinful effect[s] of one’s participation in the
structure of sin and/or failure to challenge this
structure)
b. harmful/ sinful intention ( = harmful/ sinful
effects which moral agent subjectively aims at)
3. Our “moral accountability” for social sin
b. socio-economic structures associated with
> cronyism/ bureaucrat capitalism
> government policies and programs that result in an inequitable
sharing of the costs and benefits of development (resulting in
further concentration of wealth amidst persistence of poverty,
widening gap between rich and poor)
> market based on narrow and unbridled profit-seeking; market
pandering to lower desires (e.g. illegal drug industry);
materialism and consumerism
> excessive concentration of property ownership in a few
> exploitation of labor (labor treated as a commodity, no regard
for rights and welfare, denial of just share in fruits of
production)
> abuse/ destruction of environment
> regressive systems of taxation
c. socio-cultural structures that promote
> loss of respect for human dignity and human rights
> materialism and consumerism
> narrow individualism without regard for the common good
> gender inequality/ oppression
> domestic violence and the deterioration of the family as the
“first and vital cell” of society
> elitism, racism, intolerance and discrimination
> ignorance, subservience and uncritical thinking
> lack of respect for indigenous cultures
3. Concluding Notes on the Reality of Social Sin
3.1 “The heart of the matter in the contemporary discussion
on ‘social’ or ‘structural’ sin seems to be that the reality of
sin and grace can no longer be understood merely in a
personal framework … (S)tructures and institutions are
the concrete realities where sin and grace are made
manifest. Insofar as they foster love, justice and
liberation, they reveal the presence of grace and the
3.1 When we apply the “broader frame” of
moral responsibility to our participation in
structures of sin, we understand that we bear
moral responsibility for them (in terms of being
morally accountable) even when we are not
morally guilty.
3.2 Moral accountability includes the
responsibility to help mitigate and/ or undo the
damages done and choose alternative
courses of action when they become
available.
4. General implication for ethical behavior
! When we participate in structures that have
harmful/ sinful effects on the well-being of
people, we are called to discern how we are
morally accountable in doing so—in terms of
being responsible to: (a) help mitigate and/or
undo damages done and (b) choose
alternative courses of action when they
become available.
! “doing the best under the circumstances
while trying to change the circumstances”
 presence of the Kingdom of God. On the other hand, if
these become sources of oppression and misery, they
reveal the presence of sin and the anti-kingdom….”
> broader vision of the reality of sin and grace as
manifested/ mediated through social structures
and institutions that pattern social life
> “(It) seems reasonable and helpful to approach this
reality from an objective and subjective point of view.”
*** Objective dimension: “unjust and oppressive
situations where there is a persistent domination of one
group by another or a public order which violates
fundamental human rights and suppresses human
dignity in a systematic way”
*** Subjective dimension: “the conscious and willful
participation of a group or a society in cooperating with
sinful social structures and thus maintaining them and
failing to change them when it is possible”
> Social sin is not a “black and white” reality in its
objective and subjective dimensions, respectively.
3.2 “(P)articipation in (social sin) need not be sinful in
every instance and in the case of every person …
Someone can be really guilty of participating in … social
sin only to the extent that he/ she consciously and willfully
does that. Even in the case of conscious participation in
such situations, we have to take into consideration the
essential ambiguity of the very necessity of social
structures ….”
> “While someone can be guilty only for the intended or
foreseen consequences of one’s actions or omissions,
he or she is responsible in a moral sense both for
intended and unintended or unforeseen consequences
of their actions and omissions, not necessarily in the
sense of being guilty but of being responsible to undo
the damages caused … When we apply this notion of
moral responsibility to sinful social structures, we have
to admit the fact that we carry moral responsibility for
them even when we are not morally guilty….”
3.3 The relationship between “social transformation” and
“personal interior conversion”
> Medelllin: “The uniqueness of the Christian message
does not so much consist in the affirmation of the
necessity for structural change, as it does in the
insistence on the conversion of men which will in turn
bring about this change.” (II, 58)
> Henriot: “First, personal conversion, then conversion of
structures, but no authentic conversion without genuine
commitment to changing structures.”
3.4 The scope and limits of personal action and responsibi-
lity vis-à-vis social sin: “doing the best under the circum-
stances while trying to change the circumstances;” “doing
the good that is concretely possible in particular situations”
> ultimately personal action against social sin is a call to
faith: “(T)he power that Jesus gives us is not the power
of the world, but the power of the Cross, of failure. My
faith commits me to the struggle, not to the achievement
of what I consider the goal. ‘Yes, the heavens are as
high above earth as my ways are above your ways, my
thoughts above your thoughts.’ (Is 55,9)”