Recovering a Sense of Sin

by Douglas Sousa

In the early 90s, a Catholic group conducted a survey about modern attitudes toward the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Different groups offered different reasons as to why there has been a decline in confession. Bishops tended to identify the lack of a sense of sin as the cause, while priests blamed confusion over whether sins were mortal or venial. In contrast, laypeople responded that opportunities for forgiveness outside the Sacrament of Reconciliation, such as personal prayer or the Kyrie at Mass, made the confessional less necessary. Whatever the cause, there is no doubt that, while the Church’s teaching has remained constant, popular attitudes toward sin and the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation have changed significantly over the past 40 years.

In my work with catechists, one of the frustrations they experience is the lack of a sense of sin in young people. They generally agree with the bishops in identifying it as the primary obstacle keeping young people from turning to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

In his 1984 apostolic exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (Reconciliation and Penance), Pope John Paul II defined “sense of sin” in these terms:

Over the course of generations, the Christian mind has gained from the Gospel as it is read in the ecclesial community a fine sensitivity and an acute perception of the seeds of death contained in sin, as well as a sensitivity and an acuteness of perception for identifying them in the thousand guises under which sin shows itself. This is what is commonly called the sense of sin. (no. 18)

And so, by the term, “sense of sin,” we mean the ability to recognize sin for what it is—a grave offense to the holiness and love of God and a detriment to the life of the Church. It also means understanding ourselves as sinners in need of God’s mercy.

The reasons for this diminished sense of sin are many and varied. What I would hope to accomplish in this article is to look at ways the concept of sin has been taught, based on my work with catechists, so as to chart a way toward reclaiming an understanding of it that is closer to the Gospel and the teaching of the Church and that would foster a desire for repentance and reconciliation. The teaching of the magisterium on sin has been constant. What we will be looking at is how that teaching gets communicated in the classroom.

Following the Law

In speaking with catechists and reviewing their class materials, I have identified two predominant models for teaching about sin—a legal model and a relational model.

The legal model treats sin as the breaking of a rule. When this model is followed, the actions, intentions, and thoughts that constitute sin are clearly listed either in the Bible or in Church documents. When asked why a certain action is sinful, the catechist following this model can simply reply, “Because it breaks God’s commandment.” The predominant image of God is that of a judge who grants absolution through the priest once the sin is confessed.

This legal model of sin has many advantages. It is easy to teach. There is no debate about what is a sin and what is not. And there is no debate about the need to go to Confession. The image of God is consistent with Scripture and helps to reinforce the Sacrament of Reconciliation as the place where the guilt for sin can be lifted. In this context, with sin understood as an offense against God, God’s willing mercy can also be experienced and appreciated. It further underlines the need for Christ’s death on the Cross as the source of expiation for sin.

However, like any model, the legal model has limitations as well. It tends to focus on the practice of religion as avoiding sin rather than doing good. And it tends to focus more on condemnation than on grace and redemption. It also can lead people to associate the Sacrament of Reconciliation with fear, guilt, and scrupulosity.

I Can Relate

In contrast to a legal model of sin is a relational model. Under this model, Jesus is a friend, and sin is an action that damages our friendship with Him. This approach tends to focus more on feelings rather than on lists of sins. Religion is understood as an active friendship with God through Jesus.

This approach has the advantage of recognizing religion as a relationship with God marked by love and friendship. It is also easy to relate this to everyday life and experience. And the concept of sin as a rupture in our relationship with God finds strong backing in Scripture. By encouraging students to think and talk about what makes an action sinful rather than simply memorizing a list of rules, this approach aids the development of conscience.

Unfortunately, this model also has profound drawbacks. The emphasis on feelings tends to make people believe that they have not sinned if they do not feel guilty. Likewise, there is no reason to confess to a priest if you feel forgiven after praying to Jesus. If religion is just about Jesus and me, why bring a priest into the equation? Further, if sin is no longer a serious matter, then neither is the power of God’s forgiveness and neither is the death of Jesus on the Cross.

As we have seen, the legal and relational models have advantages and disadvantages. Is there a way that we can catechize an understanding of sin that emphasizes the best of these different approaches? Is there a context in which we can talk about sin that is more faithful to Scripture and which also draws people into a deeper understanding of God’s mercy and love?

Best of Both Worlds

I believe that we have such a model in the biblical concept of covenant.

The term “covenant” has a rich history in Scripture. Genesis recounts that God made covenants with individuals (Noah and Abraham), and Exodus describes the covenant which was eventually established between God and the people of Israel. “Covenant” is the name given to the offer of friendship that God proposed to the Israelite people. It is expressed in the simple formula, “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” This relationship with God gave a sense of identity to Israel. In this context, they understood that their God was different from the golden and wooden idols of other nations. Because of this, they also had to be different from other peoples. They had to be holy as their God was holy.

This relationship with God was regulated through the Torah, the Law, most especially the Ten Commandments. This Law was not an arbitrary list of rules or a burdensome imposition, but a way of understanding how the chosen people were to live in relationship to their God in the land He had given them. Sin, therefore, meant not only breaking a rule, but rupturing the covenant relationship with God. Since this relationship gave the people of Israel their identity, sin not only affected the individual but weakened the whole people. We see this in Psalm 51, King David’s prayer for forgiveness. Though his sin is personal and he prays primarily for his own forgiveness, he ends the psalm with a prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem, because he saw his sin as a threat not only to himself but to the whole nation.

After Israel spent years struggling under the Law, God promised a new covenant written on the heart (see Jer. 31:31–34; 32:38–40). God also planned to make His people a light to the nations, extending His salvation to the ends of the earth.

We find the fulfillment of this new covenant in the person of Jesus. Jesus is careful to teach that He did not come to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it. He did not come to do away with the people of Israel, but to fulfill God’s promise that Israel would be a means of drawing all peoples to salvation. Finally, Jesus takes upon Himself the punishment for sin by dying on the Cross. In this way, sin could be forgiven and could not threaten to permanently unravel the unity of God’s new people.

In the Context of Covenant

Understood in the context of the covenant, sin takes on a communal as well as a personal dimension. Because the covenant creates a relationship among believers, we are accountable not only to God for our sins but to each other. It helps us to understand that there is no such thing as a “victimless” sin, but that our failings undermine the whole community. And so we need some forum (the Sacrament of Reconciliation!) wherein we can mend not only our fractured relationship with God, but with each other.

The concept of covenant also helps us to understand the importance of laws for the ordering of our relationship with God and with each other. In any friendship there are unwritten rules. We never think that our love for our friends, spouses, or children makes any action on our part acceptable. In our covenant relationship with God and with each other, there are also rules. They can be found in the Scriptures, in the Church Fathers, in canon law, and in a variety of church documents and spiritual writings. Our love for God and for our neighbor does not give us license to break these rules. Rather, our laws and traditions tutor us in what it means to love God and neighbor. Whether we feel guilty or not after having broken a rule does not change the fact that by doing so we have ruptured that covenant relationship.

Another important strength of this concept is that it leads naturally to a discussion of the sacraments. We are introduced to this covenant relationship through Baptism, in which we are made sons and daughters of God. The Eucharist is the feast of the new covenant community. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is where we mend that covenant relationship which we fracture by our sinfulness. Marriage binds a man and a woman in a relationship that is meant to mirror the covenant love of Christ for His Church. Holy Orders consecrates men as mediators of this covenant relationship. Covenant can be a useful concept not only for understanding sin, but for any aspect of the Christian life.

To the Classroom and Beyond

When I have discussed with catechists the use of the covenant as a context in which to teach the concept of sin, I am often met with the argument that the term is antiquated, with no real parallels in everyday life. It is not a word that can be easily understood and related to, especially by young people. Nonetheless, I think that the unfamiliarity of the term offers an opportunity for the creative catechist. It helps to convey the idea that this relationship with God and with the Church is unlike any other friendship we can have. It is so unique that there is a special name for it.

The unfamiliarity of the term also means that we can form the concept in the minds of young people without having to battle any preconceived ideas. It is an image without any cultural baggage. When we tell young people, for example, that God is their friend, there is the risk that they will look at the casual nature of their friendships and think of God in the same light. “My friend Tony doesn’t mind if I steal candy from the store, so God must not mind either.” By calling the relationship a “covenant,” we can describe exactly what we mean by the term without the risk of cultural contamination.

The ability to identify sin both in society and in ourselves is a prerequisite to opening up to God’s saving grace. That this sense of sin has been lost or diminished is not so much the fault of catechetical models of sin, whether they be legal or relational, as it is a symptom of a culture that focuses on the individual rather than the communal and tends to treat religion as a private matter. Recovering a healthy and holy sense of sin cannot only be achieved by catechizing individuals, but by evangelizing the culture at large. Using the biblical concept of covenant to emphasize a sacramental relationship to God that is governed by laws and rules is just one step toward reaching that end.

Douglas Sousa holds a license in moral theology from the Pontifical Alphonse Academy in Rome and a bachelor’s degree in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University. He has worked as a director of religious education in several parishes and has been involved in pastoral care in area hospitals. He blogs at http://songnewa.blogspot.com and currently lives in Somerset, Massachusetts, where he works as a real estate appraiser.

Back to Lay Witness