BACKGROUND ON SOCIAL SIN

A. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

1. Aftermath of WWII’s evils and apathy of Christians. Bonhoeffer: “religionless Christianity”: Does Gospel have anything to say about modern social order?

2. Emergence of 3rd World, nationalism, differing cultures.

3. Awareness of disparity between rich and poor nations.

4. Racism: whites vs. blacks in US and Africa

5. Rapid growth of socialism, global community.

6. Development of social sciences.

B. SOCIOLOGICAL INSIGHTS

1. Externalization : impose order on environment, e.g., democratic elections, media for truth.

2. Objectivation : system becomes autonomous and coercive, e.g., political parties, vote buying, election a “farce”, media hides truth.

3. Internalization : structures passed down ages; influence of values or disvalues, e.g., IMF

NB. Structures have vast potentials for good and evil.

C. THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

1. Reaction to individualist Catholic morality:a) act vs. actor (individual sins vs.

habitual orientation);b) “inculpable ignorance”

(complex modern life but harm still done)

c) “privatization” of theology and philosophy; apolitical. “What does it profit a man...(Mt.16:26)

d) what is legal is moral, e.g., strike ban, legalized abortion

2. Biblical Insights a) Emphasis on biblical theology :

social analysis in the light of Scriptures.

b) Sin as state, power (environment): “sin of the world” (Rom. 5 – 8)

c) Fundamental option : sin as orientation, direction, e.g., unjust businessman gives donation to charity.

Today:a) Sin as biblical : violation of

covenant relationship with God.b) Sin as historical : individual sins

and unjust sinful structures reinforce on another.

c) Sin as demonic : overpowering evil, transcending individual malice, making us captive.

d) Sin = poverty, injustice, apathy, hatred, discrimination.

D. DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING ON SOCIAL SIN

A. Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 1891 : defends private property vs. socialism, communism.

B. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, 1961 : “socialization”; growing receptivity to secular social sciences.

C. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 1965 : links structures and sin.

D. 1966 World Council of Churches : oppressive structures – violence; theology of revolution (Geneva).

E. Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, 1967: absolute ownership vs. common good; development = “to be more”.

F. 1968 Beirut, SODEPAX : unjust structures; violent revolution justified

G. 1968 Medellin, CELAM : vs. institutional violence. Gutierrez: liberation vs. development

H. 1971, Synod of Bishops, Justice in the World: Church’s mission includes justice and liberation from unjust structures.

I. 1979 Puebla : Solidarity with the poor, rejection of capitalism.

J. 1981 John Paul II, Laborem Exercens: priority of labor over capital; human work as essential key to social question and vs. purely economic.

K. 1984 Vatican Instruction on Liberation Theology: official Church approval of Liberation Theology based on the Christian Gospel; vs. uncritical use of Marxist analysis and ideology.

L. 1987 John Paul II, Solicitudo Rei Socialis: vs. desire for profit and thirst for power at any cost, vs. “structures of sin”;explicit criticism of capitalism and Marxist communism; emphasis on solidarity.

M. 1991 John Paul II, Centesimus Annus: Marxism a failure; capitalism not the solution.

THREE TYPES OF SOCIAL SIN

1. Structures which systematically oppress human dignity and violate human rights, stifle human freedom and impose gross inequality between the rich and the poor.

2. Situations which promote and facilitate greed and human selfishness.

3. The complicity of persons who do not take responsibility for evil being done or who silently allow oppression and injustice.

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT OF SOCIAL SIN (ON GLOBALIZATION)

A. Globalization : means the breaking down of national

barriers so that we are becoming more and more one world.

is the worldwide process of growing interdependence among nations promoted by the growth of multinational companies, foreign investments, the liberalization of imports, the shift towards exports, the easy movement of migrant labor, and the new information technology.

At present, globalization is directed by the industrialized countries and under conditions and rules which are favourable to them, primarily within the framework of neoliberal market economy which is regulated only by profit and the law of supply and demand.

B. Globalization brings about Democratization:

Democratization – means the diffusion of the democratic ideals to replace totalitarianism and military dictatorships. Authority and decision-making is shifting from one man or one party rule to the power of the people.

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT OF SOCIAL SIN (ON GLOBALIZATION)

(continuation)

C. Globalization brings the structures of sin on a global level.

In view of globalization, modern society is marked by structures of social sin not only on the national but also on global level.

It is important to note the interconnection between the international and national problems and the basic linkage between those who benefit and those who suffer from the unjust systems – anywhere in the world. For instance, whenever the price of a barrel of oil is raised by the oil-producing countries in the Middle East, in the Philippines, not only is the price of petroleum products spiralling up but also the price of all other goods and services at the expense of the people especially the poor.

D. The Positive Effects of Globalization :1. It presents humankind with

opportunities for a richer & fuller life.2. It facilitates cooperation across

national boundaries.3. It generates greater competition

between and within nations.4. With globalization, a new kind of

nationalism continues to spread and grow. Within same national boundary, export-processing zones are like nation-states that directly trade with other countries.

5. Because of democratization, a form of localism has sprung. This refers to local allegiances and political bodies on the regional and municipal levels demanding access to decision-making, e.g. ARMM.

E. Negative Effects of Globalization 1. This worldwide integrative process could end up in a situation of greater dependence of the many poor nations

on the few rich nations, rather than a really interdependent world. True interdependence will not come about by sheer play of market forces; it needs to be deliberately fostered by carefully formulated and implemented public policy on a global scale.

2. In view of the increasing migration of Filipino overseas contract workers (OFWs), globalization could endanger the human rights of these workers.

3. Globalization, by exerting pressure upon business enterprises to be more competitive in a situation of free flow capital, technology and labor, will have certain effects on the labor market, e.g., entry of more women into labor force, casual, contractual and piece rate employment, shift from wage to self-employment, labor mobility on the micro and macro-economic levels.

4. The sovereignty, self-determination and legitimate interests of weaker nations and smaller communities could be eroded and weakened by the economically, politically and militarily stronger nations as well as transnational corporations.

5. The emergent “global culture” could lead to a materialistic world view that would significantly affect human and societal behaviour. Such a culture may lead to secularism “where God is missing but not missed.” This propagates an individualistic amoral consumerist and pornographic “culture” originating from wealthy countries, but destructive of the moral, religious, spiritual values of the people of poorer countries. The Filipino “colonial mentality” for imported luxury goods and escapism through cheap entertainment is symptomatic of the psychological malaise produced by this “global culture”.

STATEMENTS OF THE PHILIPPINE CHURCH (PCP II) ON THIS EVER-GROWING POVERTY AND INJUSTICE [DUE TO SOCIAL

SIN]

1. “The poverty and destitution of the great mass of our people are only too evident, contrasting sharply with the wealth and luxury of relatively few families, the elite top of our social pyramid.”

What the rich are not conscious of is that there is a necessary link between their lifestyle and the massive poverty around them. There is a basic connection between those who benefit and those who suffer from unjust system in our present Philippine society.

2. “No social transformation is genuine and lasting where people themselves do not actively participate in the process…We understand ‘people power’ to include greater involvement in decision-making, greater equality in both political and economic matters, more democracy, more participation.”

In short, people power means equality and participation.

CONVERSION TOWARDS SOCIAL JUSTICE

The modern world is marked by social sin or unjust structures. Therefore, there is a need for a double liberation:

internal conversion from person sin, and,

external liberation from unjust structures or social sin.

There is no instant liberation, personal or social. Conversion to justice is both an event and a process.

The Three Levels of Conversion

1. Conversion of the Feet - This is a new experience that

reveals a new reality of one’s unworthiness, limitations and sinfulness.

- The basis of the next level. 2. Conversion of the Head

- Essentially comes from seeing the world in a new way. First, we acknowledge a different analysis of poverty and injustice coming from different ideological positions. Such analysis may either support or challenge the status quo. Second, the key element in conversion of the head is the recognition of structural sin.

- Two obstacles to conversion of the head: a) unexamined ideological presuppositions, assumptions, values which do not call into question the structures on which we depend for our privileged position in life; b) isolation from the pain and suffering of others.

Hence, conversion of the head needs the conversion of the feet, e.g., the experience of being with the poor makes us see their frustrations, powerlessness, anger and despair.

3. Conversion of the Heart This means a radical change in

lifestyle, vocation or way of life. First, a personal response: I question my attitudes, lifestyle, status, conferred by society. I change my values and priorities so that the poor are not excluded. I live simply so that others may simply live. But personal response does not change the unjust structures of society. Thus: Second, a political response: I must become an agent of social change. I ask these questions: Ano ang kayang-kaya kong gawin? Ano ang gusto kong gawin? Ano ang dapat kong gawin?

Hence, preferential option for the poor is an attitude, a commitment, a way of life, a spirituality.