How are we to make sense of the doctrine of original sin today? A satisfactory answer is supplied neither by the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor by Tissa Balasuriya, in the opinion of an Augustinian priest who teaches theology in Trinity College, Dublin and who has written extensively on the subject. Many Catholics throughout the world will have been shocked and angered by the news that Fr Tissa Balasuriya, the Sri Lankan priest and theologian, has been declared excommunicate by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Recourse to excommunication is an unbelievably crude and cruel way of expressing theological disagreement. All one?s sympathies go out to a fellow Christian who has been so badly treated by the guardians of orthodoxy.

Concern for orthodoxy has its rightful place in the ecclesiastical scheme of things, but draconian efforts to enforce it can be counter-productive. The trouble with official condemnations is that they are an attempt to foreclose debate on topics, such as original sin, which are badly in need of the sort of free discussion that should be normal in the Church. It should be possible to disagree with Fr Balasuriya?s approach to the traditional doctrine of original sin while conceding that he has some valid points to make about it.

The doctrine in its traditional formulation is based on a literal and historical interpretation of the first three chapters of the book of Genesis. Such an interpretation is impossible to reconcile with what science has revealed about the origins of our species, Homo sapiens. An interpretation which appreciates the symbolic possibilities of the early chapters of the book of Genesis, however, can release a flood of theological meaning. Thus, for example, Adam and Eve can be seen not as an individual man and woman, but as symbols for the whole human race throughout its history. There is today widespread agreement that this kind of symbolic interpretation is the most fruitful way of reading the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

The Council of Trent, the central source for the Catholic doctrine of original sin, taught that Adam, the first man, by his sin lost the holiness and righteousness in which he had been constituted, thereby bringing death upon himself and the whole human race. His sin, says Trent, is transmitted by generation and not by imitation to his descendants. All human beings are consequently born in a state of alienation from God until redeemed from this state by the work of Christ, which is mediated by baptism.

Before Vatican II, neo-scholastic theology adopted St Augustine?s view that Adam and Eve before the fall lived in an idyllic state in which they were endowed with perfect health, absence of pain and moral struggle, and, to cap it all, physical immortality. Today anyone who professes belief in the historical existence of such an idyllic state has to explain how primitive human beings could enjoy it and then lose it through a sin which inculpated not merely themselves but their descendants as well.

Vatican II mercifully laid this historicised myth to rest, thus freeing Catholic theologians to tackle the question in new and credible ways. After the council there was in fact a veritable explosion of interest in the theological implications of what had been traditionally described as original sin. Splendid work was done by the authors of the celebrated Dutch catechism, commissioned by and published under the aegis of the bishops of the Netherlands, which popularised what was then going on in academic theology and biblical studies.

This New Catechism, as it was called, took the emphasis off a sin committed at the dawn of history and instead directed attention towards the sinful condition of humanity since the dawn of history. This was following the lead given by Vatican II, especially in its pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et Spes.

There was, however, a conservative fear that the new theologies made possible by the council were seeming to suggest that (original) sin was a purely environmental, and therefore extrinsic, force in the world rather than something rooted in human nature, as Trent had taught. Some conservative critics believed that the only way to safeguard the concept of a fallen nature was to appeal to a special sin committed at the beginning of history.

This was the position taken by a commission of cardinals set up by Paul VI to examine the Dutch catechism. It is also the position taken, in an even more extreme form, by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, on original sin at least, reflects the attitudes of the conservative minority at Vatican II. It actually attributes biological death to the fall of Adam and Eve (paragraph 400).

As long ago as 1968 Professor (now Cardinal) Joseph Ratzinger, in his commentary on Vatican II?s Gaudium et Spes, wrote that the belief that human beings would have been immune from bodily death had they not sinned is scarcely intelligible to present-day thought. One wonders why the authors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church did not follow him on this.

The Second Vatican Council gave a clear lead in showing how the doctrine of original sin might be reinterpreted through analysis of the human experience of the divided self. As Professor Ratzinger observed in his commentary on the crucially important article 13 of Gaudium et Spes, there was agreement among the drafters of the conciliar text that while the essential content of Trent cannot be abandoned . . . theology must be left free to inquire afresh precisely what that essential content really is.

A contemporary theology of sin and redemption has the difficult task of reflecting on the implications of the appearance within evolving nature of Homo sapiens, a creature with the freedom to say no to its Creator. This is why we can properly say that we are alienated from God merely by virtue of being human; but it is an alienation, a division within us, which God can and does rectify through grace.

In the existentialist language which was affecting Catholic theology and catechetics in the 1960s, the word alienation had a much wider and richer frame of reference than when it was employed in neo-scholastic theology. It now became possible to speak of human nature as alienated from God without suggesting that the unbaptised were enemies of God. Parents whose child had died before baptism no longer had to believe that he or she was exiled from the presence of God. (There were some appalling pastoral consequences of pre-Vatican II theology.)

There are two alternatives to the pursuit of a contemporary understanding of original sin. One is to refuse to acknowledge that there is any problem about reaffirming the traditional formulation of the doctrine, as if modern science and biblical criticism did not exist. The other is to reject the traditional doctrine out of hand as indefensible today. These two extreme views do equally serious damage to the credibility of the Christian doctrines of sin and redemption.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church adopts the first alternative by regressing to a largely literal and historical reading of Genesis 1-3 and by presenting the Fall as a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man (paragraph 390, italics in the original). Vatican II, on the other hand, had taught that human beings have abused their freedom from the very beginning of history (Gaudium et Spes 13). Professor Ratzinger remarked in his commentary that the conciliar text avoided specific mention of the moment of the Fall and instead simply affirmed that ?from the very dawn of history? man revolted against God.

There is a radical difference between the claim that an historical man and woman, recently created, committed a mega-sin affecting the whole human race, and the claim that from the beginning of history human beings have sinned by failing to be what God wishes them to be. The first claim conflicts with scientific anthropology; the second claim is open to scientific anthropology and to the possibility of interpreting it from the perspective of faith.

The second alternative to reinterpreting the doctrine is to reject it, or simply ignore it. There is a movement today which sets up a crude and superficial contrast between creation-centred (good) and redemption-centred (bad) spirituality and theology. This kind of facile optimism about the human condition flies in the face of the evil and suffering which confront us every day in the news media.

Although Fr Balasuriya clearly has difficulties with the doctrine of original sin, he does not indulge in superficial optimism about the human condition. He is, after all, a liberation theologian only too aware of social injustice and exploitation of the poor. He makes it clear in his book, Mary and Human Liberation, that he has no difficulty with original sin in the sense of a human proneness to evil . . . nor with the concept of the collective sinfulness of a society or an environment that has a corrupting influence on persons.

This seems to me to go a considerable distance towards satisfying the truth claim made by the doctrine. All that needs to be added ? and surely this could have been achieved by discussion between Fr Balasuriya and the congregation? ? is that this proneness to evil is inherent in human nature and precedes exposure to a corrupting environment.

In a Festschrift presented to Gustavo Guti?rrez for his sixtieth birthday in 1988 Balasuriya wrote:

What I wish to stress is that the great evils of colonisation were linked to a Christian theology that legitimised the European expansion and the missionary enterprise. This theology was based on the premise that all human beings were trapped in original sin and condemned to eternal damnation unless they were saved by Jesus Christ.

These two sentences embody sentiments which are at the core of Balasuriya?s theology of original sin, which is subordinated to his preoccupation with colonialism, inculturation, inter-faith relations, and in general with what he sees as the cultural imperialism inflicted upon indigenous peoples by European missionaries. These are matters which call for serious consideration in their own right, but I would wish to argue that they are a distraction from the substantive issue of the dogma of original sin.

In Mary and Human Liberation, Balasuriya devotes a chapter to original sin in which he reiterates his thesis that the doctrine was used to legitimise European missionary enterprises. This has the effect of marginalising the substantive issue. The doctrine of original sin is too important to be treated peripherally. (For a start, theology about Mary is not a suitable terrain for tackling it. The doctrine of original sin precedes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception both historically and in respect of its place in the hierarchy of Christian truths. The Marian dogma must be interpreted in the light of original sin, not vice versa.)

In so far as Balasuriya is criticising the pre-Vatican II neo-scholastic theology of original sin, he has a good case to argue. Unfortunately, he never argues it. He correctly describes the doctrine as Western but seems simply to assume that this circumstance automatically invalidates its relevance for other cultures. This plays straight into the hands of his accusers, who allege that he is a relativist. Both he and the CDF seem to be indulging in assertion and counter-assertion without any meeting of minds. In the meantime the substantive problem of interpreting the doctrine in a credible manner goes unattended.

It is evident that much talking and listening need to be done by all sides in the Catholic Church on the topic of original sin. In a Church which appreciated the benefits of legitimate pluralism within catholic unity, this would be no problem. Church history shows that religious truth does not fall from heaven in a finished form specially designed to be handed to the faithful by a divinely sanctioned teaching authority which for long has evidently considered itself dispensed from the need and duty to listen, consult and converse. Religious truth has to be discussed, argued and striven for. The suppression of free discussion can amount to the suppression of truth, especially when it appears that power in the Church has fallen into the hands of one school of thought which seems intent on denying a voice to all but its own votaries.

In view of what is happening in the Catholic Church at the present moment, it would be most unwise to deny the reality of what has been traditionally, if problematically, described as original sin.

Back to homepage