Structures of sin, and our [social?] responsibility

[Philip_P]

This is, on the surface, a question about politics, but it’s really a question about theology, hence my post in this category. Just wondering what people’s thoughts are on the concept of structures of sin, and what kind of response this entails. For example, in New York City, the asthma rate among children in Harlem is far higher than other Manhattan neighborhoods. A major probable factor in this is the higher concentration of atmospheric pollutants in the neighborhood, such as bus depots and waste transfer stations. Part of the reason there are so many such facilities here is because the land value was lower, and of course the presence of these facilities keeps the land values lower. The end result is that an economically and socially disadvantaged population (African American and Hispanic children) suffer a disproportionately higher asthma rate (along with, we can assume, other health issues).

So here’s my theology question. The fact that disease exists at all we can call a symptom of original sin. In a perfect world, there would be no sickness. The fact that the greatest burden of this symptom of sin falls upon those least able to bear it (i.e. those least likely to have access to quality health care, be able to purchase air filters for their apartments, etc), seems to be a question of the structure of our society (or, more broadly, our world), and hence, an example of a structure of sin.

Is this a valid analysis? Further, what kind of response do such structural questions demand? If it is a structural issue, it seems that it calls for some sort of collective social response rather than an individual response (e.g. calling on the city to reduce the number of polluting facilities, or provide better access to quality respiratory health care for those affected, or some other solution).

I would be interested to hear thoughts on this example, but more particularly I am interested in responses to this from a faith/theology perspective (in other words, the reasoning behind any proposed solution).

 

[Brad]

I’m not sure what you mean by “structures of sin”. A sin is an identifiable act attributed to an individual that has violated a commandment of God.

It is a common tactic of modern theologians to label organizations or governments as “sinful”. This is not correct. Policies may be incorrect. Specific government leaders may sin. Organziations and policies themselves are not sinful.

As voters and Catholics, I believe we have a responsibility for the greater good of all in the society. Our votes should reflect this responsibility.

 

[theMutant]

Philip,

I don’t know if you saw or had the chance to read through the other thread which addresses some of the questions you are asking.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=18858

In this thread, I point out that there is absolutly no justification that can be supported by Scripture or the teaching of the Church for taking from others in order to provide for the poor. All of the admonitions to provide for the needs of the poor are directed at individuals. There is no example where a rich person failed to give (or even to give sufficiently) where the response was an instruction for others to take from that rich person to provide for those in need.

The Catholic teachings, now known as solidarity, clearly state that as Christians, we have a grave obligation to do all that we can to address the needs of others. Failure to act on behalf of those in need is a serious sin. We need to individually act and to exhort others to do so as well for each of us, individually and collectively, will be judged by God regarding how we met or failed to meet this requirement. (For as you have done to the least of these, so too have you done to me.)

The Catholic teachings, now known as subsidiarity, clearly state that this is primarily the responsibilities of individuals acting alone and in association with others. The primary association with which individual Catholics cooperate to meet this need is the Church. However, society itself, including government, does have a certain responsibility to step in to ensure that individuals and associations are free to act in order to meet the needs of others. Government also has a responsibility to step in where it plays a unique function; such as in passing laws to ensure safe working environments and sufficient wages so that workers are not reduced to abject poverty and virtual slavery. In all statements that I have found of papal teaching where further intervention of government can be accepted, it is clear that this intervention is to be minimal and temporary. Essentially, this further intervention is seen as a means of immediately correcting a situation until “lower agencies” can take over where the government has stepped in.

This is what I was trying to explain in the other thread and I quoted and cited many documents to support my position.

Peace!

 

[Philip_P]

When I talk about “structures,” I wasn’t trying to claim that a specific government, or economic system, or organization is intrisically sinful. Instead, what I’m concerned about is the way in which sin manifests itself in our world, and the way its effects are themselves affected by structural issues such as economies, governments, etc.

In my example, I don’t think it’s a case that the children in Harlem are personally any more sinful than the children a few blocks farther downtown and uphill on the Upper East Side. What I am saying, and please correct me if I’m wrong in this, is that because of original sin, our world has been fundamentally damaged. God does not delight in or cause death and sickness, but the presence of death and sickness are the fruits of sin ("the wages of sin are death). So the fact that these children in Harlem are suffering from asthma is not due to a personal sin on their part, but it is still an example of the effects of sin in the world.

The structure comes in when we try to examine the mechanics of WHY it is these particular children that must bear this particular suffering. Hence my discussion of atmospheric pollutants, and social and economic factors. I am not in any way arguing that, for instance, the Upper East Side resident, fueled by racism, evilly chose to stick polluting facilities in a poor black neighborhood. All the same, the choices of where and how many of these facilities to build were human choices, with effects on human beings, and hence also having moral and theological implications. Hence the term, “structures of sin.”

Regarding the principle of subsidarity raised by mutant, certainly problems should be handled at the lowest possible level of organization. When wrongs take place, or accumulate, as a result of large scale structural issues (i.e. economic, sociological, etc), I guess the direct question is how one determines what that minimum organization involvement is. I’m not sure I follow the argument that “there is absolutly no justification that can be supported by Scripture or the teaching of the Church for taking from others in order to provide for the poor,” but will certainly read what you have posted on the thread you cited.

What also troubles me, is that while the principle of subsidiarity makes perfect sense, very often those most opposed to government involvement oppose it in cases where it is the most qualified to redress the problem, such as in question of the environment. In my example, for instance, clearly efforts to reduce atmospheric pollution are a necessary part of the solution (I’m not going to pretend that I’m qualified to say how atmospheric pollutants should be reduced). This is beyond the purview of any individual or private group, as only the government can mandate environmental regulations. Yet environmental legislation is often among the most fiercely opposed by those who, I would assume, would be most likely to cite the principle of subsidiarity (and note that I’m talking bread and butter environmental issues here like emission controls, not saving snowy owls or anything PETA is likely to get all worked up about).

Anyway, I guess I’m looking to get thoughts from those Catholics who identify closer to the political right.

 

[theMutant]

Philip P:

What also troubles me, is that while the principle of subsidiarity makes perfect sense, very often those most opposed to government involvement oppose it in cases where it is the most qualified to redress the problem, such as in question of the environment. In my example, for instance, clearly efforts to reduce atmospheric pollution are a necessary part of the solution (I’m not going to pretend that I’m qualified to say how atmospheric pollutants should be reduced). This is beyond the purview of any individual or private group, as only the government can mandate environmental regulations. Yet environmental legislation is often among the most fiercely opposed by those who, I would assume, would be most likely to cite the principle of subsidiarity (and note that I’m talking bread and butter environmental issues here like emission controls, not saving snowy owls or anything PETA is likely to get all worked up about).

Anyway, I guess I’m looking to get thoughts from those Catholics who identify closer to the political right.

As one who considers himself to be closer to the political right (although not what is commonly known as mainstream conservativism) I will say that I agree with your assessment of the government’s role in environmental regulations. You are absolutely correct about the inability of individual groups to handle this situation although there could be legitimate debate regarding whether this is best handled at the state or federal level. Of course, I can not speak for others of the political right who might make an appeal to subsidiarity.

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

When I talk about “structures,” I wasn’t trying to claim that a specific government, or economic system, or organization is intrisically sinful. Instead, what I’m concerned about is the way in which sin manifests itself in our world, and the way its effects are themselves affected by structural issues such as economies, governments, etc.

In my example, I don’t think it’s a case that the children in Harlem are personally any more sinful than the children a few blocks farther downtown and uphill on the Upper East Side. What I am saying, and please correct me if I’m wrong in this, is that because of original sin, our world has been fundamentally damaged. God does not delight in or cause death and sickness, but the presence of death and sickness are the fruits of sin ("the wages of sin are death). So the fact that these children in Harlem are suffering from asthma is not due to a personal sin on their part, but it is still an example of the effects of sin in the world.

The structure comes in when we try to examine the mechanics of WHY it is these particular children that must bear this particular suffering. Hence my discussion of atmospheric pollutants, and social and economic factors. I am not in any way arguing that, for instance, the Upper East Side resident, fueled by racism, evilly chose to stick polluting facilities in a poor black neighborhood. All the same, the choices of where and how many of these facilities to build were human choices, with effects on human beings, and hence also having moral and theological implications. Hence the term, “structures of sin.”

Regarding the principle of subsidarity raised by mutant, certainly problems should be handled at the lowest possible level of organization. When wrongs take place, or accumulate, as a result of large scale structural issues (i.e. economic, sociological, etc), I guess the direct question is how one determines what that minimum organization involvement is. I’m not sure I follow the argument that “there is absolutly no justification that can be supported by Scripture or the teaching of the Church for taking from others in order to provide for the poor,” but will certainly read what you have posted on the thread you cited.

What also troubles me, is that while the principle of subsidiarity makes perfect sense, very often those most opposed to government involvement oppose it in cases where it is the most qualified to redress the problem, such as in question of the environment. In my example, for instance, clearly efforts to reduce atmospheric pollution are a necessary part of the solution (I’m not going to pretend that I’m qualified to say how atmospheric pollutants should be reduced). This is beyond the purview of any individual or private group, as only the government can mandate environmental regulations. Yet environmental legislation is often among the most fiercely opposed by those who, I would assume, would be most likely to cite the principle of subsidiarity (and note that I’m talking bread and butter environmental issues here like emission controls, not saving snowy owls or anything PETA is likely to get all worked up about).

Anyway, I guess I’m looking to get thoughts from those Catholics who identify closer to the political right.

I prefer to use the term “sin” without anything before or after (except moral and venial). In your examples, it is possilbe for a human to sin by deciding to purposefully put a factory that has byproducts of pollution in a neighborhood filled with children because he/she doesn’t believe the children have much value. However, it is more likely the result of economics than neglect. Jesus calls us to do good works. A “better” work may be for that person to decide to control the pollution or put the factory in an area that is not filled with kids. Both of these “works” would cost more. It is not a sin to not choose this option but it is possible that Jesus may hold him/her accountable for the decision to not do the good work. However, it may also be beneficial to have the factory in that area because more in the neighborhood may be able to work their and support their families - in which case it is difficult to determine what the best decision is.

In regards to pollution, I believe companies should limit it to the best of their ability and, in cases where they cannot, provide full public disclosure as to the cost/benefits of the pollution. One thing I do know is that we cannot eliminate byproducts of production completely and we all have to come to reasonable compromises between creating jobs and not making people sick.