Tragedy and the Wages of Sin

[Craig_W]

Tragedy and the Wages of Sin

It is so offensive nowadays to call sin what it is: sin. Needless to say, generations are growing up and raising new generations who don’t know what sin is, or that the wage of sin is death.

On any given day we can hear accounts on television news, read in newspapers, or even hear family or friends describe an event as tragic, when really it is not. Tragedy is a catastrophe that interrupts a normal or expected course of events. What’s labeled today as tragedy is most often nothing more or less than the wages of sin.

How do you feel that we, as Christians, can counteract this ignorance? Surely, our first obligation is to teach our family, but how can/should we act outside the family setting? Remember, one can easily lose their job, or maybe even be hauled into civil court for making a stand.

Craig

 

[MarkThompson]

Tragedy and the Wages of Sin

It is so offensive nowadays to call sin what it is: sin. Needless to say, generations are growing up and raising new generations who don’t know what sin is, or that the wage of sin is death.

On any given day we can hear accounts on television news, read in newspapers, or even hear family or friends describe an event as tragic, when really it is not. Tragedy is a catastrophe that interrupts a normal or expected course of events. What’s labeled today as tragedy is most often nothing more or less than the wages of sin.

How do you feel that we, as Christians, can counteract this ignorance? Surely, our first obligation is to teach our family, but how can/should we act outside the family setting? Remember, one can easily lose their job, or maybe even be hauled into civil court for making a stand.

Craig

It’s unclear to me what you’re implying. Are you maintaining that things like Hurricane Katrina or the Haiti earthquake ought to be regarded as the result of our sins, and not as random natural tragedies? Or are you simply saying that in the case of, say, a murder, the victim’s family ought to make sure they regard it as a sin and not apply the label “tragedy” to it?

In either case, I don’t think I quite follow you. If your contention is that the ills of this world are payback for the sins of mankind, there is no very good basis for believing that – certainly not about any particular catastrophe. If your contention is that “sin” and “tragedy” are mutually exclusive labels, I can only say that you’re off base and that even a cursory review of literature would show that sin can be extremely tragic.

 

[Milesius]

Sin has harmed creation and that is why there are natural disasters.

 

[MarkThompson]

Sin has harmed creation and that is why there are natural disasters.

That’s an interesting theory, but (unless we want to adopt some young-Earth sort of Biblical literalist theory) we know of many natural disasters – asteroid impacts, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions caused by plate tectonics, etc. – which substantially predate the appearance of humankind on the Earth.

 

[reggieM]

That’s an interesting theory, but (unless we want to adopt some young-Earth sort of Biblical literalist theory) we know of many natural disasters – asteroid impacts, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions caused by plate tectonics, etc. – which substantially predate the appearance of humankind on the Earth.

What do you think the source and reason for of evil in the world is?

 

[MarkThompson]

What do you think the source and reason for of evil in the world is?

Who ever said volcanos and asteroids were were evil? Two tectonic plates grinding against each other does not have moral significance. With respect to suffering and death, God did not make death and it was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world.

EDIT: and to be clearer, it is true that suffering and death are the result of man’s fall from grace. But there’s no going back on that, so it’s pointless to harp on suffering’s being the “wage” of Adam’s sin. But the Church does not teach that the worldly suffering of an individual (or, e.g., an island) is retribution for present sin. Many very holy saints have suffered not only outrageous torments and martyrdoms, but also horrifying diseases, disabilities, and so on. Many evil men have lived lives of luxury and died content with themselves. So it is simply incorrect (and morally dangerous, in that it implies judging one’s soul) to presuppose that if a person (or nation, race, etc.) experiences some awful suffering that it is because of their sin.

Sometimes suffering is just about as random as a tragedy can get: I don’t know why, but I often think of St. Fina (also known as St. Serafina) in this regard, and her story is worth reading. Was her suffering the wage of sin? The only meaningful sense in which it is so is that all suffering can ultimately be traced back to Adam’s sin. But this is a theological point fairly irrelevant to people’s daily lives, so it makes no sense to criticize ordinary people for labeling suffering as “tragic” and not “the result of Adam’s fall.” It would be a pretty hardhearted person who heard about the death of someone’s child from a sudden illness and said, “Well, that’s what we get for Adam’s sin, dontcha know.”

 

[Craig_W]

It’s unclear to me what you’re implying. Are you maintaining that things like Hurricane Katrina or the Haiti earthquake ought to be regarded as the result of our sins, and not as random natural tragedies?

To be absolutely clear, an earthquake or a hurricane are clearly tragedies. A flock of birds flying into the intake of a jet airliner, causing it to crash and kill all passengers aboard is a tragedy.

If I get drunk, drive, run over and kill an innocent pedestrian, that’s a sin (on my part for driving while intoxicated). Indeed, it is tragic for the pedestrian and his/her family, but the root of the pain is sin, not some random happenstance/tragedy. Another example: the Father or Mother who don’t take seriously their marriage vows, cheat on each other, fail to teach their children the difference between right and wrong; children grow up and act just like their parents: that’s sin, not tragedy.

 

[MarkThompson]

To be absolutely clear, an earthquake or a hurricane are clearly tragedies. A flock of birds flying into the intake of a jet airliner, causing it to crash and kill all passengers aboard is a tragedy.

If I get drunk, drive, run over and kill an innocent pedestrian, that’s a sin (on my part for driving while intoxicated). Indeed, it is tragic for the pedestrian and his/her family, but the root of the pain is sin, not some random happenstance/tragedy. Another example: the Father or Mother who don’t take seriously their marriage vows, cheat on each other, fail to teach their children the difference between right and wrong; children grow up and act just like their parents: that’s sin, not tragedy.

Ah, I’m glad to know that’s what you were getting at. In that case, though, it seems wrong to regard the unfortunate events you’re describing as “wages of sin.” The way that phrase is normally understood (Romans 6:23) the wage of sin (death, here to be understood as damnation, not worldly death) is what one “earns” through his sin (compare “you reap what you sow”). A person who is merely the victim of a sin is not experiencing the wage of sin, he’s experiencing the sin itself.

 

[nohornets33]

That’s an interesting theory, but (unless we want to adopt some young-Earth sort of Biblical literalist theory) we know of many natural disasters – asteroid impacts, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions caused by plate tectonics, etc. – which substantially predate the appearance of humankind on the Earth.

If a volcano erupts on a deserted island, is it a tragedy? The main element of what we consider a tragedy is the effection of suffering among humans.

Regardless, I would like to turn my attention to the original question. About 33% of the world’s population is Christian, making it the most widely represented religion in the world. We should, in theory, have a greater impact on the media and law. However, many Christians have grown lax in their defense of morality. Christians have to be more vocal about what they believe is right and unite in order to promote it.

 

[Craig_W]

Mark

Ah, I’m glad to know that’s what you were getting at. In that case, though, it seems wrong to regard the unfortunate events you’re describing as “wages of sin.” The way that phrase is normally understood (Romans 6:23) the wage of sin (death, here to be understood as damnation, not worldly death) is what one “earns” through his sin (compare “you reap what you sow”). A person who is merely the victim of a sin is not experiencing the wage of sin, he’s experiencing the sin itself.

I should have said “a consequence of sin” rather than the “wage of sin” in order to eliminate that confusion, since wage of sin references a much more specific consequence. My point was simply this: Sin is often at the root of much suffering whether we are personally the ones who committed the sin or not. In Exodus 34, we learn that the sins of the fathers were visited upon multiple generations after the sins were committed. I assume this was because the sons followed in the same sinful ways they learned from their fathers.

 

[Craig_W]

nohornets33

Regardless, I would like to turn my attention to the original question. About 33% of the world’s population is Christian, making it the most widely represented religion in the world. We should, in theory, have a greater impact on the media and law. However, many Christians have grown lax in their defense of morality. Christians have to be more vocal about what they believe is right and unite in order to promote it.

That’s the question/answer I am looking for. What can I do to get involved in a united way that promotes the Christian morality taught by the Church?

 

[reggieM]

Mark - thanks for your comments.

Who ever said volcanos and asteroids were were evil? Two tectonic plates grinding against each other does not have moral significance.

From your perspective - true. But God is the judge of what has moral significance or not, right? Nature is responsive to the justice required of this temporal sphere. We don’t say that a volcano has comitted a sin. But we can say that a volcano can cause suffering and evil. These consequences are the result of sin. As you rightly say, Satan’s sin caused that disharmony and evil to enter the world. We don’t know all of those consequences, but we know that evil comes from sin.

With respect to suffering and death, God did not make death and it was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world.

True. Since God did not make death and evil, then the evil we see is the result of sin.
Humanity is scourged in consequence of sin. Reparation for sin is the “taking on” of suffering to willingly repair those consequences. Thus, Jesus dying on the Cross.

and to be clearer, it is true that suffering and death are the result of man’s fall from grace. But there’s no going back on that, so it’s pointless to harp on suffering’s being the “wage” of Adam’s sin.

I follow and agree with your first statement. But evil is not limited to the consequences of Adam’s act. All subsequent acts of evil have their sources in individual sins.

But the Church does not teach that the worldly suffering of an individual (or, e.g., an island) is retribution for present sin.

True, but that’s really not the point. The Church does teach that all suffering is the consequence of sin. It’s not mindless or random. It all has a purpose. It is the recompense for sin. It falls on the good and evil alike. On the good, because they can be purified even more and offer charity for sinners who won’t make up for their sins. On the evil, so they can be turned away by punishment.

Many very holy saints have suffered not only outrageous torments and martyrdoms, but also horrifying diseases, disabilities, and so on. Many evil men have lived lives of luxury and died content with themselves. So it is simply incorrect (and morally dangerous, in that it implies judging one’s soul) to presuppose that if a person (or nation, race, etc.) experiences some awful suffering that it is because of **their **sin.

Note the highlighted word and how it changes the meaning of this …

“if a person experiences some awful suffering, it is because of sin”.

The only meaningful sense in which it is so is that all suffering can ultimately be traced back to Adam’s sin.

And through the continual sins of mankind through the ages. We all suffer from Adam’s sin, and we all suffer from our neighbors sins. We are all blessed from the good actions of humanity also. But you’re right – it’s not a one-for-one, each-to-each response. It’s a one-to-many, each-to-all. Each sin increases suffering for all. Each good act increases blessing for all. That’s why the saints suffered so much. They willingly took on more suffering, and were also given suffering by God to help make up for those who wouldn’t do it.

But this is a theological point fairly irrelevant to people’s daily lives,

Ok, I totally disagree. Every bit of suffering we endure can and should be offered to God, for the very reason that it has meaning for the redemption of the world. We are in union with Christ – in his Cross. Some suffering falls on us, others we take on willingly. It’s not only for our own sins that we do that – but for the sins of others.

so it makes no sense to criticize ordinary people for labeling suffering as “tragic” and not “the result of Adam’s fall.” It would be a pretty hardhearted person who heard about the death of someone’s child from a sudden illness and said, “Well, that’s what we get for Adam’s sin, dontcha know.”

On this I fully agree and I’m only bringing this up as Catholic-to-Catholic with you on the theological points you raised.

I hope I would not be so cold-hearted to say such as thing as you mention here. Good people often encounter suffering and this has little to do with their own personal sins (although we all have something to expiate).

But more on-topic …

A banker who defrauds people causes a tragedy of loss for many, but I agree with the OP that this is not a random, mindless event, but rather the wages of sin.

I think the same is true of many violent acts which are the wages of immorality spread in culture (which supposedly “doesn’t hurt anyone”).

I think a fascinating case is Philip Markoff, the Craigslist killer, who committed suicide.

The news media complains that there was “no justice” done now. In the atheistic worldveiw though, he did the only logical thing. What good would punishment do for him?

That’s the frightening and horrible consequence of our somewhat-Godless culture today.