Sin

I know people cringe when they hear the word "sin", especially in a blog. How many would wince as the word strikes their field of vision, trembling as they fear the onset of a lecture regarding gay marriage, the culture of life, Janet Jackson - or conversely, Iraq, globalism and George Bush? (Though rarer, I've seen Christian pastors from the progressive coterie label these sins as surely as the former are held to be on the other end of the spectrum.)

And yet despite the right side's having recently acquired ownership of "moral relativism" lecturing rights, I think most people appreciate that morality is more than a culture-specific tool for creating social order. It is more even than the genetic imperative in the human genome to refine ethical sensibilities in a way that improves survival odds.

It is because of years of agonizing over ethical questions than I can no longer comfortably define myself as liberal or conservative (we in Canada have political parties by these names, which makes voting along those dichotomies theoretically easier.) My instincts are liberal, in both the modern and Lockeian sense. Jesus said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. The separation of church and state is not the separation of two factions of power battling for control, in the executive vs. legislative branch sense. The separation of church and state is the separation of two dominions. The dominion of state is one of providing peace, order, and good government. The dominion of religion is providing the balm for the soul that allows existence to be about more than survival in a world that barely even allows for survival.

But my good sense and even my liberalism have caused me to be conservative on certain issues. Not everything need or should change all at once. There is a virtue to the slow and deliberate care in the changes society brings to itself.

But this does not lead me to the issue of sin. Conservatism and Liberalism, at least as expressed in our era, are policy perspectives more than actual philosophical perspectives. And ethics and sin are not the same, because ethics is a part of developing policy. But sin, for all the truth that some morality may be absolute, is deeply personal. Can we define it? We risk relativism if we answer no. But it is not relativism to try and seek a simple explanation. After all, even in science, the simpler elegant solutions have a knack for often being the correct ones.

In my experience (and according to both Rabbi Hillel and Jesus) sin is simply the result when you fail to do unto others as you would have them do to you, when you fail to love neighbour as yourself, and when you fail to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. (I speak not of atheists and agnostics for this last, as lack of belief is often a simple case of not hearing or feeling God's hand on the doorbell.)

Why are you doing something? Is it for yourself? That's not inherently bad. But it can be if the thing is either harmful to yourself or others, but out of sheer self-interest you do it anyway. I am very well aware of this. There are many times I do something anyway despite clear signals from conscience and awareness of my environment that I am not on the side of others or myself when I do so. That is really the most disturbing thing about sin: the clear unambiguous knowledge that you have put your own interests first. Hell is here on Earth in the moment you realize that. It is also for me the prelude to the Heaven on Earth of confession as you realize that God can stand in the sewers of disease, just like his most exemplary servants, and pull you out of it with the strength of his arm.

My Hell on Earth today regards a letter I sent to the editor yesterday, regarding the Creature of habit cartoon on www.rabble.ca. It is a cartoon that depicts Pope Bendict gliding up to a statue of St. Mary the Virgin, looking both ways to see if anyone sees him, and then giving the icon the Nazi salue, while saying "Heil Mary!"

When I saw this in the paper, I was furious. I rushed to the computer and in seconds, poured off the fastest and most eloquent letter to the editor I ever have. In my letter, I pointed out that this was not satire of the man, Joseph Ratzinger, and his politics. It was a depiction of a bishop, vested with mitre in Easter colours, robed as if for Mass, making a profane gesture at an icon of the holiest saint there is. I suggested the editor of this magazine was siding with the men in white sheets who burn crosses to support such a profaning of the very heart of peoples' faith. I was certainly satisfied with myself when the letters' page editor called me up and congratulated me for something so well written.

Today I am far more ambivalent. The editor of this magazine is somebody who has devoted her life to the bettering of conditions for women and minorities, even if from a radicalized angle I can't always agree with. How much good does my righteous fury do when Jesus says to bear ills, and turn the other cheek, presenting it to be slapped as well? Do not return evil with evil, St. Peter says, but a blessing. All my eloquent letter will accomplish is a dark satisfaction - a "he showed her" harumph from those who agree with me, and another ping-pong echo of righteous fury from those who see a nobility in Rabble's anti-Catholic stance.

I suffer a little for this and the many other things I overthink. Please pray for me, that I might do in love rather than dwell in shame.