“Baptism washes away our original sin”, I said during my lecture on pre-baptism seminar in our parish. One raised his hand and asked, “What is the original sin?” I was stunned what to say in response to the question. Really, that event put me into dark cloud to hide my shame in front of the people who were preparing and representing their children to receive the sacrament of baptism. Fresh from philosophy, I tried to get away with the question for I am not sure what to say. Anyway, I managed to simply say, recalling my catechesis in elementary, Original Sin is ‘kasalanang mana’. It is the sin which we inherited from the fore parents, Adam and Eve. It is the sin of disobedience from the command of God not to eat the fruit of the tree of life and death, and pride of becoming like God. Since Adam represents the human race and Eve as the mother of living creatures, we as the their descendants bear the effect of their sin they committed and lost the paradise where immortality and happiness and peace reign, that is why there is suffering and death in consequence to that sin.
I remembered that sad story of mine because of the topic at hand – original sin. In this paper, I would like to get back into that situation where I can now give my answer to the one who had the guts to ask that question.
I personally believed that kasalanang mana as the vernacular of original sin is not appropriate. In our term, kasalanang mana is translated as inherited sin, not original sin. Thus, kasalanang mana is very far from original sin in real sense. I mean the idea of both does not really capture one another’s nature. That’s what I believed.
From this view, I would like to present the church teaching, with biblical foundation on its belief about original sin. In addition to that is Filipino culture’s understanding of original sin and its implications in our belief.
What Does the Church Say?
The Church teaches that “Adam, the first man, by transgressing God’s commandment in paradise, at once lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted and drew upon himself death”, (CCC 376). Adam, being the father of the human race, not historically but mythologically, had lost the holiness and justice not only for himself but for all his descendants.
It is not the personal sin of Adam that we inherit but rather the sinful condition, a condition in which each of us is personally involved. This condition is the state of sinfulness in which we all are born. This is what we inherit. Thus, it is kasalanang mana in that sense.
Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is the death of the soul, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
The Church describes original sin as the state in which we are born as members of the human race; (CFC 383). It is ORIGINAL since it dates back from the origin of our human race. This means it is universal. It is a “dogma of our Christian Faith that we all need to be redeemed”, (CFC 376). It is called SIN not because it is a personal sinful thought, word or action on our part, but because it is a “state contrary to God’s will, (CFC 383). CCC further says that that is why original sin is called SIN only in an analogical sense; it is a sin contracted, not committed – a state, and not an act. (CCC 404) This means that our loving relation with God is deeply affected, in as much as our relation with others, to become our true selves and achieve our destiny.
St. Augustine
says that the deliberate sin of the first man Adam is the cause of original sin. St. Anselm on the other hand says that the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another. The former was the cause, the latter was the effect. In a child, original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam; it is one of its effects. To see the effects are the following:
First is death and suffering. In his letter to the Romans,
St. Paul
writes that “as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin… (RSV Rom. 5, 12). From the standpoint of morality, these are described as natural evils and cannot be called sins. Natural because they would really come unexpectedly whether we like it or not. Second is concupiscence. This is a rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam. This is an occasion and temptation to sin, but not yet sin. Thus, though Baptism effaced original sin, concupiscence remains in the person baptized. The absence of the sanctifying grace for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost for himself and for all his descendants as well. This is also a kind of effect to the original sin. Thus, there is a need for GRACE, a constant turning towards God, to gain back union with God, and that Grace unites us intimately with God.
Kasalanang Mana and Filipino Catholics
Dionisio Miranda of the Society of Divine Word writes that sin in Filipino culture is described as personalist and attitudinal in character, as well as objective as verified in actual relationships. (Filipino Catholics and Christian Morality, DIWA Studies in Philosophy and Theology, vol. XXVIII, no. 1, May 2003, p. 7.)
He describes sin in three experiences which in the same manner captures the Filipino understanding of original sin. First, he said that sin is understood as PAGKUKULANG. It is when our actions fall short of certain ideals. If we cannot fulfill our expectations of ourselves, how much more the expectations of others! Sin, of course, doest not only refer to the fact of shortcomings, failure, or neglect but to the required awareness and free decision not to fulfill the obligated expectations. Second is PAGKAKAMALI. This is when our actions violate the moral norms inherent in pagpapakatao and pakikipagkapwa-tao. As imperfect humans we can contravene rules that we have recognized as necessary and reasonable for reasons peculiar to each one of us. Another description of original sin when we betray ourselves as human beings irrationally and inexplicably is KASIRAAN. This radically corrupts the meaning of pagpapakatao and pakikipagkapwa-tao as shown in the reality of rape, terrorism, torture, genocide, and the like. From all of these, only this one – KASIRAAN – does not deserve the name kapwa or tao. Pagkukulang is understandable. Pagkakamali is forgivable. But Kasiraan is not acceptable at all.
Religious Implications
Sin occurs when we indulgently foil God’s expectations of us to become more and more God’s children. Sin is when we cavalierly violate the norms God has set as signposts to our vocation and communicated clearly through the Church. Sin is when we debase God’s image implanted in our inmost being through baptism. Therefore, sin is the rejection of God’s offers to enter into a loving relationship with God and God’s creation.
In contrast to sin as pagkukulang, pagkakamali and kasiraan, the Grace of God is pagpupuno, pagtutuwid and paglilikhang-muli in God’s Son Jesus, the true and perfect TAO and KAPWA through the Spirit.
Just as Jesus died under the weight of Sin, so Christians must accept the possibility of death in the struggle against sin. Only this creation and humanity be restored to the One who created it from the beginning.
Reflection
From this, I could no longer say kasalanang mana in our vernacular is not original sin. I admit I was wrong in believing as mentioned above. Indeed, it is original sin in our own context and in our own culture. It is an inherited sin from the sinful community where we belong. I think it is from this point where I can say evil must have come from, not just from our own individual sins but also from the “sinful social structures” which PCP II emphasized. Nevertheless, St. Paul gives us the hope for the grace of God available for all in Rom. 5, 15 “…For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Furthermore, even in the hard times in the struggle against the presence of evil in the world, the letter to the Hebrews gives us also the challenge to counter evil through the inspiration of the cross of Jesus which brought forth love and mercy; Hebrews 12,1 says “…let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Fr. Joey Rapadas of the Prelature of Ipil said in his homily that in the old order, woman was taken from the rib of the man. Now, in the new order, man was coming out from the woman (Mary giving birth to Jesus). If Adam and Eve enjoyed in the garden beforehand with all the liberty, Jesus and Mary struggled very hard against the pressing Roman authorities. If Adam and Eve were disobedient to God’s commandment, Jesus and Mary said YES to the will of the Father even up to the cross. If Adam and Eve were sent away from the garden, Jesus and Mary returned to the Father in the fullness of glory through Resurrection and Ascension. I think this is a good comparison between the effects of the sin and the effects of our fidelity to the Father’s love. In the end of the story, it is not ‘man is evil’. But ‘God is merciful and savior’.
