The Concept of Sin
by Josef Pieper
St. Augustine’s Press (www.staugustine.net)
116 pages, price $19.00

No one talks about sin anymore, notes Josef Pieper in his new book, The Concept of Sin, or when they do it’s in a coy and misleading way typical of the entertainment industry. Pieper notes that sin originates from the inner sanctuary of each person. Sin cuts to the core of our personality; therefore it is not something that should be talked about disingenuously. Pieper perceptively observes that it is not out of deep interiority but rather from lack of self-examination, and relationship with God, that contemporary man does not speak of sin. As Pope Pius XII taught “the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin.”

The Concept of Sin is new in the sense that it was recently translated into English. It was first published in 1977 in German. For those not familiar with Pieper he was one of the loyal Thomistic commentators who answered many of the contemporary questions not posed in St. Thomas’ time. Another excellent characteristic of his voluminous work is that each book selected one topic and then, like peeling an onion layer by layer, Pieper helped the reader understand the root issue more thoroughly.

This book is an answer to modern philosopher’s attempts to “drive the concept of ‘sin’ out of philosophical ethics precisely because of its theological character as ‘a matter of faith’!” Written by a Catholic philosopher, The Concept of Sin “considers the context of the term ‘moral failings’ under every possible aspect.”

Pieper uses etymology to great benefit. In reference to the word “sin” he notes that it has two semantic fields: broadly, the whole realm of evil; something is not in order. In the narrower sense of “sin” there is evil caused by human action, whether by commission or omission.

Pieper clarifies that the broader term for “sin” in both Latin and Greek (peccatum and hamartia) originally had a non-ethical meaning, such as, “a missing of the mark” in archery or grammatical errors of syntax. In this non-ethical meaning there is disorder, a false step, like wrong notes played by a musician.

A bad shot in archery or a missed note in music is not sin. What makes human action sinful is man’s willingness to make the false step. Sin is a deliberate missing of the mark, “the acquiescence of one’s will, that is, in the voluntarium.” Sin is a willed action or deed. Errors by the craftsman or the artist are unwilled. A poorly made pot by the potter does not constitute sin. As St. Thomas teaches, “clumsiness is no sin.”

Pieper helps clarify the root meaning of guilt (fault) by noting that the importance of the vast distinction between the misstep of the artist and moral failing comes about because the moral order transcends all these other type of activities. Art or craftsmanship is not ordered to the goal of existence as a whole, never to the goal of life itself. The moral order transcends art or craftsmanship because it does so. Moral faults violate the “goals given with the very existence and nature of man, ends which we have already discovered with our very existence itself, ends established by a higher, more powerful and overarching perfection.”

Pieper follows his master, St. Thomas, by noting that unless we acknowledge our creatureliness sin will have no meaning. “Being human is no more a matter of decision than is the end of human existence itself. Man’s goal is already established for him, “precisely as these beings who have been fashioned in this way.”

Sin is a human doing, a deed willed freely by man. Only this deliberate false step makes man guilty. A bad artist might not be a bad man, but moral failings make a man evil. Because man has freedom, he can knowingly violate the pre-established goal of human life, and in so doing he becomes responsible and answerable for his actions.

Because man is a creature, his standards or norms are inherent in his nature. Human knowledge illumines reality. Human action is good when it adapts to reality. Sin is contrary to reason. Sin contradicts what man knows is true. Pieper says, “reason is not some neutral or passive medium; it is the living power that opens up for us the reality of the world and of existence.” The word conscience comes from ‘con’—with, and ‘scientia’—knowledge. Man’s conscience is his reason applied to what to do now or to what has been done. Moral failure is precisely performing an action one knows is wrong.

The root meaning of sin is “a reality that in some sense affects our relationship with God.” Pieper wants us to understand sin as contrary to order, against nature, and contrary to reason, so that the real meaning of sin as acting against God is not viewed as extrinsic to the human person. Not only is sin a disordered act but also the soul of man becomes disordered. As St. Thomas taught, “we do not offend God except by doing something contrary to our own good” (SCG, III, 122).

This leads Pieper to consider the essence of sin. “The essence of guilt consists in voluntarily turning away from God.” St. Thomas is clear that every sin contains not only a turning away from God but also a turning to a passing good; the two actions are intertwined. It is at this point that the terms “venial” and “mortal” sins come into view.

Pieper makes clear that in the Tradition the two words commonly used were desire and pride. Desire is sin when turned toward a passing good. Pride characterizes sin as turning from God. Again, in each sin both desire and pride are interweaved. Pride is the fundament of all sin. Man’s natural desires have been corrupted by pride.

Learning from theology Pieper notes that the first sin of the angels could only have been pride. This knowledge allows us to learn something about man’s first sin. Pride is the “primary element” of sin; the wellspring of sin, not in a temporal sense, but what sin is fundamentally. Pride is unlimited self-love, demanding limitless freedom, and therefore an attack on God as Creator. Pieper comments that usually this is camouflaged under a confused sense of human freedom. Pieper explains:

According to Thomas Aquinas, turning from God can become itself the goal ‘insofar as it is sought under the image of freedom, sub specie libertatis, according to the word of Jeremiah: ‘From the outset you have smashed the yoke and torn the bonds and said: non serviam – I shall not serve’ (Jr. 2:20).

This disordered self-love becomes an attack on God when man realizes his situation in the world. What is specific about man’s creatureliness is the fact that man is the only creature that can say “I myself.” Once man realizes his unique status in the world, as a person, his alternative is, “either self-realization as surrender to God by recognizing one’s own creatureliness; or ‘absolute’ self-love by trying to realize oneself by denying or ignoring one’s creatureliness.” The decision for unconditional self-love is the original sin.

Pieper comments on contemporary society’s obscuring of the distinction between mortal and venial sin. He notes that this distinction is not only a part of Christian dogmatic tradition but also the entire European intellectual tradition. As far back as Plato the contrast centered on reparable and irreparable sins.

Catholic tradition distinguishes between mortal (incurable) and venial (curable) sins. St. Thomas is extremely clear on this subject. Mortal sin is not sin in the same sense as venial sin. He teaches, “the classification of sins into mortal and venial is not the classification of a genus into species that equally partake of the genus concept . . . Mortal and venial sins are distinguished within the genus ‘sin’ in the same way the perfect form is distinguished from the imperfect.”

Venial sins are curable or reparable. Mortal sins are not. Pieper explains that by “irreparable” he means, “from within its own essence, from its inherent power to stand fast by its guilt, a healing is not possible.” He likens this to a mortal disease, which cannot be healed within the resources of the sick person, because the deadly sickness goes to the principle of life itself. Another comparison is from a political disorder. A reparable political disorder can be cured from within the system itself, like new voting booths in Florida. The second type of disorder results because the system itself is anarchic like the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany. The disease in this example stems from the principle of the Laws themselves, and therefore, cannot be cured within its own resources.

Man’s guilt (sin) creates disorder in his personal relationship with God. Mortal sin ruptures the relationship and we, in a sense, divorce ourselves from God. Venial sins are the everyday sins. They leave the bond of friendship with God intact, which is not to say these sins are trivial.

Pieper ends this marvelous book on the stain of sin. This is one of the most neglected aspects of the concept of sin. When a person sins he harms not only the victim but also himself. The soul of the sinner is warped (stained) in sin. A real transformation occurs in the soul with sin. The sinner gives himself a new identity, the identity of a guilty person. For example, when I steal I make myself a thief.

Along with the personal transformation, sin causes a distancing from God, a movement away from Him. The state of being distant continues if one continues to stand in the same place. To be healed of the stain of sin, the soul must undertake a journey of atonement or satisfaction. Because sin warps the soul and attacks “a personal Someone, neither contrition nor confession—both of which are unilateral acts—can alone suffice for making someone truly free of his guilt.” Not only must the sinner recognize his fault, but also God must respond or the relationship will never be healed.

God’s response is the Gospel. Our Lord, the Divine Physician, proclaimed, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mk. 2:17).

Nick Bagileo is married with two children and is the Director of the Office of Family Life for the Archdiocese of Washington.