SIN AND FUNDAMENTAL OPTION

                                                SIN AND FUNDAMENTAL OPTION

What is Sin? 

            Sin in its actuality is a human act in violation of the law of God. It may consist of a thought, word, action or omission. Since it is a human act, sin always supposes knowledge and free will in the subject and, as a result some degree of malice. Hence, the distinction into sins of ignorance, weakness, and malice is not to be understood to mean that in the first two cases there is a complete lack of knowledge in the act or of all possibility of resisting temptation, for there would be no sin at all. The transgressed divine law may be natural or positive. Human laws may oblige in conscience do that a violation of them would constitute a sin, but they have this binding force only insofar as, based on divine law, they command obedience to authorities in legitimate matter.[1]

Types of Sin

            Mortal sin: three elements or conditions are required for a mortal sin; serious matter, sufficient awareness and full consent of the will. And venial sin: is one which does not produce these serious effects, although it weaken the action of grace in man and makes him deserving of temporal punishment.[2]

Causes of Sin

            Internal Causes: An inordinate love of self is the principal cause of every sin and constitutes its very soul; this love is at the same time ignorance, concupiscence, and malice.

            External or Remote Causes: the devil, scandal, cooperation; or remote causes, such as habits, loss of grace. The causality of the capital sins (pride, avarice, lust, gluttony, anger, envy, sloth). This is the fact that they are more likely to stimulate the appetites and thus, more easily dispose and induce the will to committing other sins.[3] However, having discussed what sin is and its causes, we shall relate this understanding vis-à-vis moral theory namely fundamental option. This is to know whether sin actually turn us away totally from God and his love.

            Fundamental option is a moral theory that states that, each person makes a deep and basic choice for or against God. In another words, the theory states thus, each person gradually develop in a basic orientation of his or her life, either for or against God. This fundamental direction is said to be for God if one’s life is fundamentally devoted to the love and service of others, and against God if one’s life is essentially devoted to self-love and self-service.[4] As such, the idea of a fundamental option is not new. it was reflected in St. Augustine’s teaching that human race is ultimately composed of two cities: the city of God, whose members love God even to the contempt of self, and the city of man, whose members love themselves even to the contempt of God.[5] However, what is new is the use of this idea to explain mortal sin.  Some theologians consented that, the fundamental devotion to God and detachment from him is not caused by a singular act. The relational bond of the Christian’s soul to God is not constituted by an ordinary act of free choice: a person in friendship with God is disposed toward him not simply by a particular act but in his or her whole being. This comprehensive orientation is a fundamental option, which is somehow different from and much deeper than any ordinary choice.[6] Hence, the proponents of this view conclude that no ordinary choice of itself can reverse one’s fundamental option. For where sufficient reflection and full consent are lacking, a sin is imperfect even as a choice.[7] In other cases, although the sin are perfect as a choice, the bad will which it involves might not be sufficient to reverse the whole thrust of one’s being.[8]

            Fundamental-option is further understood in two forms: first, as a basic commitment. This commitment is thought of either as an extraordinary choice or an aspect of many choices. From this proponents conclude that, everyone must make a most fundamental commitment, for or against God. The basic commitment is suppose to establish a predominant thrust or momentum, such that occasional acts incompatible with it usually cannot radically alter or reverse it.[9] The second form regards fundamental option as something more mysterious than a basic commitment: a total self-disposal, attributed not to free choice but to another freedom, often called “fundamental freedom” or “basic freedom.”[10] Some do realise that, freedom of choice and self-determination are linked together. But, supposing them non-identical, they think one can freely choose in a way inconsistent with one’s fundamental option without altering that option.[11]

Critique

           

            Fundamental-option theories in general are appealing for three other important reasons. First, they reject a legalistic emphasis on correct performance and focus instead on the person general orientation. Second, they focus attention on Christian life considered as a unified and developing whole, rather than on particular choices considered in isolation. Third, they seem to explain how people act out of character at times without permanently changing their character.

---

[1] Francesco Cardinal Robert, Dictionary of Moral Theology, edited by Monsignor Pietro Palazzini (U. S. A; Mary Land: The Newman Press, 1962), p. 1134

[2] Francesco Cardinal Robert, Dictionary of Moral Theology, edited by Monsignor Pietro Palazzini

[3] Francesco Cardinal Robert, Dictionary of Moral Theology, edited by Monsignor Pietro Palazzini, p. 1135

[4] Fr. John Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary in CatholicCulture.org, 2015 

[5] St. Augustine, City of God, edited by Philip Schaff (New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890), p. 13-20

[6] Eugene J. Copper, “The Fundamental Option” in Irish Theologian Quarterly, Vol. 39 (1972), pp. 383-392

[7] Theodore Hall, “That Mysterious Fundamental Option” in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol. 78 (January, 1978), pp. 12-20 and also (February, 1978), pp. 29-50

[8] Felix Podimattam, “What is Mortal Sin” in Journal of Clergy, Vol. 36 (February, 1972), pp. 57-67

[9] Bernard Haring, The Law of Christ: Moral Theology for Priest and Laity, Vol. 1, translated by Edwin G. Kaiser (Westminster: Newman Press, 1961), pp. 352-364

[10] Pierre Fransen, “Toward a Psychology of Divine Grace” in Lumen Vitae, Vol.12 (1957), p. 208

[11] John W. Glaser, “Transition between Grace and Sin: Fresh Perspectives” in Theological Studies, Vol. 29 (1968), pp. 263-265