Miscellaneous thoughts

I went on a 10 mile walk the other day with a friend (wearing bandannas as masks! staying apart on the sidewalk and street!). We just kept walking and talking, and even when we stopped in front of our house, we talked another half an hour (about 3 hours altogether - a pretty good pace).  My husband had to cut us off.

Among the many topics we covered was original sin. My friend is reading Augustine's Confessions for the first time, and she said she had read or heard somewhere that the idea of original sin originated with St. Augustine, so she started reading with a combative attitude because she admitted to having theological problems with the idea that God created people predestined to sin.  While the idea of free will takes away some of that difficulty, if I understood her explanation correctly, the problem she has is with the understanding sin as something evil, so if people have original sin, they have this evil element.  I tried to explain how I understood original sin - and I'm not sure my argument is theologically sound or that it really removed the obstacle she had - but here goes. Original sin isn't actual sin, but that capacity to choose to sin, which is related to what I understand Augustine means by concupiscence. Concupiscence is usually related to lust or sexual appetite, but in a way I think you could expand the meaning to apply to any desire to possess for selfish reasons - so that concupiscence is selfishness. Our spiritual journey is from the tendency toward selfishness/self-centeredness of infancy to the capacity for selflessness/gift of self mature love that is exemplified by Christ. It's a constant up and down trek.  Just when we think we are capable of real selflessness, we revert back to the "what about me!" attitudes of youth. Or at least I do - I still have a long way to go toward selflessness.  Original sin is that capacity of human nature to put self first - an evolutionary/biological tendency? Or a spiritual problem? At a certain level spiritual and biological explanations of human nature should overlap.  If the way that we are in the image of God is that we have the capacity for love that overflows (as well as for creativity, for beauty, for magnanimity, for wisdom) rather than for lust that seeks to possess - as a sexual possession and as greed or power.  My friend also objects - as I often to myself - to blaming sexual longing for most sins, or for being the root of the most egregious sins, but there is a power to seeing sexual desire as a metaphor both for self-transcendence (as in the idea of a spiritual ecstasy) as well as for selfishness.  Certainly many of the best dramas circle around the conflict between love and lust and possession and power. (Another topic of conversation: If men have exerted power through dominance (symbolized by sexual possession), then women have let their desire for power be expressed through manipulation.)

So to circle back - being born with "original sin" doesn't mean being born with actual sin, but with freedom to choose selfishness over selflessness, pride over generosity, vanity over humility, etc.  To become like God is to let love and purity of intention guide our decisions.  The difficulty of doing this the source of many a crisis of faith.  And yet relying on a purely materialistic/biological explanation of human nature doesn't explain why we admire those people who exemplify altruism and self-sacrifice or why we take pleasure in doing something good for others.

I would think there is a lot of potential for sociological and theological research during this Covid quarantine (and environmental/economic research). My own reaction is a combination of optimism and pessimism - a mix between enjoying the simpler structure of life coupled with a desire to help serve the greater good and assist my neighbor. and being bothered by the closures, especially of things that don't seem to contribute much to the spread of the disease such as outdoor spaces, and fearing that the disease is worse than is being reported - or that the next pandemic is right around the corner and will be something more like a flesh eating bacteria that spreads more rapidly and causes a more painful, certain death.  More people seem to be turning to altruism and to prayer, to compassion and spiritual enrichment, to conversations with God instead of with the world; it seems like a lot of people are tuning into church online, but will there be a movement away from church/sacramental life when the restrictions are lifted? Will the strengthening of the domestic church result in a strengthening of the institutional church or a weakening?  I need to remind myself not to indulge in conjectures that lead to  pessimism, and instead focus on the positive outcomes - that homes are becoming more faith centered and the reduction in consumerism and environmental impacts are positives that hopefully have longlasting influence.