Victims of sin

Editorial Trotta

José M. Castillo
STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES COLLECTION
Religion Series

© Editorial Trotta, S.A., 2004

Ferraz, 55. 28008 Madrid
91 543 03 61
Fax: 91 543 14 88
[email protected]
http://www.trotta.es

© José M. Castillo, 204

84-8164-688-1
Legal Deposit: M-4.271-2004

Printing
Marfa Printing, S.L.
 THE SIN OR THE SUFFERING?

The problem

What is central to the mission of Jesus Christ and his Church? Is it the struggle
against pleading for the liberation from suffering? This question should not
understood as an exclusive dilemma, in which the choice of each one of
the extremes would bring with them the exclusion of the other. That is to say, the question does not
It suggests in the sense that if we think that Jesus Christ came only to redeem us.
from sin, that is why we are excluding the fight against suffering.
Oh, on the contrary, the one who thinks that Jesus came to fight against suffering,
That's why we have to do without the topic of sin. If we want to be faithful to
the set of teachings of the New Testament cannot even be considered
similar alternative.

Moreover, it seems to me that one of the most dangerous evils that have
what has happened to the Church has been precisely to fall, not a few times, into the trap
what is, in fact, to lean towards one of the extremes of the dilemma that I just
to point out. Above all, if we think that, unfortunately, with too much
frequency, the ecclesiastical balance has tilted in favor of the struggle against the
sin, not considering the suffering that has been caused by it. And
forgetting that Jesus risked his life precisely to alleviate the suffering of the
the most unfortunate people in this world. Which has caused so many times the
the opposite reaction of those who have tried to turn Jesus of Nazareth into
a political revolutionary, and they have wanted to make the Church an organization
of a social nature, to fight against injustices and misfortunes, but
forgetting that all aggression against human beings is, for that reason
same, a sin that offends the Father of all men and of all the
women.

Experience teaches us that, throughout its long history, temptation

too many times the "men of the Church" have fallen into is the
temptation to take sin as the central theme and problem of their mission in
this world. As we also know that, many times, they have done that.
without measuring the consequences of pain, humiliation, and death that such a mission (bad
understood) has caused. Or even thinking that it was necessary to cause pain,
humiliation and death, precisely to put an end to sin and sinners.
Which is understandable. Because, after all, religion is in this
world to watch over the things of God. And since sin, by definition, is the
What offends God the most, it is not surprising that religion has taken an interest,
above all, for defending God's honor and for fighting against those who harm
that honor. Therefore, it is understood that a large part of the literature of the Ancient
The testament clearly points in the direction that I just indicated.

On the other hand, there are many Christians who have the idea that God
what was revealed to us in Jesus is nothing but a continuation of the God of the Old
Testament and, therefore, our attitude towards the God of Jesus has to be
exactly the same as the attitude of any Israelite before Yahweh. That is to say,
the attitude of one who puts the honor and rights of God above honor and the
rights of any human being.

To all this, it must be added that, as is well known, catechesis

The Church has always said that Jesus Christ came to this world to
redeem us from sin and thus grant us salvation. So, what does it come to?
Now the question is whether he came to save us from sin or from suffering? Doesn't he
Has it always been said that Christ had to suffer to redeem us from sin? And not
the Christian people are constantly preached that they must suffer to
achieve salvation? Therefore, what is the point of asking now if Jesus
did he come to save us from sin or from suffering?

I perfectly understand that many Christian faithful ask themselves these

questions and other similar ones. And I think it is not only inevitable, but also
It is necessary to ask oneself these things. For a very simple reason. I have already said,
in the second and third chapters of this book, which, while the center of the
Juan Bautista's concerns were the fight against sin, the center of the
Jesus' concerns were the liberation from human suffering. That is why,
John the Baptist harshly warned sinners, while Jesus did
he made friends with them. And for that reason, Juan Bautista ended up puzzled,
asking if Jesus was the one who was to come or if we should expect another (Mt
11, 4). To which Jesus responded, citing as proof of his identity the
medicine that he contributed to the suffering of blind people, lepers, deaf people, people without
life and the poor in general (Mt 11:5). Jesus applied the prophecies to himself
that spoke of the good news for the poor and the liberation of slaves and
captives (Luke 4:18-21). It is quite clear, therefore, that the project of
John the Baptist did not coincide with that of Jesus. Rather, it can be said that
They were two different projects. Juan's project was to remedy what offends.
to God, even if that meant threatening and even insulting people,
calling them "brood of vipers". Jesus' project was to remedy what it does.
suffer the man.

Now, this is exactly where the problem arises in its entirety.

Honduras. Because, deep down, what it is about is the relationship that exists
between what offends God and what causes suffering to man. And, therefore, it is about
to become aware and be very clear about whether the salvation that Jesus Christ brings to
world, precisely because it is salvation from what we say offends
God, it must be, before anything else, the liberation of what it does
to make man suffer. So that, if we do not fight against human suffering,
In reality, what we do not fight against is sin. Consequently,
Could it be asserted that we fight against sin to the extent, and only to the
measure, in which we orient our life and commit ourselves (with all its
consequences) for alleviating the suffering of this world?

By presenting things this way, we address a difficulty.

that we have met more than once. I refer to the following: it is
Isn't it true that conversion (conversion of the 'sin') is the dramatic alternative?
which runs through the history of Israel and then moves on to the New Testament as
one of the keys to understanding the salvation that God grants us in
Jesus Christ. But it is equally true that, if sin is sin, if evil
Human violence is evil, suffering is also evil. In this way
we cannot talk about evil if we do not take suffering into account. Suffering
human is the evil that any normal person feels most immediately and
the one that everyone fears the most. The vast majority of humanity fears him
more to suffering than to sin. On the other hand, we must not forget that the great
The biblical account of salvation inevitably collides with the terrible problem of
evil that falls upon the innocent. From the vehement questions of the book of
Job, innocent suffering has always been a scandal. And now, after the
atrocities that we have known in the last century, in light of the weight
unbearable suffering that they have endured and continue to endure
forgotten and oppressed of history, the defeated and the victims, theology does not
can remain silent before what J.B. Metz has called 'the history of suffering'1.

That is why the big question that theology must ask today is the
the center of his reflection and his message must start from what John did and said
Bautista, the sin of those who are considered a 'race of vipers',
or what Jesus did and said, the suffering of the sick and excluded, of
all those despised by the powers of this world. While the Church and its
theology do not clarify about this capital matter, the Church and theology will walk
like losses, without giving an answer to what most anguishes people and without
to know for certain what their essential task in this life consists of.

Sin and power

Having posed the problem as I have just indicated, it is urgent to address the matter.
from the most clear, from the most obvious that any person perceives that
it makes you think about this issue. Now, the clearest thing that can be said
On this topic, the problem of sin is managed from power.
while the problem of suffering is managed from solidarity.
so, what matters here is to specify how and in what sense there is a relationship
deep between sin and power. Just as there is a relationship
deep connection between suffering and solidarity, what it really means and demands the
inseparable connection that exists between suffering and weakness. It is what now
I intend to explain.

Starting with the relationship between sin and power, the first thing to consider is
the account is that the response or reaction towards the one who commits 'the evil' (
religious language, 'sin' can be punishment or forgiveness. In the first
case, we say that justice is exercised over the wicked (the sinner) while
that, in the second case, we say that mercy is practiced. For that reason, the
Religious people often represent God either as a judge who rewards
to the good and punishes the bad; or as a good father who forgives and...
have compassion for the lost child. Now, what is important here is to have
Both punishment and forgiveness are actions that can only be
execute the one who has power, whether to punish or to forgive.
I insist: it is not only the one who has the power to punish that punishes, but also only
1
B. Sesboüé, Jesus Christ the Only Mediator, I, Trinitarian Secretariat, Salamanca, 1993, p. 34.
forgive the one who has the power to forgive, since to forgive is to free the
who feels guilty about the danger that threatens them or the painful feeling
that torments her. Hence, when Jesus tells the paralytic that his
sins are forgiven (Mark 2:5 parallel), the immediate reaction of the
The scribes think that Jesus was blaspheming (Mark 2:7a. Par). Why in
your logic, 'who has the power to forgive sins but God alone?' (Mk
By thinking this way, the lawyers were affirming the relationship between
sin and power, precisely when what is at stake is forgiveness and the
mercy. This is something that Jesus confirms by saying that he has "power" (exousía)
to forgive sins (Mk 2:10 par). Moreover, the people who witnessed the
the healing of the paralytic was amazed and glorified God upon seeing the
"authority" (exousía) that God had granted to men (Mt 9:8). With
reason has been said when commenting on the great parable of forgiveness, specifically in
Mt 18:28-31, that it is necessary to be aware that the power to forgive
it is like a power "of life or death"2And with the same reason the teaching
solemn of the Church, in the first canon of session XXIII of the council of
Trento, by affirming the "power" (potestatem) of the priests, states that such
authority is for consecrating the Eucharist and for forgiving or retaining the sins
sins3.

This relationship between sin and power is one of the clearest teachings.
that were strongly marked in the myth of Adam's sin. As it is
As is known, the biblical account tells that the serpent tempted the woman.
telling her to eat from the forbidden tree. Because, if she and Adam ate, it is
to say, they sinned, precisely by sinning they would be like God, "versed in good
and evil" (Gen 3:5). Therefore, what belongs to God is the ability to know,
to distinguish and define where good is and where evil is, what is good and what is
what is bad. Which, ultimately, means that what belongs to God and the
What defines God is the knowledge and understanding of the totality.4What,
According to the accurate formulation of G. Pidoux, it suggests that the tree of
paradise is what gives strength, total power, a distinctive mark of the
divinity5In other words, sin thus becomes related
with 'magical powers' and, ultimately, with 'divine powers'6.

It is clear, therefore, that if God's own is total power, that power

It manifests, first of all, in the ability to know and determine what is good.
and the evil. That is why the first sin, and the exemplary model of all sin,
relate the sinful act to power. Or more accurately, to desire.
to be able. 'To be like God' is 'to have the same power that God has'. From
this point of view, the key to understanding sin lies in overcoming the
moralizing vision of it, in order to understand its deep structure.
The nature and being of sin is not in "turning away from God and turning to ...

2
The Original Forgiveness. From the Abyss of Evil to the Power of Forgiving
Geneva, 1994, p. 427.
3
- DS 1771.
4
As has been very well said, "it is to be understood as a whole" (C. Westermann, Genesis, in
Biblical Commentary Old Testament, I/1, Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen, 1974, p. 328.
5
-Ibid., p. 332.
6
- J. Scharbert, Genesis 1-11, in The New Echter Bible, Echter, Würzburg, 1983, p. 56.
the creatures" (aversion to God and conversion to creature)7The nature of
Sin is not "aversion" to God, but rather such a degree of "adhesion" to the divine, to the
absolute, to the omnipotent, that all of that constitutes the pretense (by
(unconscious assumption) that mortal man comes to want "to be like
God.

And the thing is, if you think about it carefully, one quickly realizes
it tells that the greatest and most desirable power that we can have
mortals is the ability, not only to distinguish between good and evil, but also
all the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong, it
what is good and what is bad, what is permitted and what is prohibited.
And, along with that, the ability to clean the stain and settle the guilt or, on the
on the contrary, assert guilt and punish for the offense. That is why, without a doubt,
We all like power so much. And for that very reason, we all aspire to it so much.
power. Because the ability to say with authority 'this is good and this is
it's bad," "this is what can be done and this is what cannot be done"
Along with the power to punish or forgive, such capacity is the privilege.
of the gods and of all those who go through life with the pretense (unconscious,
of course) to make and unmake as if they were gods. Of course, it is
It is common for there to be people in religions who dedicate themselves to this task. But
this can also (and is often) done from politics, from management
economic and administrative or from any commanding position by
insignificant as it may be.

Here it is key to keep in mind that we are talking about total power, the
power of God. I say this because, as is logical, in this world it has
that there should be "powers" responsible for organizing the government of the
towns, the rights and duties of citizens. The 'powers' that dictate
laws and administer justice. But those 'powers', no matter how tyrannical they are,
They can never reach the level of total power that is being discussed here. Because
it is the power that, as experienced and lived by men (although
they say they are atheists), they touch the conscience, in the deepest intimacy
of the human being, where each one sees themselves as a good
a person or, on the contrary, as a lost one and an undesirable. There is no power
greater than the power to subdue consciences, which is the power that
produces and increases self-esteem or, on the contrary, self-contempt.
It is, therefore, the power that balances and builds the person or that, in a sense
opposite, destabilizes and destroys it. And also the power that divides and separates.
men into 'good' and 'bad'. The power, moreover, that saves or condemns.
The power that gives hope or sinks into despair. The power that unites.
to the people and to the towns or, on the contrary, it divides them, separates them and
faces. The power that generates love and hatred, peace and war. And all this
it is so because power is all the more decisive (for good and for evil) as
the reason on which it is based is all the more noble, more absolute, more total.

For this, one understands not only the relationship between sin and power, but
It is also understood that the matter of sin is managed from the
7
Cf. O. Mochti, The Nature of Sin, in Studies on the History of Catholic
Moral Theology, Vol. 25, Pustet, Regensburg, 1981, pp. 322-323.
power. A power that seduces, that hooks, that fascinates. Because it is
simply amazing to be able to tell another with unquestionable authority:
"you are cursed", "you are lost", "you are doomed". So amazing
how to tell him with that same authority: "you are forgiven", "you are
saved", "you are honorable and worthy, you are a good person, you are a person
"exemplar". There is no doubt that whoever has that power decides (for that very reason)
about the happiness and the meaning of life of others; or on the contrary, decide
about the misfortune and the meaninglessness of others' lives. This is strong. So
strong as the power of religion over consciences.

But the relationship between sin and powers is deeper. It has been said, with
all reason, that lability or, in other words, the sinful condition of
Man has his reason for being in the own and constitutive limitation of being.
human. Precisely because man is weak, that is why he always has his
moments, their points of fragility. And it is there, at the 'point of least
resistance, through which evil can enter into man8Said more
clearly, because in man there is weakness and not everything in him is power, for
that is possible sin. Precisely because sin has a correlation
negative with power. If there were no power, there would be no sin. But, from the
in the same way, if weakness did not exist, sin would not be possible either. The
sin depends on weakness, of course. But sin exists because
Those of us with religious beliefs think that there is a final power and
supreme being whom humans feel as loving and favorable or, by the
contrary, as offended and threatening.

This assumption, we know (as I have explained before) that the symbolic
evil is expressed in three fundamental experiences: 1) the experience of the
stain9It's not about
here to repeat, not even to summarize, what has already been wisely analyzed by
Ricoeur. I am only interested in noting that when we talk about the Mancha, we
we refer to a feeling of a magical nature, which is very irrational, and
that makes us feel dirty, contaminated, impure. It is a very
common, which, with different languages is present in all religions, and that
it justifies the use and abuse of purification rituals through water. But it
It is important to realize that, with the experience of the stain,
We penetrate into the realm of terror.10It is, therefore, an experience of
fear and, more than fear, a feeling of being unwell before the mysterious power
that is imposed on us and threatens us. On the other hand, when we refer to the
guilt, it is essential to be very clear that we are talking about a feeling that exists in
every human being before the prohibition of the law, before all knowledge
of good and evil, before we can have an idea of what it is a
transgression11Because guilt, before being a religious feeling, is a
feeling that accompanies us throughout life, from very shortly after
our birth. A feeling that emerges in every person, in their first
stadium, as a drive of life and death, before the maternal breast, as an object of
8
- P. Ricoeur, Finitude and Guilt, Trotta, Madrid, 2004, p. 159.
9
He has masterfully analyzed this triple experience P. Ricoeur, op. cit., pp. 189-308.
10
Ibid., p. 189.
11
- C. Domínguez Morano, Believing After Freud, Paulinas, Madrid, 1992, p. 143.
love and hate12Then, in a second stage, the law appears as an expression.
from the paternal will, the power that is imposed on us, dominates us and obliges us.
It is then that the fear of punishment is born in us from the
regrets. From that moment on, moral conscience behaves both
more severe the more virtuous the man is13Finally, the sin, in the
symbolic experience of evil, appears in us as the 'idea of a
broken relationship" or, if you prefer, a "damaged relationship"14What does it mean
this? Sin is sin because the religious man experiences a
presence, namely: the expression of a holy will, a will that
imposes and orders him, commands him, prohibits him. Hence, sin, before that
transgression of an abstract norm is the injury of a personal bond15. In
In any case, sin always appears in religions as 'failure', as
"deviation", as "derailment"16.

One way or another, we always confront the same thing: the

sin, from all its aspects and possible experiences, is related to a
power that overcomes us, judges us, and threatens us. A norm that is imposed on us
It imposes. And also a relationship that is broken. Omitting the different
theories about the 'essence of sin'17this always implies reference to a
power that obliges us, prohibits us, judges us, and can punish us.

But there is more. Because the power that has to be faced ...
sinner, it is not only the divine power of God, but also that power
divine administered by the human power of a man, specifically the
power of the priest. It is about the power to "bind" and "loose" (Mt 18:18), of
"to forgive" and "to retain" (Jn 20:23) sins, which has been given to the
men, that is, according to the official teaching of the Church, to the priests
(Trento, session XXIII, canon 1. DS 1771). I do not enter here into the question of the possible
confession with a layperson, a practice that was carried out in the ancient Church and of which
there is data that attests to such practice from the New Testament (James 5:16)18
until the Middle Ages19On the other hand, we know that the sinner, who is
repents of his sins, is immediately forgiven by God. But the
The Church teaches that, in normal circumstances, that is, outside of the case
exceptional in that it is not possible to access a priest, it is not enough alone
forgiveness of God. Because "conversion involves at the same time the forgiveness of God and the
reconciliation with the Church20This means that the sinful man,
besides asking God for forgiveness, you have to go through the sacrament of the
penance, that is to say, he must also ask for forgiveness from the Church. Which leads to
12
-Ibid., p. 144.
13
- Cf. C. Domínguez Morano, The Freudian Psychoanalysis of Religion, Paulinas, Madrid, 1991,
p. 276.
14
- P. Ricoeur, op. cit., p. 234.
15
-Ibid., p. 214.
16
D. Sitzler-Osing, Sin, I. Historical religions, TRE 32, 360.
17
- Extensive bibliography on this matter, in O. Mochti, The Nature of Sin, cited, pp. 13-31.
18
The letter of James talks about the confession of sins as an established practice.
in the interior of the community. Cf. H. Frankemölle, The Letter of James, in Ecumenical
Paperback commentary on the New Testament, 17/2, 1994, p. 722.
19
Cf. For this point, D. Fernández, Community Celebration of Repentance, New Utopia,
Madrid, 1999, pp. 81-79.
20
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no1440
I can, in the current ecclesiastical discipline, the confession of sins to a
priest. Considering that confession is "an essential part of the
sacrament of penance21.

Up to this point, the official doctrine of the ecclesiastical magisterium on forgiveness

of sins. Historical experience teaches us that this doctrine has been
translated into practice, often, in merciful and healing forgiveness,
that has relieved so many troubled people in their conscience, that has
returned peace and hope to those who had lost it, who has balanced
such many people tormented by feelings of guilt and fear in the face of justice
divine. It would be unfair and false not to recognize that this has been the case. And, with
frequency, it continues to be so22To the extent that forgiveness constitutes 'a
one of the most precious contributions of Christianity to human history23.
But it happens that this priestly power, by its very nature, entails the
danger of incurring in improper uses or even humiliating abuses for
those who have to submit to it. When I say this, I am not talking about something
what could have happened. Unfortunately, this has happened. And it has happened so many
times and with so many bad consequences that, as is known, it has been written
(with all the luxury of information and details) the pathetic story of "sin" and the
fear24. A study that is extensive and thoroughly documented that, as
the author warns, he does not intend to "reject culpability and the necessary assumption of
sin of consciousness." It is rather about highlighting "the presence of a
heavy "over guilt" in Western history." And Delumeau himself
I understand by 'over-responsibilization' any discourse that increases the
dimensions of sin in relation to forgiveness25It is the unpleasant story
of 'the pastoral of fear'26A pastoral organized and managed by ‘the
powers of the clergy27In any case, it is evident that sin has been managed.
always from power, whether it is to condemn the sinner or if it
What one sincerely wants is to forgive him. Only from the power (of 'to tie' or
"unleash") one can face the unfortunate situation of the guilty, of the impure,
of the offender, ultimately, the situation of the sinner.

As is well known, for more than thirty years, the confession of the
sins to a priest is going through a crisis of which we do not know if
it will recover. It is very likely that this growing abandonment of practice
the confession is motivated (at least in good part) by how painful and difficult
what happens to people under the submission to the power that they still have
priests over the consciences. It is true that, generally speaking, they have already passed the

Ibid., no. 1455.

21
22
Cf. The excellent study by Lytta Basset, The original forgiveness. From the abyss of evil to power
to forgive, cited.
23
J. Delumeau, The confession and forgiveness. The difficulties of confession, 13th to 18th centuries,
Alliance, Madrid, 1992, p. 150.
24
I am referring to the volume of more than 700 pages by J. Delumeau, Sin and Fear.
Culpabilization in the West. XIII-XVIII centuries, Paris, Fayard, 1983.
25
-Ibid., p. 10. Cf. J. C. Sagne, Sin, guilt, penance, Cerf, Paris, 1971; id., Conflict,
changement,conversión, Cerf, Paris, 1974; íd.,Tes péchés ont été pardonnés, Chalet, Lyon,
1977.
26
-J. Delumeau, op. cit., pp. 265-627.
27
Ibid., p. 221.
dark times of the 'pastoral of fear', But, can it be said
quietly that the practice of the sacrament of penance is no longer
Is the problem that its abandonment is due to people losing faith?
Is it true that the current Rite of Penitence presents three sacramental modes?
to obtain the forgiveness of sins. And we know that the third of those
possible ways consist of the reconciliation of many penitents with
confession and general absolution. That is to say, in this case, the sinner does not have to
confess in private and in detail your sins. But it happens that, in the
practice, that is nothing more than a mere possibility. Because the fact is that the
Current Canon Law (cc. 960-964) and the rules established by the Curia
Romana and the Spanish Episcopal Conference28they reduce it in such a way that
implementation of this way of reconciling sinners who, in fact,
the common faithful have no other solution left but the usual one,
that is to say, the confession of one's own intimacy to the priest. In this sense, it is
It is accurate to say that the relationship between sin and power remains what it was.
always.

Suffering and solidarity

In the same way that sin can only be managed from the
power, human suffering can only be alleviated or suppressed from the
solidarity. This means, formulated in another way, that the problem of
sin is always approached and treated from a position of superiority while the
the problem of suffering, if there is a determined will to resolve it, only
it can be tried from equality, with everything that this entails, such as
I will explain right away.

Indeed, whoever has a firm will to face the problem of

suffering, the first decision that has to be made refers to help. It is
it is evident that the one who suffers needs help, whatever the type of suffering
may suffer, whatever the need they have to meet. Because help
it is utterly indispensable in any form of suffering. This is so
Obviously, questioning it would be ridiculous.

But experience teaches us that help alone is not enough. In fact,

cases and situations often arise in which mere help, no matter how much
remedying certain deficiencies inevitably causes more suffering. Because the
a helping relationship is always an asymmetrical relationship. The one who helps, even if not
realize what is happening, he is actually always above the one who is
helped. In other words, the helping relationship is, inevitably,
a relationship of superiority towards the one who is below. Hence, one of
the most humiliating things in life is when a person has to
to confess that 'he/she lives off the help' that they receive from the parish, from such NGO, in such
house, wherever it is. The one who "lives off the help" of others is a miserable person. And,
if he is not a degenerate, he feels like a failure and useless. In any
In this case, he feels weaker than the one from whom he receives help.

28
-Rit. Nn. 31-35;Pastoral Norms, AAS 64 (1972), pp. 510-515;Bulletin of the Conference
Spanish Episcopal, no. 22, of April 5, 1989, pp. 59-60.
 In addition, the helping relationship is a type of relationship that always
control the one who gives the help. So that the one who helps does that until
where he can or wants. But he always knows he can, at any
moment, cut that relationship. Or it can limit it to where it seems, it
it is advantageous or allowed by its possibilities.

But, above all, the helping relationship, by its very nature,

it limits giving something, anything, that the other needs. But it can well happen (and
In fact, it happens that the one who helps gives something, but does not give himself.
more clearly, this means that the help relationship is not the same as the
a relationship of affection. One day, quite a while ago, a woman visited me whom
I did not know and she told me a very painful personal story. I, to
"to help her," I listened to her attentively and with all the interest I could. Suddenly,
that person stopped in their story and asked me this question: "Do you..."
Do you want to help me?" I confess that I felt fear in front of a
a question that seems so simple. And, of course, I didn’t know what to answer.
Then I understood that love for people scares us. We all are
willing to help, to give whatever it takes. Because we know that this does not
it compromises too much and, in any case, it doesn't complicate our lives. Because,
when a person tells another that they love them (whatever the reason or the
the quality of that love), if he is speaking seriously, that is not said innocently and
to get by. No one knows how far a relationship can take you.
true love. No one knows what you give up, what commitments, to what
requirements can lead to that. Hence, as I have already said, affection gives us
Fear. Because in love we compromise our freedom. And we have no more.
remedy that merges our life with the life of another, whether a family member, a
friend, a lover.

But all this ultimately tells us that talking about

solidarity is not just talking about 'help', but it is talking about
"love". Because only the one who receives affection and gives affection is the one who can speak of
a bond of genuine solidarity between human beings. Which is tantamount to
to say that only the one who gives love and receives love is the one who can remedy the
human suffering in its true root.

Now, all of this tells us that suffering cannot be remedied.

from above, by giving whatever it takes, even if it's the absolute truth, good
absolute, and everything that can be thought and said in that direction. No and a thousand
sometimes no. Suffering is remedied from below, exactly from the same
position occupied by the needy, identifying themselves from their own situation
with the other, merging with their feelings, their pain, their humiliation, their
possible indignity, whatever it may be. And let no one say that this is romanticism.
outdated or cheap demagoguery. In the New Testament, exactly in the
Letter to the Hebrews, there is a chilling text in which it is stated that everything
that (what I just pointed out) is what Christ the Lord did to be able to
the high priest who remedies evil and suffering in the world. The text
it says this:
 [….] had to become like his brothers in every way, to be a compassionate high priest.
and faithful in what concerns God and expiate the sins of the people. For having passed through it
test of pain, can assist those who are currently experiencing it (Heb 2:17-18).

This text is the first great assertion made by the letter to the Hebrews,
About the priesthood of Christ. And what it aims to do is explain how Jesus
he entered the priesthood. Now, here the radical contrast already appears between the
priesthood of the Old Testament and the priesthood of Christ. In Judaism, the
A necessary condition to be a priest was separation. That is why the
Levites were separated from the rest of the people. And to the priesthood, they only had
access those who came from the family of Aaron and, more specifically, from the
lineage of Sadoq (Ex 29:29-30; 40:15). In the case of Jesus, the matter is
completely the other way around. What is required to be a priest is not the
separation, but rather assimilation, that is, "to become entirely like" others
(everything must be made similar)29In other words, the essential condition that
Jesus had to fulfill, in order to access the priesthood, to renounce everything.
type of distinction, difference, superiority, dignity, separation.
That is why he had to "strip himself of all rank" and "become like one of many".
(Phil 2:7). Exactly the opposite of what happened with the high priesthood.
among the Jews in the time of Jesus. Flavius Josephus says of the high priests
priests of that time: "While in other towns it is determined the
nobility from other points of view, among us the possession of dignity
"Priestly is the proof of noble origin"30.

The unfortunate thing is that, in the Church, things have been set up in such a way
that the ministers of the Gospel often give the impression that they
they seem more like the Jewish priests than like Jesus. What is valued, in not
few clerical environments, it is the separation, the dignity, the difference, the
distinction. It is true that all of this is justified with strong arguments.
spirituality. Young clerics are made to live apart, they are dressed in
in a different way, they are told that they are the favorites and the best, and that
they have a dignity that others do not have. It is true that, according to theology
Regarding the use, all of this can be stated as far as the ministers of the Church are concerned.
they have the inherent powers of the sacrament of order. But if we think about the
church ministry from the criteria presented to us by the Gospel, all that
the language of privileges and dignities is simply anti-Christian. And furthermore
it is a murky justification that, surely with good intentions, actually
use it to climb the ranks in life, in society, to place oneself above
from others, to start saying that one has a separate category, to appear
before people as a 'called', 'chosen', 'preferred', 'selected' person
"important," and other nonsense like that.

If I speak about this matter with excessive and harsh words, it is because
We have a lot at stake in this, the 'men of the Church'. It's not just about...
29
- Cf. A. Vannhoye, Letters to the Hebrews. Text on the Priesthood of Christ, Pontifical Institute
Biblical, Rome, 1969, pp. 27-29; Spanish translation by N. Darrícal, The message of the letter to the Hebrews,
6
Divine Verb, Estella, 1985; Id., Le Chris test our priest, Prayer and Life, Toulouse, 1969, pp.
23-25.
30
-Vita, 1, 1. Cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Cristiandad, Madrid, 1977, pp.
167-168.
about a matter of spirituality. It is not merely a question of vanity or pride. Nor
It is merely a desire for prominence and a wish to command. The seriousness of the issue.
is in another thing. The text of the letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus can
to help those who suffer because he himself has gone through the trial of pain
Heb 2:18. That is to say, it is about understanding, first of all, that Jesus came to
this world to be the ultimate high priest. It is about understanding, in
secondly, that the purpose of Christ's priesthood was not to perform
sacred functions in the temple, but to remedy human suffering. And it
try to understand, above all, that human suffering cannot be remedied
from dignity and superiority, that is, from above, but only
Can help those who suffer from the pain that those who are worse off go through.
they go through it in life.

It is exactly what Jesus did in the years that he "spent doing good.
"and healing all who were oppressed by the devil" (Acts 10:38). Jesus made it very clear:
Whoever wants to rise must become a servant; and whoever wants to be first, must
becomes a servant of all" (Mark 10:44). And we know that Jesus was consistent.
with his proposal. During his long years of "hidden life" in Nazareth, he
limited to being the 'carpenter' (Mk 6:3) of a lost village, in the lost Galilee
of the poor. One more among those people, so that when it was put
When he preached, his countrymen were astonished, not knowing where he got it from.
what he was saying (Mark 6:2). And then, when he devoted himself to giving the 'good news' to the
the poor, to heal the sick, to cleanse lepers, to raise the dead, to cast out
demons and set captives free (Mt 11:5; Lk 4:18), that is, when he surrendered to
filled with remedies for human suffering, he did so in such a way that he ended up being
held by a demoniac (Mark 3:22 par.), by an excluded person who had to
to remain in a deserted place, as happened to lepers (Mark 1:45), due to a
pecador(Jn 9, 16), unsamaritano(Jn 8, 48), unloco(Jn 8, 48), unmalhechor
(Jn 18:30), non-subversive (Lc 23:2), a blasphemer (Mt 26:65). Anything,
of course, except for a powerful person in this world who deigns to "help" the
needed.

But there is more. In Jesus's mindset, it's not just about that
he put himself on the same level as the others, but somewhat stronger. It is about him that he
he pushed under everyone. This is what is stated in the account of the washing of the
feet (Jn 13:1-17). A story which says that even the 'Lord',
The Lord, God, to give love, to remedy the pain of the world, had to come down.
and to humble himself, he had to put himself at the feet of everyone and serve as a slave.
Because, only from the merger with the lowest of this world, can one
remedy the pain of the world. As harsh as it may be to say, from this law not
he escaped not even God. Because even the Lord of glory had to come down and become
human to alleviate human suffering. This fact undoubtedly expresses a
fundamental law, which can well be referred to as an authentic metaphysics of
solidarity. It is not simply a matter of ethics, of exemplary conduct or of
Humility. What is at stake here is the fundamental structure of love.
which is nothing more and nothing less than the fundamental structure of humanity. The
structure of being, made humanity. The structure of being, in which Being
the supreme also expressed itself, it revealed itself. The "Word made flesh".
The theology of sin

Without a doubt, whoever is reading this book, if they are a person

moderately educated in matters of religion and Christianity, has been regarded
One must ask an inevitable question: and what about the redemption of sin? That is to say, is it not
we Christians affirm that Christ came into the world to save us, with his
death, of our sins?

Indeed, according to the testimony of the New Testament, the life of

Christ was a 'victorious combat'31Victorious, because he carried out the
"redemption," a word that, in its double form (lutrôsis, apolutrôsis),
found repeatedly in the New Testament (Luke 1:28, 68; 2:38; Romans 3,
24; 8, 23; 1 Cor 1, 30; Ef 1, 7; Heb 9, 12; etc.). This word has its origin in
the Old Testament, which, with this term, primarily refers to the
release from the slavery of Egypt (Ex 6:6-7; Deut 7:8; 2 Sam 4:9; 7:23; 1
Mac 4, 11). But the question, when we talk about the 'redemption' applied to
Christians need to know this: what have we been liberated or rescued from?
men, all human beings? The answer of Christian theology is
clear and precise: fundamentally we have been liberated, rescued and
redeemed from sin32And, with sin, we have been redeemed from death,
in that, through the resurrection of Christ, we have the hope of not being
condemned to destruction, but to a definitive life (cf. Rom 6:10; 2 Tim 1,
10; Heb 2, 14-15).

It is not my intention to analyze in this book the numerous issues that arise.
they are based on the theological concept of 'redemption.'

I just want to point out that Christian theology has developed its ideas.
about the redemption of sin using three fundamental concepts: 1) The
concept of sacrifice
satisfaction. With all this, Christian theologians, from Saint Paul to
our days, have constantly repeated that the death of Jesus on the cross
it was the "sacrifice" for our sins, the "expiation" of our sins and,
from the 3rd century and especially from the 11th century (Anselm of Canterbury), the
"satisfaction" that Jesus Christ offered to God to appease Him for the offenses.
what we do every day as mortals with our sins. I insist on
that it is not about analyzing all this language here, which has been
very well analyzed by other authors with more competence in these matters33.
What interests me is to make it clear that the theologians and their
theologies, handling these ideas about "redemption," have made that the
sin occupies, in the ideas and in the lives of Christians, a central place and
determinant that, in reality, did not occupy the ideas and life of Jesus. Already
I have said that the center of Juan Bautista's concerns was sin.
what sinners commit, while the center of concerns of
Jesus was the suffering that the unfortunate endure. But what has happened
In Christianity, it is with the theology of "redemption" and "sin," that the
31
- B. Sesboüé, Jesus Christ the only mediator, cited, p. 158.
32
-Ibid., p. 150.
33
- A good summary, in B. Sesboüé, op. cit., pp. 257-356.
Juan Bautista's concerns have been more decisive in the
ideas of many theologians, priests, and Christians in general, that the
concerns of Jesus. That is why what has happened is that Christian morality
it has been created based on sin and according to sin, not based on
suffering and to free people from suffering. In the same way that the
The church understands itself as the institution whose mission consists of
fight, above all and primarily, against sin, even when to do
this is seen in the need to cause deep suffering to not a few
people or remain silent (perhaps with serious complicities) in the face of suffering of the
victims. Thus, sin has come to occupy the center that it had in the ministry
of John the Baptist, displacing suffering, which took center stage in the
ministry of Jesus. At least, it can be said that this is what they feel and
Many deeply religious people live.

It would be absurd and false to claim that this happened because

cause of disorientation or (what would be more serious) of the perversion of the
Christian theologians, from the authors of the New Testament to the
writers of the Middle Ages. It is not about any of that. Because what in
the reality that occurred is that the early Christians, when they began to preach
that they believed in a 'crucified' and were convinced that
such a character was the Son of God and the Lord, they stumbled immediately
with an insurmountable difficulty at that moment and in that culture. And it is
that, in the ideas of that time, an individual who had been executed for
the authorities and executed on a cross was considered by everyone
as such an unacceptable and even repugnant individual that no one could believe
that he was not even the Son of God and the Lord, but not even a worthy person
of credit. In Roman culture, this was so strong that from the cross and the
Crucified ones could not even speak among well-mannered people. Of
Indeed, the cross was a punishment that the Romans used in Palestine, among
63 BC and 66 AD, only against the subversives who were rebelling against the
empire. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus was crucified,
not simply between two 'thieves' or two 'wrongdoers' (as is often said
to say), but between two "subversives", since the word they use is
gospels, when referring to the so-called 'thieves', eslestaí (Mk 15:27 par.), a
term that the historian Flavius Josephus uses to refer to the rebels
politicians34.

On the other hand, it was even more incredible for the Jews, if possible, that a
The subject murdered on a cross could have divine rank. It is said in the Bible.
that dying crucified is a divine curse (Dt 21:23; cf. Gal 3:13). The text
from the book of Deuteronomy is very strong, since it states that whoever has
being hung from a pole cannot stay even one night hanging like that. And the
the reason for such a prohibition is this: 'a hanged man is a curse from God.'
and you shall not pollute the land that Yahweh, your God, has given you as an inheritance" (Dt 21,
A crucified person was so cursed by God himself that his mere

34
- Cf. X. Alegre, "Those Responsible for the Death of Jesus": Latin American Review of
Theology XIV (1997), p. 168, which cites H. W. Kuhn, Cross, II: TRE 19, 717. See also,
Id., Subversive memory and hope for the crucified peoples, Trotta, Madrid, 2003.
presence stained the earth, that is, stained what God gives us all
humans35.

Therefore, the first Christians undoubtedly found themselves in a

a kind of dead end. On one hand, they firmly believed that Christ
crucified was the Son of God and the Lord of history. But, on the other hand,
they soon had to realize that a subject, who had died
hanging on a cross, he could not be accepted in that culture as Lord of
nothing from anyone and, even less so, as the Son of God and Savior. Moreover,
to say that a 'crucified one' was 'God' was simply intolerable for
any citizen of the Roman Empire. That is why, in the first three centuries of
In our era, Christians were considered 'atheists'. Because the
Atheism, at that time, was not a philosophical or theological question (as it is now
today), but a practical matter: those who acted against
against the established order, against the 'good society', the society in which
the gods of the religions, their temples and were perfectly integrated
his priests, including the cult of the emperor. But, as is logical, a
a subversive executed on a cross could not be presented as "God" in
similar culture36What to do in such a situation?

The solution was to present the death of Jesus on the cross as something
willing and cherished by God, something that responded to the 'divine plan of the
salvation." With this I mean that, when we talk about the death of Christ
and of its saving meaning, we must carefully distinguish between what
what was the story of the death of Jesus (what happened there) and what it was
interpretation of the death of Jesus (the explanation given of what happened there
I am referring, logically, to the 'theological' interpretation that Christians
they gave that death so hard and difficult to accept37To explain this, the
authors of the New Testament made use of two concepts (and their
corresponding practices) central to the traditions of the people of Israel, the
the concept of sacrifice and the concept of atonement38. Later, from the 3rd century,
the theory of satisfaction was added, which Anselm of Canterbury developed
widely in the 11th century39But here it is necessary to insist (no matter how much
result stubborn) that, when using these concepts, it is no longer about the history
not about what happened in the life and death of Jesus, but rather it is about the
The theological interpretation that the first Christians gave to such a story. If
we stick to history, that is, simply to what happened in life and
in the death of that Jew who was Jesus of Nazareth, what we know is that
that man was murdered because the leaders of the town, specifically
the high priests felt deeply unsettled and questioned in
his authority and way of leading the people40. In fact, preaching and the
the activity of Jesus, in favor of all those who were despised by that clergy
and those leaders, it was a constant denunciation of the murky interests of the
35
- Cf. J.M. González Ruiz, Letter of Saint Paul to the Galatians, Fax, Madrid, 1971, p. 161.
36
- Cf. A. Harnack, The Accusation of Atheism in the First Three Centuries, in TU 13
(1905) 8-16.
37
- Cf. E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus. The History of a Living Being, Trotta, Madrid, 2002, pp. 256-265.
38
- For these issues, see B. Sesboüé, op. cit., pp. 257-326.
39
-Ibid., pp. 327-356.
40
- X. Alegre, "Those Responsible for the Death of Jesus," cited, p. 167.
priests and temple officials. Furthermore, it seems certain that the
The ultimate responsible for the death sentence of Jesus was the Roman governor.
Pontius Pilate, since he alone could issue a death sentence. And more so if he
it was about a death sentence on the cross41This is what can be said, yes
we are adhering to the 'history' of what happened there.

Another thing is if we start to talk about the theological 'interpretation' that

this story. This "interpretation", as I have already mentioned, was specified in
the concepts of 'sacrifice' and 'expiation', which were later completed with
the theology of "satisfaction". Based on this "interpretation", the authors
of the New Testament and later theologians developed the theology of the
salvation and redemption. Salvation and redemption of sin42With what
sin came to occupy the center of theological ideas and concerns
spirituals of the Church and of the Christians. And, then, what happened is that
the central importance given to sin inevitably displaced the
the central importance that suffering had in the teachings and in the life of
Jesus. Consequently, suffering was left not only displaced but (what...
has had worse consequences) subordinated to the issue of sin and to the struggle
against sin. So that what is decisive, in the theological mindset and
ecclesiastical, is to eliminate sin. Even when, to achieve that, there is
to suffer and impose sufferings, including death itself. History has
in charge of highlighting what I just said.

But here I must add something that is fundamental in all this.

subject. As is well known, Saint Paul places great importance on the subject of
sin. And in Paul's theology, preachers often base themselves.
to tell Christian believers that Christ "died for our sins"
who "suffered for our sins" or even that we, the
fishermen, we were the ones who, with our sins, killed Jesus. For
Well, to bring some clarity to this complicated topic, we will start with
remember that, indeed, Pablo develops the topic theologically
sin. But it is worth noting that, in Paul's theological development, the
"Sin" is primarily used in the singular. In this, according to
experts in the field explain, the way of speaking of is distinguished
Pablo on sin in the way that Christianity was expressed before
he43As has been very well said, "it is worth remembering that the use of the noun
44
This becomes evident from
special mode, in chapters 5 to 8 of the letter to the Romans (5,8.12.
13.16.20.21;6,1.2.6.7.10.11.12.14.16.20.23;7,7.8.9.11.13.14.17.20.23.25;
In reality, what Paul does is that he radicalizes the term
"sin". Because when he uses that term, he is not referring to sins.
concrete, as Judaism and more primitive Christianity did, but
it refers to sin as a force that enters the world with the sin of
Adam and since then has kept humanity in slavery (Rom
5, 12 and above all 6, 6-7.14.16.29;7, 14). In this way, Paul links with the
41
Ibid., p. 169.
42
- Cf. J. Gnilka, Theology of the New Testament, Trotta, Madrid, 1994, pp. 82-90.
43
- E. Lohse, Theology of the New Testament, Cristiandad, Madrid, 1978, p. 148.
44
- J. Gnilka, Theology of the New Testament, cited, p. 66.
idea according to which Adam, by disobeying the command that had been imposed on him
God brought sin and death upon himself and his descendants.45In this
In essence, sin is the origin of evil. And evil is the most dangerous thing for man.
Because, due to that force or 'sin', man was subjected as
a slave (Rom6, 16) and dominated (Rom6, 14) by the power of that condition
sinner46.

But, in reality, what does Pablo mean when he uses this language?
about sin? Paul's idea is that sin makes man...
subjected to death (Rom5, 12. 13-14.21) and live as a slave (Rom6, 6-
7; 7, 14), unable to behave honorably and with integrity (Rom 6, 20).
Speaking this way, Pablo only expresses that it is the condition.
human, that is to say, the set of limitations and bad inclinations that,
experience, we all know they are there, in each one of us. All the
human beings, indeed, we know that this life of ours carries with it
penalties and sufferings, that everything ends in death, that (let's say it or
We often feel like slaves, unable to behave with the
rectitude that we would like, sometimes dragged by the force of bad
inclinations and, consequently, causing harm to ourselves or
harming others. Without a doubt, Paul is referring to all of this when
It speaks of the 'slavery of sin' and the 'death' destiny to which it leads us.
the same sin. Now then, all of this refers to the situation of man in
this life. And about all this, Paul affirms that Jesus the Messiah has freed us
(Rom 8, 2).

Deep down, what does all this mean? That the human condition carries in
Yes, the limitation and the inclination to evil, which translates not only into wickedness.
concrete, but also in countless sufferings, in dignity and in death.
But not only that. Because Paul also wants to say that the death of Jesus
Christ brings us the liberation of everything that it represents and carries with it.
That is to say, in Paul's mentality, in the same way as the myth of Adam
represents all the bad and negative things in life, the death of Christ
represents everything that there is in us of honesty, generosity, freedom and
hope. Above all, hope. Because the goodness of God, which brings about in
we this deep liberation, is what Paul refers to with the term
"justification", which means what has rightly been defined as a "judgment"
"merciful", because God, thanks to the suffering and death of Christ,
will save men and will not punish them47.

The problem is knowing whether this theology of sin should be understood

like a thought that only speaks to us of the 'other' life or if it refers to
also to 'this' life. Without a doubt, Pablo speaks, above all, of this life.
With hope placed, of course, in the definitive and ultimate life. But with
so that the present life is not excluded. Precisely because, through faith
(Rom 3:25), which is obviously lived in the conditions of this world, is
how the total liberation of the human being is possible. Therefore, it is clear that,
45
- E. Lohse, op. cit., p. 148.
46
- M. Meinertz, Theology of the New Testament, Fax, Madrid, 1966, p. 298.
47
- J. Gnilka, Theology of the New Testament, cit., p. 87.
in Paul's letters, when explaining the theology of sin, a relationship is affirmed
key between sin and human suffering. Because, if something is evident
In those letters, it is that in this world there is suffering and death precisely.
because of sin. This, in sound logic, tells us that not
we can pretend to dominate and overcome sin if we neglect the
suffering. And, even less so, if under the pretext of fighting against sin, we ...
we dedicate ourselves to causing suffering or (which would be worse) to provoking death.

And yet, we are already tired of reading theologies that make the
more refined analyses of sin, but without mentioning suffering at all
human. It is possible that such a strange way of thinking and talking about him
sin finds some explanation in the implicit theology presented by the
two great introductions that present the letters to the Ephesians and the
Colossians. In those writings, it indeed speaks of sin. But
only from the perspective of 'forgiveness' and 'inexhaustible generosity'
that God, through Christ, has shown us (Eph 1:4-7), taking us out of
"dominion of darkness," since in Christ "we obtain redemption and the
forgiveness of sins" (Col 1:13). Of course, this point of view is
central to Christian theology. I do not insist on it because it has already been widely
developed by theology in numerous and excellent studies. But never
we should forget that this is not the only thing that the theology of Saint Paul gives us
teach about sin. The point of view of redemption and forgiveness of the
sin is important, it is fundamental. But it is not the only thing that interests us and
it concerns us. And, above all, the Church and Christians must always have
Keep in mind that we cannot focus our attention on the forgiveness of the
sins, in such a way that it leads us in practice to forget about the
human experience or, worse yet, to cause harm and humiliation to the
Moreover, with the false justification of ending sin in the world in this way.

Besides, when we read Paul's texts about sin,

Relating Christ to Adam, it would be good to remember that, as you know
anyone who has studied the origins of humanity,
evolution of species, the appearance of man on earth and origins
from the Bible, neither Adam existed nor, therefore, could he have sinned. The account
the myth of Adam and Eve in paradise is a myth. The myth of the fall, with which the Bible
seeks to absolve God of all responsibility for the suffering and evil that
there is in the world48The responsible for evil, according to the Adamic myth, is not God.
but the man. But then we find ourselves with the theology of
sin, which St. Paul elaborates from the sin of Adam, must be
interpret in another way49.

This means, first of all, that the so-called 'original sin' is not
no sin sin, but rather, with that expression, what is actually expressed is,
As I have hinted before, the inherent limitation of the human condition and the
the inclination to do harm that many times we mortals have. From where
it turns out that the theology of sin does not lead us to a presumed offense, that the
man would commit against God, nor an act of original disobedience, which
- Cf. J. A. Estrada. The impossible theodicy, Trotta, Madrid,22003, pp. 71—776.
48

- Cf. F. Varone, This God supposed to love suffering, Cerf, Paris, 1984, pp. 181-183.
49
In reality, it did not exist, and therefore sin cannot be interpreted as an offense.
or as disobedience, as it has been understood, for example, in theology
moral of the 19th century50As I have said before, remembering the great intuition
from Thomas Aquinas, when we speak of the offense of sin, if it is that
we want that language to have an acceptable meaning, we cannot speak
neither of the harm we do to ourselves nor of the harm we do to
the others51That, and only that, is what can offend God and, in that
meaning, it can be designated as 'sin'. With which, ultimately, we come
to meet with the conjunction and even the fusion of sin and suffering.
This ultimately means that what God detests and what
we can say that it offends God is that human beings make ourselves
harm and cause each other suffering.

This way of understanding sin, that is, what God prohibits,

exactly coincides with the commandments of the Decalogue that reminds us of the
New Testament in two distinct traditions. On one hand, the tradition of the
synoptic gospels (Mk 10:19 par.); on the other hand, the letter to the Romans
(13, 9). In both cases, as I have already indicated and gladly repeat, when doing
mention of what God wants or, more precisely, what God prohibits, only
the commandments of the 'second table' are mentioned52that is to say, those who are
they refer to human relationships, specifically those that prohibit causing harm
and causing suffering to others. As has been aptly said, the idea of
The underlying theme in all of this is the concentration of religion in ethics.
from love for others. Or in other words, it is about the 'concentration'
of all the commandments of the Law in the so-called Golden Rule: 'Do not do to'
the others what you don't want to be done to you" (Rabbi Hillel, 60 B.C.-1 A.D). Thus,
no matter how strange it may seem to some, what Pablo remembers is the love for
the others, not the love of God (by Paul the love for the neighbor not the
Love for God53In short, it is about the interpretation that Paul makes of the
Law or rather, of what God wants: all the Law is reduced to love for others54.

It has been tragic for the Church, for Christianity, and for humanity.
the fracture that has occurred between sin (relationship to God) and suffering
(relationship to the human being). We can confidently say that in the ideas of
Jesus had no room for such a fracture. Nor in Paul's ideas. And not
it's exaggerated to talk about 'tragedy' when addressing this issue. Because really it
what is at stake here is the black and tragic history of the victims of sin.

But the analysis that Paul makes of sin does not stop at what has been said.
Because he is not only interested in the 'theological' structure of sin, but
also its "human" structure. That is to say, it is not only concerned with the relationship that
Sin has to do with God, but also, together with that, its reason for being.
in every person who does harm and commits evil. Now then, the intuition of
Pablo, in this sense, is great. For him, indeed, the key to "sin"

- Cf. O. Mochti, The Nature of Sin, cited, pp. 289-290.

50
51
- Sum. Against the Gentiles III, 122.
52
- J. Gnilka, The Gospel According to Mark, EKK, II/2, Benzinger, Cologne, 1979, p. 86.
53
- U. Wilckens, The Letter to the Romans, EKK, VI/3, Benzinger, Cologne, 1982, p. 70.
54
- E. Käsemann, To the Romans, J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen, 1973, p. 345.
(sin) is in the «desire» (epithymía), according to the fundamental text of Rom
7, 7. Thus, as has been rightly said, "there is practically no
difference between 'desire' and 'sin'55Or in other words, "sin
specifically consists of any attraction (desire) to evil," whether it is the
sea56Considering something that is fundamental here, namely: the texts of
Rom 7:7 and 13:9 refer to the prohibition of 'desire' that is indicated in the
Decalogue, specifically in the central texts of Ex 20:17 and Dt 5:21. From the
same way as the "desire" mentioned in 1 Cor 10:6 refers to the
prohibition of Num 11, 4. 3457.

What does all this really refer to and what does it want to tell us?
concrete? Of course, the 'desire', which is prohibited in those texts, does not
reduce what was formerly called 'bad wishes', that is, the
own desires of human sexuality. What the book of Exodus says is
much broader: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet his
woman, nor your servant, nor your maid, nor your bull, nor your donkey, nor anything that belongs to you
"neighbor belongs" (Ex 20:17). It is, therefore, about the prohibition of desire.
or greed in how much root and source from where all its aggression, all
violence against another human being. That is to say, we are faced with the fundamental origin
of the harm and suffering that we humans cause each other.
As René Girard rightly said, "the legislator who prohibits desire
the goods of others strives to solve the number one problem of
every human community: internal violence58.

Why does violence occur as a force that pushes and leads to the
aggression towards another person? And therefore, why do we offend, fail to
respect, do we harm others? Of course, to such a question
complex cannot be answered with a single reason that would be the total solution
to something that concerns us so much and that, in the end, is the cause of all the
wounds that we inflict on each other. In any case, and whatever they may be
the causes or reasons that may aggravate or condition our mutuals
aggressions, there is an internal mechanism that is at the base of all
our rivalries and confrontations, of our disrespect and of
our conflicts. It is about what René Girard himself has called
accurately the mimetic desire. As this author says, "even without defining it
explicitly, what the tenth commandment outlines is a 'revolution
Copernican in the interpretation of desire. We believe that desire is objective.
the subjective, but in reality, it depends on another that gives value to the objects: the
third closest, the neighbor. Thus, to maintain peace among the
Men, we must define the forbidden in terms of this fearsome fact.
tested: the neighbor is the model of our desires. That is what I call the
mimetic desire59What does Girard mean by asserting this? It is about the quela.
Imitation (the 'mimesis') of the desire of others creates rivalry. But this
- S. Légasse, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Cerf, Paris, 2002, p. 449.
55

- U. Wilckens, op. cit., p. 104.

56
57 - H. Hübner, Epithymia, in H. Balz, G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
Testament, I, Follow Me, Salamanca, 1996, p. 1502.
58
- R. Girard, I saw Satan fall like lightning, Anagrama, Barcelona, 2002, p. 25.

Ibid., p. 26.
59
rivalry originates and fosters, in turn, imitation. And thus a circle is created
diabolical of 'imitation' and 'desire' that translates to me wanting what
wish for the other. That is imitation. But that alone inevitably produces the
rivalry and the subsequent confrontation, which can be translated into jealousy,
contempt, lack of respect, aggression and, ultimately, violence. The object that
I wish, following the model of my neighbor, he wants to keep it, reserve it.
for your own use, which means it will not be taken from you without a fight, without
conflict, without confrontation and violence60.

Now it is understood why Saint Paul establishes such a relationship.

deep between 'sin' and 'desire'. Because desire (mimetic) is the root of
our mutual aggressions and our violences, that's why desire is
it can be presented as the root of sin and even be identified with it
sin. What, ultimately, comes to tell us that there is sin where
there is violence against someone. That is, there is sin where it originates and is
it provokes human suffering.

The Theology of the Cross

According to Christian theology, in the cross of Jesus Christ coincide, as in

no other place or time, the theme of sin and the theme of suffering. It
the most immediate and evident thing that is shown to us on the cross is
the pain, the humiliation, the failure, and the death that afflicted the one who was
crucified. But Christian theology has added and merged, with the brutal fact
from the torment of the cross, the salvatory and divine act of the redemption of sin,
made by Christ when He died for all humanity. This means that the
theology of the cross confused and mixed things that all believers
In Jesus, we should have clearly differentiated: on the one hand, the fact
the historical account of the death of Jesus, that is, the cruel death of a condemned person by
the public authorities of that society and of that time; on the other hand,
the religious interpretation of that historical event, which the authors of
The New Testament clearly indicates that theologians and traditions
religious groups in the following centuries have been responsible for emphasizing and, at times, for
to deform or disfigure, making it very difficult for us to integrate today into
our experience and in our life what it really represents for us
Christians the cross of Jesus Christ.

Now then, for any Christian it must always be clear that, if

We are not very aware of what the historical event of death really was.
of Jesus, that is, what happened there, we will not be able to understand in any way
some the theology of the cross and its saving meaning. Because when we say
that Christ saved us through his death on the cross, actually, what are we
saying? It is evident that Jesus did not save us only through his death. We
saved through death on the cross. That is, the way he died is
indifferent to what that death gives us, contributes and what it represents
for us. Christians of all times have known (and know) very
although it is not the same as Jesus dying peacefully in his bed,
admired and beloved by that society, with a reputation as an exemplary man, and well
-Ibid, pp. 26-27.
60
care from family and friends, that the death occurred
as it actually happened, as a total failure, with that cruelty, among
so much pain and humiliation and, above all, in the loneliness of one who sees himself
abandoned, not only by his disciples and followers, but even by himself
God (Mark 15:34; Matthew 27:46).

The fact is that the New Testament takes care to emphasize, not only
that Jesus died executed, but rather, more specifically and above all, that one
The punishment was carried out through crucifixion. This is highlighted.
expressly Saint Paul when he says that Jesus "humbled himself, obeying even unto
death and a death on a cross" (Philippians 2:8). It is evident that Paul considered
It was not enough to indicate that he died. Besides that, Pablo saw that it was necessary
insisting that he died hung on a cross. So that this (this way
concrete to end his life in this world) entered into the divine project of the
salvation. But even before the testimony of the letter to the Philippians, by the
evangelical accounts of the passion we know that the strong problem that they have
I present to the Jewish leaders before the Roman procurator, it was not so much
to obtain the death sentence from him, but above all to achieve that he was
condemned to be crucified. This is already clearly hinted at in the
synoptic gospels (Mk 15, 13-14; Mt 27, 22-23; Lk 23, 21-23). But, about
everything, it is the gospel of John that points out that the efforts of the high priests
the priests wanted to obtain the death sentence to execute him on the cross. No
We know for certain if the Jews of that time had the power to execute.
capital sentences. According to John 19:31, it seems not. But the martyrdom of
Stephen (Acts 7:54-60) implies the opposite. Unless that were the case
a public lynching, which is unthinkable for us. In any case, the
the account of the passion that the Gospel of John provides makes it very clear that the interest
from the Jewish leaders was that Jesus was condemned to die in the
cross (Jn 19, 6.15).

The question raised here is: and why wasn't one death enough?
Anyone but it had to be precisely the death of a crucified person? The
The answer to this question must be found by recalling what is in the culture of
Roman Empire meant death by crucifixion. We all know – and it has been told to us
said many times - that the cross was an extremely painful torment. From that
It has been talked about many times, and it is the aspect of the death on the cross that most
the religious literature, Christian art, and piety have conditioned us
popular. There are even abundant medical studies that have analyzed with everything
detail the pains and torments caused by crucifixion, especially when
he was executed with nails in hands and feet.

As is logical, this interest in the physical sufferings of the crucified

responds to a certain conception of religious and theological meaning of
the cross. It is about the theological idea according to which the specificity of death in
cross was the physical pain that it caused and, therefore, the exemplarity of death
of Jesus was in his bodily sufferings. Now, behind this
There is an implicit theology, not only of redemption but also of God.
It is the theology that thinks and teaches that it is pain and suffering that saves.
And moreover, what appeases God offended by our sins is
exactly that, the pain and suffering. From where it inevitably follows
a religion that exalts the value of suffering in itself. As it equally exalts
also the spirituality of 'painism' and the value of penalties and the
resignation to be close to God.

Now, when the cross is spoken of in this way, it is forgotten (or it is

(unknown) a crucial point on this topic. I am referring to what was specific.
of the cross in the laws of the Empire and in the customs of that society
time. It is about this: the cross was the torment with which the
slaves and the subversives against the Roman Empire. It was, in fact, the servile
the punishment that Tacitus talks about61The torture that was inflicted on the slaves and
that carried infamy with it62Because the suffering caused the worst was
that stripped the honor and dignity from the "Roman citizen," as he explains
Cicero in his impressive speech against Verres63This is true until the
point that there were cases where the corpse of a
decapitated64which obviously could have no other purpose than to make clear
the infamy and social exclusion of the offender. Furthermore, it is known that the
crucifixions were always done in very visible places, so that it would remain
patent, before all the people, the humiliation of one who was thus excluded from the
society.

Therefore, when the high priests and senators insisted on

that Pontius Pilate would condemn Jesus to be crucified (and not in another way),
what they intended was not mainly physical pain, but humiliation, the
defamation, the discredit and the social exclusion that it brought with it
manner of dying. Because in that way it was evident that Jesus was
convicted for sedition, that is to say, because he represented a serious danger against the
Roman Empire, something that was brutally suppressed65I am not here to argue
Yes, indeed, Jesus was a political dissident. That is not the topic here.
I want to clarify. The important thing is to make it clear that the strongest and, above all,
Everything most characteristic of death on the cross was not the suffering, but the
social exclusion and the total degradation of a person. Which means that
Jesus died, fulfilling the divine purpose, not because it appeases God.
suffering and desires pain and sorrows, but because God wanted Jesus to be
put aside for the excluded, among whom were primarily the
fishers, until the end of his life, he too, like an excluded one, a
despised, a total defamed.

This makes it clear that the theology of the crosses, first of all, a
subversive theology, in that it represents a true subversion of the
system of distinctions, honors, and privileges for those who succeed in the present
order, in the established system. From this point of view, it must be understood
61
- Hist. 4. 11. Cf. The New Pauly. Encyclopedia of Antiquity, 3 (1997) 225.
62
The punishment of slaves, very harsh and infamous. E. Forcellini, Lexicon of Total Latinity, II,
Aldinian Press, Prati, 1861, p. 525.
63
In Verrem, II, 5, 64.
64
- Polybius, VIII, 21, 3.
65 - Cf. H. Ritt, "Who was to blame for the death of Jesus? Contemporary history, law and theology"
Interpretation: Biblical Journal 31 (1987), p. 168. Citing X Alegre, "Those responsible for
the death of Jesus," cited, p. 169.
the calls of Jesus, to those who want to follow him, to 'take up their cross'
"his cross" (Mk 8:34; Mt 10:38; 16:24; Lk 9:23; 14:27). With such calls,
Jesus was referring to an image that should be present in the inhabitants of the
Palestine dominated by Rome. It had been a long time, indeed, that the Jews
they knew about the executions by crucifixion practiced by the Roman military power66.
Because any listener of Jesus understood, when hearing about "taking up the
cross", that it was not exactly something that could be related to the
asceticism and, even less so, with any type of 'elitism' or admission into a
group of select and chosen ones. Carrying the cross was nothing related to
the religion or spirituality. It also did not refer to heroism or generosity
of no class. It was nothing more nor less than accepting to be regarded as one of
so many unfortunate people whom the Roman authorities could any day
to hang on a cross. The despicable people whom Cicero, rightly
when referring to those who could be taken to die on the cross, qualifies as
"unknown among the unknown, among the barbarians, the men"
placed in last position among the last ones67Therefore, the first thing that is brought to us
what the Gospels say about the cross is that to "bear" it meant
aligning with the last ones, with the elochlos, the 'am-ha'ares, the nameless multitude and
without any qualification. Ultimately, being a wretch, who could be
execute in the worst way. It has the same meaning as the cross in the
announcements of the passion that the gospel places in the mouth of Jesus (Mt 20, 19; 26,
2).
In the first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul emphasizes even more, if possible,
this meaning of the cross as a social revulsive. The cross, indeed, is
"foolishness" and "scandal" (1 Cor 1, 18. 23; Gal 5, 11). The society of that
time could not understand it any other way. That is why Pablo sees in the cross the
"foolishness" of God and the "weakness" of God (1 Cor 1:25). These expressions, without
embargo, they should not be understood as if God liked the extravagant, the
macabre, the most negative aspect of life. None of that. It is precisely about
quite the opposite. Because if Pablo remembers the ideas so dark and humiliating
what there was about the cross in the society of his time, do that so that the
Christians of the community of Corinth realized the meaning
deep which has the cross. Hence Paul reminds those Christians
that among them there were neither 'many intellectuals, nor many powerful ones, nor
many of good family" (1 Cor 1:26). But he does not remind them of that so that they
felt humiliated, but so that they understood that "the foolishness of the world is
God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; and the weak things of the world he chose
God to humble the strong; and the plebeian of the world, the despised, it
"God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are" (1 Cor 1:27-28).

Therefore, Paul himself insists that the cross is "weakness" (2 Cor 13:4; Phil
3, 18). But, it is in such weakness that one finds and
it brings about the union with Jesus Christ.

By speaking this way, Paul does not intend to present a God

unbearable, nor a Christianity that is hard to swallow. Quite the opposite. The idea of
Pablo, the solution for this 'out-of-control world' is not going to come from either the

Cf. J. Gnilka, The Gospel According to Mark, II, p. 26.

66
67 And if you are unknown among the unknown, among the barbarians, among men in the farthest and latest places
the placed peoples ..." (In Verrem, II, 5, 64, 166).
intellectuals, nor the powerful, nor the illustrious people. That is to say, the lesson
the depth of the cross is that the solution for humanity does not come through the
"pride" (kaújesis) human and what leads to arrogance. That precisely.
it is what God wanted to eliminate through the cross (1 Cor 1, 29). The great lesson of
the cross is that the solution for this world comes from solidarity with the
last of this earth. Because that, and nothing else, is what Jesus did when he died
as one of the last among the last. That is how it is done.
"reconciliation" even among those who feel most distant and divided (cf. Eph
what ultimately means not only the reconciliation between the
humans, but also the 'redemption' before God (Col 1:20; 2:14). But it is
It is important to realize that the New Testament speaks explicitly.
of the cross of redemption before God after having spoken extensively
from the cross as exclusion of the present order and, for that reason, as
true solidarity with the last ones in this world.

The problem for us is that today it is extremely

it's difficult to integrate this interpretation into our (human and religious) experience
from the cross. Because in the Church, since ancient times, there has been a true
theological perversion in this order of things. From the moment that the
Emperor Constantine, according to the version transmitted to us by Eusebius of
Caesarea saw in the cross a "trophy" (stauroû trópaion) and in that trophy an order.
from victory: 'with this, he conquers' (toúto níka)68, since then the cross ceased to be
for the Church what it had been for Jesus and for the first generations
of Christians. The cross has been, and is, a religious symbol that deserves worship.
and respect; it has been, and is, an image of devotion and piety; it has been, and is a
badge, a decoration and a sign of triumph in life. Undoubtedly, everything
it has deeply spiritual, religious, and human significations.
But let it be clear that the cross of Jesus was none of that.

It is essential for Christians to regain the original meaning of the cross.

The cross as an expression and consequence of solidarity with all
"crucified" of history. The cross as exclusion from the dominant system in
this world. The cross as a symbol of hope for all those who no longer
they can have hope. And because the cross is all of that, there lies the reason for
that the cross is also redemption and sanctification that transcends the limits of
this world and gives us life without any limits, what in religious language
Traditionally, it has been designated as 'eternal life'.

In this way, the cross is the victory over sin. Because it is the
victory over suffering. But from the moment it occurred
perversion that I just noted, the cross ceased to conquer suffering and
became the origin and cause of indescribable sufferings. From the missionaries and
preachers who, with the cross held high, allied themselves with the conquerors, settlers
and merchants, even the "directors of souls" who in the name of the crucified
they have subjected consciences beyond the basic respect for the freedom of each
human being.

68
- Eusebius of Caesarea, On the Life of Constantine, I, 28. PG 20, 243 B. The Latin translation is
find in Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History, IX, 9.