1. The Self, Society & Social Sin Bernard Connor

3. 1938-1999 Born Sussex, to SA as OP student 1964 Moral theology degrees from Edinburgh, California & Natal Theology of social morality huge influence on SA Bishops Conference Seminary lecturer, student chaplain Editor of RC journal Grace & Truth (1980- 1992)

5. Theology of Social Sin Dehumanising social conditions e.g. racisim, sexism, militarism, poverty, political oppression, consumerism Doctorate Sin Self & Society: A Theological Investigation into Structural Evil Social structures an analytical category with ethical standards Moral agency & responsibility of the self

7. A Double Hermeneutic Inductive ethics, from experience not abstract principles, dominant in SA Sociological structural approach seemed too deductive for some liberation theologians Connor took middle ground: dialogue –of victims & social scientists –from below & above –‘experience near’ practice & ‘experience distant’ theory –nature & grace Drawing on Anthony Giddens’ work on social sin

9. Personal & Social Sin More than personal behaviour hardening into social attitudes Social structures link members, so are the medium as well as outcome Like a building, each social structure constrains & enhances, enables & disables human action: –perverted spaces “open up the lines of action that harm & close off those that would bring good” Social sin calls for responsibility –for the present & future, not guilt for the past –like personal sin, acknowledged only when being overcome

11. Social Images IT enables multiplication & manipulation of images which people use to interact –we need these images to have a shared vision of the world –but they can be distorted, used to legitimise dehumanising social conditions –like blindness – blocking off parts of reality from consciousness, blinding people to the immorality of their action –people are still responsible: choice to be complicit or not “Both everyone & no-one appears to be guilty. This, in turn, makes it hard to say who, if anyone, should repent & make recompense, & how this might be done constructively.”

13. Social Evil Reification of social sin: –evil is perceived as intrinsic to a group of people or social structure –not the case: sin is the absence of good (inter)action, not a force in itself –“Social structures are not apart from the people occupying them”; they are inside people’s actions, both beneficiaries & victims –So replacing leaders of a distorted regime e.g. apartheid, poverty of globalisation is not enough; the distorted consciousness needs to change

15. Structuration of Social Sin Advanced technology = advanced control over society & nature = more complex structural sin Today even hunger is socially mediated: “Whether people obtain enough to eat or not depends today upon whether there is an adequate supply of foodstuffs, an adequate & just system for distributing it to drought-stricken regions, freedom from corruption & black market practices, a programme aimed at full employment & what priorities governments have in their spending.” Defective root metaphor: society as machine – blind economic forces a myth – freedom to be responsible –just as the self cannot exist without society, society cannot exist without human action & decision

17. Reconciliation De-structuring of social sin a process, where grace enters in Sacrament of reconciliation not enough for social processes: –responds to personal guilt –grace to individuals apart from social structures regulating their actions –reconciling with God & Church, not society

19. Kingdom of God A metaphor for destructuring of social sin, making way for re-gracing of society Bible does not give a political & economic programme of action, but values Kingdom a transformative symbol of: –encounter with God, the self, & society –standards of justice & liberation to measure society by Jesus uses it in gospels –to contrast with the conditions of the time –to assume what is good & redeem what is bad Shows there are alternatives to the status quo, enabling a new way of imagining reality