This article was downloaded by: [94.177.46.

250]
On: 29 April 2014, At: 09:32
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical
Studies in Medical Morality
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nchb20
Illness, Disease, and Sin: the Connection
between Genetics and SpiritualityA
Response
Pia Matthews
a
a
School of Technology, Philosophy, and History , St. Mary's University
College , London, UK
Published online: 17 Apr 2007.
To cite this article: Pia Matthews (2007) Illness, Disease, and Sin: the Connection between Genetics
and SpiritualityA Response, Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 13:1,
91-104
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803600701283235
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
91
Christian Bioethics, 13:91104, 2007
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1380-3603 print / 1744-4195 online
DOI: 10.1080/13803600701283235
NCHB 1380-3603 1744-4195 Christian Bioethics, Vol. 13, No. 1, Feb 2007: pp. 00 Christian Bioethics
Illness, Disease, and Sin: the Connection
between Genetics and SpiritualityA Response
Illness, Disease, and Sin Pia Matthews
PIA MATTHEWS
School of Technology, Philosophy, and History, St. Marys University College, London, UK
In responding to Mathias Becks thought-provoking article, it seems
helpful to begin with an outline and comments on Becks case as I
understand it. For me, this overview throws up three problematic
areas that I explore further under the headings of 1. examining
the New Testament evidence, 2. sin as disobedience, and 3. obedi-
ence, grace, and freedom. Clearly, the authors thoughts in all
their nuances are not always adequately accessible in translation.
Nevertheless, I hope that I have grasped the main thread of his
argument. If I am right in my interpretation then Beck still has
work to do to clarify and make explicit what is not only barely
implicit but what is obscured by his central theme: that obedience
to Gods will is the mainstay of our relationship to God.
Keywords: obedience, grace, freedom
I. BECKS CASE: AN OUTLINE
Like others before him,
1
Beck sees that there is a close connection between
a patients illness and his inner life, his relationships and, in particular, his
relationship with God. Moreover, he asserts that disease and illness can also
be expressive of that relationship to God (p. 81). Although he wishes to
affirm that disease and illness are not in any immediate sense related to
personal sin or guilt (p. 81), he claims that, given the direct involvement of
the brain in the switching on/off mechanisms in genes and given that rela-
tionships and environmental factors also influence the brain, the inner
man, in particular his religious outlook, are relevant to the origin and
development of illness and disease. Disrupted interhuman relationships may
Address correspondence to Pia Matthews, St. Marys University College, Waldegrave
Road Strawberry Hill, Twickenham, London, TW1 4SX. E-mail: pia.matthews@talk21.com
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

92 Pia Matthews
result in illness even on the genetic plane where loss of communication
between cells or genes may cause damage or faulty connections (p. 79). On
the one hand Beck argues that being open to God by following his will pro-
vides a precondition, though not a guarantee, for rightly ordering the
material side of the body (p. 82). On the other hand, whilst accepting that
some illness is the result of age (immature immune systems in children and
the aging process itself in the elderly), Beck also seems to hold that some
diseases result from inner opposition towards truth, God, and his will (p. 83).
Disobedience to the laws of the Spirit implies inner disorder and possibly
the material disorder of disease (p. 82).
This disobedience, expressed as deviation from Gods path for us, may
be deliberate or may have happened unconsciously (p. 83). Beck argues
that although issues of outer influences, psychic blockades, and ances-
tral guilt may not involve personal guilt, they may still constitute the internal
disharmony in the persons relationship with God that expresses itself in
disease (p. 67). In attempting to maintain that some disorders do not always
involve sin or guilt, Beck argues that we cannot externally impose a rela-
tionship between a disease and sin. Nevertheless, he states that whatever
the cause of this disintegration in relationship the patient himself must
examine his inner self. This self-examination allows him to see what contri-
bution he himself might have made to his plight. It indicates where he
might have failed in his relationship with God and others (p. 83).
In order to find meaning in suffering through such introspection Beck
advocates that the person first develops a sense of trust in God as loving
friend, even though God may lead him/her where he/she does not wish to
go. This acquiescing in the will of God is a call into ones own and a
call into the other. Obedience in trust and development of ones talents in
service to God and neighbor are ultimately, for Beck, the call toward free-
dom (p. 82). By realizing that we owe everything we own to others, par-
ents and friends, we recognize our own dependency and can ultimately
accept guidance from God (p. 72).
Such an inner examination questions previous ways of behaving, the
patient can then make an inner turn and thus further aid the healing pro-
cess (p. 84). The loud voice of a serious disease is able to call many inter-
nally dead people back into life (p. 84).
II. BECKS CASE: COMMENTS
If this is indeed Becks position then he is not far from many who argue for
a holistic approach to illness. Such an approach stresses the importance of
reaching into the soul to find some kind of spiritual or psychological whole-
ness and inner healing essential to complement the outer care of the indi-
vidual. This is certainly to Becks credit since this perspective embraces
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

Illness, Disease, and Sin 93
body and soul and their interrelatedness, emphasizing that science alone
cannot adequately explain illness and disease (pp. 8081). Indeed, in his
stories of soul pain, Mortally Wounded (1997), Michael Kearney vividly por-
trays such a holistic method, which may also include religious experience as
well as the potential healing of interperson relationships.
However, unlike others who endorse a spiritual/psychological holistic
approach to illness, the approach that Beck has in mind seems to be specifi-
cally Christian, in particular Ignatian, as Beck refers to St. Ignatius of Loyolas
discernment of the spirits for this self-examination of the soul (p. 78). Since
Becks spiritual approach is Christian, one of the things that should distinguish it
from a psychological form of spirituality is its theological content. Becks spiri-
tual account focuses on obedience to the will of God, just as obedience also
plays a major role in the thinking of Ignatius.
2
To present his central theme that
obedience and disobedience to God may influence the origin and develop-
ment of sickness, Beck uses the healing of the man born blind (John 9) as
well as references to other biblical episodes. This is particularly commend-
able given Vatican IIs desire for Scripture to be used often and not simply as a
resource but as nourishment, food for the soul (Dei verbum 1965 VI.21).
Nevertheless, Beck seems to fall short in his account in three major yet
related ways: first, his biblical texts simply cannot bear the meaning that
Beck wishes to place on them since he veers towards eisegesis rather than
exegesis in order to shore up his stress on obedience to God. Second, dis-
obedience to God, sin, is, for Beck, a matter of giving up the path allotted
to one by God, going ones own way, whereas traditionally sin is a radical
break that requires a new initiative by God.
3
Third, his focus on obedience
without deeper and prior reflection on grace, freedom, virtues, and con-
science may mislead those who are unfamiliar with Ignatian spirituality or
the richness of Catholic spiritual and theological tradition. Theologically
speaking, it is not the loud voice of disease that calls the internally dead
back to life. Only God can raise the dead.
III. EXAMING THE NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE
The Fathers at the Second Vatican Council were clear that the interpreter of
Scripture should carefully search out meaning in his exegesis (Dei verbum
1965 III.1113).
Beck claims that the New Testament rejects thinking that puts illness
and sin together (p. 66), Disease (and illness) is not in any immediate
sense related to personal sin, or personal guilt (p. 81). To back this up he
refers to John 9.13: the disciples
4
of Jesus ask whether the man born blind
had been so afflicted due to the sins of his parents or his personal sin. Jesus
rejects both of these explanations. He was born blind so that the works of
God might be revealed in him. In his response to J. L. A. Garcia, David
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

94 Pia Matthews
Jones (ref in this journal?) has already explored the connection between
personal or parental sin and suffering plus the dangers of taking a simplistic
approach to this. For Jones the point of this passage is not that suffering
cannot be due to sin, rather it is wrong to judge another to be necessarily a
worse sinner than anyone else. As Beck states, belief in superiority over
others, the key to the storys end (p. 68), makes the Pharisees blind. Yet,
whereas Beck concentrates only on the blindness of the Pharisees in
condemning the man, in its Scriptural context their blindness seems to refer
primarily to their failure to acknowledge the work of God in the healing
miracle of Christ. Becks eisegesis of this passage, the passage central to his
theme, illustrates his apparent focus on the doctrine of sin rather than the
gratuitous healing action of Christ.
5
Given that Beck suggests that the mans blindness results apparently
from Gods will to reveal his own healing power (p. 65) and that obedi-
ence to God is an oft-repeated key theme for Beck, it is disappointing that
Beck initially declines to address the old question of theodicy (p. 66).
Beck then tantalizingly returns to the issue, devotes a short paragraph to it,
only to dismiss it again (p. 67).
Indeed it may be considered odd that God would implement illness
intentionally in order to heal. Nevertheless, the discussion may still be legit-
imate since Beck focuses throughout on the will of God. Moreover, he also
suggests that some illness may be the result of an unconscious disruption in
a persons relationship with God. The answer may lie in the distinction
between permitting evil rather than actual willing of it.
6
However to gloss
over it or to simply presume that the boy was blind from birth on, as so
many other people are too is to ignore a question that naturally arises from
Becks own approach.
Furthermore, the text does not seem to warrant the view that the inten-
tion of Jesus was to protect the blind man from being made responsible for
his suffering since he had suffered so much already. After all the Pharisees
subject both the man, now healed, and his frightened parents, to more suf-
fering through rigorous interrogation as they seek to discover more about
the healer who works on the Sabbath. Finally the cured man is ejected from
the synagogue, a move that is symbolic for John and his readers as the early
Christians reconfigure their relationship to the Jews.
7
Beck submits no other evidence in his section on the New Testament.
However, in his following section on Faith he refers in footnote 4 to other
healing miracles where, he claims, faith is connected to obedience. Beck
makes much of the fact that the blind man was obedient to Jesus command
to wash in the Pool of Siloam. He establishes the interesting connection
between the healing work of Jesus and cooperation in that healing by the
patient: a patient often does have the means and inner resources to aid him-
self. However, Beck also goes beyond this connection in his emphasis on
obedience. Still, Beck does not explain the connection between faith and
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

Illness, Disease, and Sin 95
obedience in the miracles he includes in his footnote. The healing of the
two blind men (Matthew 9:2831) shows that they believed Jesus could heal
them. Yet after he has sternly warned them to say nothing, they talked
about him all over the countryside: they disobeyed him! The woman with
the haemorrhage believes she will be saved if she can only touch Jesus
cloak. Obedience does not seem to be an issue since Jesus is apparently ini-
tially unaware of her (Matthew 9:2022). A Canaanite woman asks for her
daughter to be healed and is even prepared to answer Jesus back in her
desperation (Matthew 15:2228). Bartimaeus asks to see (Matthew 10:46)
and in the case of the ten lepers all obediently go to show themselves to the
priests and it is assumed that all are healed, yet only one returns to offer
thanks (Luke 17:1119). Faith may have saved physically and spiritually the
leper who returned, but what about the faith of the other obedient nine?
If Beck wishes to assert some connection between faith and obedience
then he simply has not made his case.
His assertion that mans faith effects the miracle (p. 69) is an unwar-
ranted inference from the merely few situations where some people did
indeed cooperate. The issue simply does not appear to be clearcut. To be
sure, the idea that faith effects miracles seems to be implicit in some of the
sayings of Jesus: for instance, in Mark 11:2223 and Matthew 17:20 where
faith can move mountains. However, some commentators read the moving
of mountains to be a proverbial saying for doing difficult tasks; the exhorta-
tion to have faith in God may in fact rather be based on Gods own faithful-
ness.
8
Indeed, as Beck rightly points out, according to Mark 6:5, Jesus was
unable to do miracles in his home town since the people had no faith.
However, in the parallel text Beck cites, Matthew 13:58, it is not that
Jesus is unable. Instead, he refuses to work miracles, and in Mark 8:1112
he refuses to perform miracles to orderperhaps because miracles are signs
from God and hence are given for those who have faith to see and under-
stand them.
Certainly, the miracles of Jesus invite belief in him as the One who
does his Fathers works. They are signs of the in-breaking of Gods kingdom
(Catechism 1994, paras 547, 548, 550). Moreover, these miracles reflect the
insight that the very turning of a person to Christ in faith is in itself the result
of Gods gratuitous initiative (Catechism 1994, paras 153,154). Thus, in these
Scriptural passages, the fact that God chooses to grant miraculous healings
indicates that faith and miracles are both graces
9
for undoubtedly, if any-
thing need be done that is above nature, it is done by God immediately,
such as raising the dead to life, giving sight to the blind, and the like
(Aquinas, Summa 1a 2ae q5.6).
Becks analysis of some of the Gospel pericopes, then, seems to imply
that it is the persons faith that effects his own healing: the patient is asked
do you believe that I can do that? for, as Beck adds, man can and must
cooperate in the miracles that are effected (p. 69). This appears to be the
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

96 Pia Matthews
mainstay of Becks argument in favor of a psycho-somatic-spiritual mecha-
nism for healing miracles.
Yet, although it is true that Jesus asks the two blind men in Matthew
9:28 if they believe he can cure them, there are many other stories where
it is the parent or friend who has faith. In these stories, the patients faith
is not at issue. Such is the case of the other story Beck cites in support of
his argument: in John 4:4353 a court official asks Jesus to cure his son,
and this healing is effective the moment Jesus says that his son will live.
Even more decisive are cases where the patient cannot cooperate since
he/she is dead: Jairus himself does have faith that Jesus can save his dead
daughter (Matthew 9:1823; Mark 5:2143; Luke 8:4056) and the son of
the widow of Nain seems to have been restored to life purely as a result
of the compassion of Jesus for the boys mother (Luke 7:1117). None of
these patients can be said to have had a faith that effected their own
healing.
Two further examples of biblical exegesis that veer toward eisegesis
occur in Becks section on Life as Realized in Relationships. Beck wishes to
assert that Jesus begins to distance himself from his earthly parents in order
to show greater obedience to God. In the same way we owe obedience to
our heavenly Father. When Jesus stays behind in Jerusalem after his parents
return home (Luke 2:14151), Beck confidently states that Jesus deserts his
family out of his sense of greater obedience (p. 75). Yet, Luke may have
recalled this incident simply in order to affirm in Josephs presence that God
is Jesus Father.
10
Moreover, v. 52 tells us that Jesus returned to Nazareth
with them and lived under their authority.
Beck sees a further act of defiance at the wedding of Cana (John 2:15)
(p. 75). Here Beck reads that Mary asks Jesus to do something about the
fact that the wine has run out and Jesus, who acts only in obedience to his
Father, sharply rebukes her to settle this point. A closer examination of
the text however reveals that Mary merely states that there is no wine: the
most that can be construed is that this is an implicit request. Moreover, the
sharp rebuke is usually taken to be a comment of indifference, What to
me and to thee,
11
with woman being symbolic for John to indicate Mary
as the new Eve
12
rather than a term of rebuke. Neither the passage about
Jesus in the Temple nor the wedding at Cana can bear the interpretative
weight that Beck seeks to place on them.
IV. SIN AS DISOBEDIENCE
According to Beck, sin is the opposite of obedience and giving in to God;
it is intentional and conscious separation from God and his Will (pp. 67,
71). Sin causes loss of inner coherence and may cause guilt. By sin man
betrays his potential. He declines his vocation and mission, he refuses
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

Illness, Disease, and Sin 97
to develop his talents (pp. 7172). The worst result of sin seems to be the
total giving up of a given life path. Beck correctly identifies that those who
take the attitude that they can achieve greatness and identity independently
of God are doomed to failure (p. 72). Man must grow beyond himself and
must realize that he is not always competent to determine his own direction.
Beck suggests that a person should rather respond to some other ori-
entation, a drive, an event, a future to help in his redirection. Many
psychologists would undoubtedly agree with this: listening to others or
reacting to outside influences connects us to ourselves and to others.
Beck goes on to discuss our dependence on others for our birth, food,
education and so on. Not recognizing this dependence is a failure. Beck
seems to claim that no one deserves anything he receives from others until
he uses his talents and makes something of his own life (p. 72). If we take
Becks statement as it stands we could then ask ourselves about those who
do not or cannot develop their talents: what do they deserve? Alasdair
MacIntyre perhaps offers a deeper and more comprehensive reflection on
radical dependence in his book Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human
Beings Need the Virtues (2002). Unlike Beck, MacIntyre believes that those
who are radically dependent enable us to learn something essential: what it
is for someone else to be wholly entrusted to our care so that we are
answerable for their well-being (2002, p. 138). In that case we owe them a
great deal.
We may further ask ourselves, where is God in all this? In discussing
the sin of self-reliance of the individual Beck seems to put principal stress
on our mutual dependence in human relationships and social community.
He asserts that willy-nilly a person must recognize that he starts out by
receiving everything he owns from others, including, it seems his very
existence (p. 72). Beck eventually adds that in the final instance we must
recognize our dependence on God (p. 72). Unfortunately, Beck fails to
remind us that we start out by receiving everything not from others but from
God. In the first instance human beings are created, redeemed, and restored
only by the gracious act of God. Becks insistence on sin being a failure to
follow Gods will or failure to develop our talents may emphasize that only
in view of God can man unfold his potential (p. 73). But this view forgets
that the very use of our talents is a working of grace. It disregards the fact
that Gods involvement with us is not simply an initial intervention or call to
obedience. Rather it is an ongoing involvement whereby God comes to us
and accomplishes things in us. It is not so much that we can find our own
center and that we can find God (p. 73); rather it is God who finds us and
God who is our center.
The fact that this can only be Gods doing reflects the reality of sin and
the fallen character of the world. Beck does point out that in this broken
and finite world, mans fulfilment can be attained only to a limited degree,
that mans longing for happiness refers to the infinite. It is for this very
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

98 Pia Matthews
reason that Beck feels the need to assure us that mans efforts are yet not in
vain: what he begins and leaves incomplete will be finally realized in the
better beyond (p. 74). Yet, Beck misses a deeper eschatological approach.
As Dermot Lane explains in his book Keeping Hope Alive (1996, pp. 2324),
despite the fallen nature of creation, according to the doctrine of grace we
enter this world graced by God and we are called into communion with
him.
13
Although we continue to be afflicted by sin we are also continuously
being offered grace. This is what gives us hope not only for the future, but
also for the present. It is not that what we begin will receive an eschato-
logical fulfilment extrinsic to human nature, something added on. Rather,
God has already set in motion eschatological fulfilment through the gift of
the Holy Spirit, alive and active in creation (Lane, 1996 p. 23)even
though complete wholeness remains eschatological.
14
On the issue of the worst result of sin, that we give up on Gods life
plan for us, Beck suggests that a deep examination of our inner self, a self-
centering (p. 80) may allow us to reorient ourselves to God. However, it
appears that Beck seriously underestimates the profound reality of sin. Mortal
sin leads not merely to a different life path. It is not simply failing to discern
the proper route or failing to develop ones talents. Mortal sin is like going
to the end of the road, a road that ends at the cliff edge, and jumping off.
Without redemption, without Gods act of forgiveness, it leads to the eter-
nal death of hell (Catechism 1994, para 1861). Some self-examination may
be necessary but, as Balthasar (1968, p. 55) explains, it is Revelation that
really brings things to light. This cannot be reduced to dialogue since there
is no common language between man and God: God is entirely other. The
only language possible is the word of God, a genuine, personal disclo-
sure (1968, p. 39), an act of divine love and grace. By this we experience a
deeper consciousness of failure that cannot be satisfied simply by the
weighing up and balancing of failures against repentance. If that were pos-
sible, we ourselves could always right our wrongs. But deep within his
heart man knows that he is crippled, corrupt and numbed, that he cannot
satisfy any code of love (1968, pp. 5556). It may indeed be Becks experi-
ence that illness and disease cause the patient to look deep within himself.
But the solution does not lie in the patient himself and his own efforts to
discern his correct path and change towards God. Only Gods love and
grace can do this: a love which goes in search of a man in order to lift him
out of the pit, free him from his bonds and place him in the freedom of
divine love that is now human as well (Balthasar, 1968, p. 60).
This is why the Catholic Church promotes the Sacrament of the Sick.
15
The Church recognizes that these patients need the special help of Gods
grace when, more often than not, they do not have the inner resources to
combat anxiety, depression, and testing of their faith. By this sacrament the
whole person is helped and saved, sustained by trust in God, strengthened
against temptations and against anxiety over death. Thus the sick person is
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

Illness, Disease, and Sin 99
able not only to bear suffering bravely, but also to fight against it and along-
side this holistic healing there is, if necessary, the forgiveness of sins (Pastoral
Care of the Sick, 1982, para 6).
Beck deals not only with interpreting disease as a symptom and indica-
tion of individual sin but also with interpreting disease as related to entan-
glements passed on from generation to generation, linked to the
theological idea of inherited sin (p. 84). Undoubtedly, the sin of other
people can affect a persons life. Take for instance ancestral guilt or drug
abuse by a parent, these may lead to addiction and physical or psychologi-
cal illness in the child. Structures of sin
16
may lead their victims to sin in
their turn (Catechism, 1994, para 1869). Others can and do cause patients
suffering and illness. However, Beck also seems to argue that disease can
express an internal disharmony that refers to the patients personal rela-
tionship with God, even though it is not related to personal guilt (p. 67).
There is the implication here, whether or not it is intended, that not only
suffering but also actual mortal sin, the sin that is imputed to me, can have
an external cause. Certainly inherited original sin is, in Catholic tradition, sin
in a true sense. However, it is distinct from actual mortal sin. Original sin
does not consist in the general transmission of sins of previous generations
(Aquinas, Summa, 1a2aeq81.2). Rather it refers to the sharing of the sin of
Adam through sharing his fallen nature and it is forgiven by baptism. In
contrast, surely actual mortal sin is a personal act (Catechism, 1994, para
1868)? Beck seems to suggest that I can be in a situation of internal dishar-
mony that reflects disharmony in my relationship with God but that this dis-
rupted relationship is not only not of my making but is also not to my
knowledge. Even though there is no personal guilt on my part I need to
engage in deep down reflection to see how I, or indeed my ancestors, may
have inadvertently contributed to this breakdown (p. 83).
If this is indeed what Beck is suggesting, then we should remind our-
selves of how the prophet Jeremiah took a new perspective on responsibil-
ity for sin as he moved from a notion of collective punishment to individual
responsibility. Jeremiah altered a traditional saying:
In those days people will no longer say: The fathers have eaten unripe
grapes; the childrens teeth are set on edge. But each will die for his
own guilt. Everyone who eats unripe grapes will have his own teeth set
on edge. (31:2930)
As John Paul II pointed out, citing the Council of Trent, mortal sin has
as its object grave matter and is committed with full knowledge and deliber-
ate consent (1984, para. 17).
17
If disease reflects my broken relationship
with God, yet I knew nothing of this break because it may have had ances-
tral causeswhere is my freedom in my responsibility for this sin? Where
is the justice in my having to reach into my inner resources first to discover
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

100 Pia Matthews
it and then to remedy it? Beck certainly needs to clarify what he means by
inherited sin (p. 84): is he not confusing suffering as a consequence of my
own or others sin, and sin as a deliberate turning away from God?
V. OBEDIENCE, GRACE, AND FREEDOM
Beck argues men can find God in their internal voice (p. 75). Meeting God
there we can talk to him as to a good friend. Moreover, we need to deal
well with certain moments of our life, at life-changing moments, so that we
can creatively shape the rest of our life (p. 76). Failure to tackle such
moments may result in serious illness such as depression. Beck correctly
recognizes that only God can help us through such crises, we must trust
ourselves to Gods guidance (p. 78). For this, Beck advocates discernment
of the spirits following the spirituality of Ignatius of Loyola, in order finally
to become tuned in with the will of God (p. 78). Ignatian spirituality does
involve a process of deep listening and Beck is right to suggest that in some
cases serious illness provokes a turning towards God and re-evaluation of
ones relationships. Indeed, the Catholic Catechism (1994, para 1501) also
reminds us that illness can lead to self-absorption and despair but it can also
make a person more mature; it can crystallize what is truly essential for him
and it can provoke a search for God and a return to him.
However, Beck seems to go beyond this when he concentrates on self-
examination where only the patient himself can look into himself to deter-
mine what changes he should make (p. 83). Surely Beck overestimates the
capacity not only of the sick but also of all of us to restore our relationships
by ourselves? In particular, the relationship with God that we break off com-
pletely by sin requires a new initiative of Gods grace and mercy for its res-
toration. For those unfamiliar with Ignatian spirituality Becks intense focus
on obedience to God obscures the necessary understanding of fulfillment,
indeed the actual experience of deep listening, as a free gift from God. As
John Paul II explains in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993, para 11),
God asks only this: that we do what he wants, love with a steadfast love
and walk humbly with him.
18
Yet John Paul II also adds, no human effort,
not even the most rigorous observance of the commandments will achieve
this. We need the gift of grace. Obedience may be the first step, but the
next cannot be taken alone: we need grace to grow into self-giving (Veritatis
Splendour, para 17), particularly the grace given at Baptism and the Eucharist
(Veritatis Splendour, para 21).
Beck does pick up a distinction between two forms of freedom: free-
dom that denotes arbitrariness and freedom through obedience. He briefly
suggests that the latter is, paradoxically, not heteronomy (p. 70) and he
offers a further explanation of freedom through obedience in footnote 5.
However, for those who may find connotations associated with obedience
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

Illness, Disease, and Sin 101
difficult, John Paul II (Veritatis Splendour, 1993) presents a similar distinction
that may be more instructive:
19
freedom of choice that is purely a matter of
indifference, against genuine freedom that is a freedom for excellence rather
than obedience. This genuine freedom recognizes our creatureliness (Verita-
tis Splendour, para 34) and promotes the right use of conscience (Veritatis
Splendour, para 38) through a growth in the virtues (Veritatis Splendour,
para 64). This distinction is by no means new. We find it in the writings of
Augustine who believes, in the face of Manichean determinism, that freedom
is Gods gift to man so that he can do what is right (On Free Choice and Free
Will 388:2.Ch1.3; On Grace and Free Will 426:Ch2). For Augustine the good
use of free will is linked to grace and the possession of the virtues. To gain
unity of self, to be at one with my desires, emotions, reason, to be wise, I
need the grace of conversionfor without grace I can do nothing good
(426:Ch7). Our very turning to God in the first place is Gods gift
(426:Ch10). Grace constantly assists us to turn to the good (426:Ch31,41).
Grace perfects the will (426:Ch33); it does not abolish free will, rather it
establishes it (426:Ch52). Virtues enable us to make right choices: and the
virtues also come from God (Retractions, 427:1.Ch9.5). According to
Aquinas, as enduring dispositions that enable us to behave in certain ways,
virtues contribute to our flourishing and they too are gifts from God and are
completed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Aquinas, Summa, Ia2aeq15).
VI. CONCLUSION
In his article Beck is keen to show that a holistic approach can offer great
benefits to patients. He is obviously concerned with the relationships
between the spiritual, psychological, and physical, and he makes interesting
links between sin and disease, holiness and health. However, as he turns
these links into a larger scheme reflecting the relationship between sin and
suffering, he is not careful enough over fundamental theological concepts
of sin, salvation, grace, and eschatology. He tries to cover too much ground
without doing the work to sustain it and thus leaves some areas open to
misinterpretation. Moreover, although he uses Scripture his biblical refer-
ences do not seem to do the work he expects of them.
In his overarching argument Beck seems to imply that we can have more
confidence in the possibility of (self-?) healing the mind, and subsequently the
body, than in healing the body. Yet experience often proves that, although in
many cases modern medicine can improve both, mental ill health is more
intractable than physical ill health. Furthermore, both physical and mental
conditions reflect the fallen state of the world. As Victor White (1960, pp.
185186) puts it, psychological disorder, in the broadest sense, is thus nor-
mal, and indeed universal, for fallen man, and, as such, both somatic and
psychological disorders belong to the province of medicine.
20
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

102 Pia Matthews
A theory that stresses salvation through our own efforts or through the
cultivation of our talents is unaware that we live in a fallen world and that
we continue to be afflicted by sin. A theory that talks frequently of obedi-
ence to God and our involvement with him rather than Gods involvement
with us overestimates our ability not only to see but also to do something
about our situation. And a theory that concentrates on the patients own
inner resources as the chief means of his/her healing or indeed the progres-
sion of his/her illness forgets that those who are seriously ill need the spe-
cial help of Gods grace as their strongest means of support (Pastoral
Care of the Sick, 1982, para 5).
NOTES
1. To mention just some, Elisabeth Kbler-Ross (2001) is well known for her work on coping with
suffering and preparing for death; James Hillman (1999) sees that changes, even debilitating ones, may
offer opportunities to reconnect relationships; Michael Kearney (1997) explores stories of soul pain in
his process of seeking inner healing.
2. For two of the many instances see St. Ignatius of Loyola Personal Writings Letter 16 (1547);
Letter 17 (1547).
3. See eg Catechism 1994, para 1856: Mortal sin attacks the vital principle within us; thus it
requires a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart. Its destructive nature can normally
only be addressed through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
4. Beck seems to suggest that it is the Pharisees rather than the disciples who are overly con-
cerned with the question of whether it is the blind man or his parents who sinned. The Pharisees do
condemn the blind man as a sinner through and through ever since you were born (John 9:34), though
this may be due to their own strict adherence to the Torah and resulting condemnation of anyone who
fell short of their own standards, see Morna Hooker (1991, p. 95).
5. The Patristic Father, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) offers an interesting explanation of the peri-
cope of the man born blind in his Commentary on St. John Book VI.1 (c. 425). (Cyril of Alexandria,
1885). Cyril is adamant to stress that God neither visits the sins of ancestors on their descendants nor
does he punish those who do not sin. However, he also asserts that inasmuch as we are human we all
fall short and therefore fall under Gods justice. As for whether illness affects people so that the works of
God may be shown, Cyril argues that Christ was seeking to direct his disciples toward other things and
not toward matters they cannot understand: God alone knows some things and we must trust in his jus-
tice, mercy, and righteousness. Cyril further explains that it can be said that God was glorified when the
man was cured since through this healing the man comes to know God. However, Cyril is clear to point
out that the man was not born blind in order for Christ to be glorified since, he argues, many are born
blind, but Christ only chose to cure him.
6. See for instance discussion in Jones (1999).
7. For a fuller exegesis of this passage from John's Gospel see Schnackenburg (1980, pp. 240256).
8. See for instance Morna Hooker (1991, p. 269). In her discussion on Mark 11:2025 Hooker
argues that Christs exhortation to his disciples to have faith in God is a call to have trust in God since
it is God who remains faithful and righteous. The verses that concern prayer are likely to have been
added simply because there are verbal links to belief.
9. See Aquinas, Summa 1a 2ae q111.
10. See New Jerusalem Bible 1994, footnote q.
11. See New Jerusalem Bible 1994, footnote d.
12. See New Jerusalem Bible 1994, footnote c.
13. See also Gaudium et Spes, 1965:19.
14. See also White (1960, p. 187).
15. Pastoral Care of the Sick 1982, para 8, explains that the sacrament should be given to the seri-
ously ill but should not be given indiscriminately to those whose health is not seriously impaired. Para 7
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

Illness, Disease, and Sin 103
confirms that both the faith of the Church and the faith of the recipient is manifested in the anointing of
the sick although, para 14, the sacrament can still be conferred on those who have lost consciousness or
the use of reason. As stated in the Catechism 1994, paras 11271128 sacraments confer the grace that
they signify; they are efficacious signs of grace because Christ is himself at work in them, though the
fruits of the sacrament depend also on the disposition of the recipient.
16. For an exposition of structures of sin see Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 1984, para 16.
17. See also Veritatis Splendor, 1993, 6970, where the thought of John Paul II on the theory of
fundamental option and mortal sin may be instructive: here John Paul II reflects critically on an under-
standing of fundamental option that seems to locate mortal sin at a level beyond conscious awareness.
18. John Paul refers here to Micah 6:8.
19. For an excellent analysis of this distinction see Servais Pinckaers (2001), who echoes the two
types of freedom presented in Veritatis Splendor. Pinckaers central argument is that ethics originates
with questions of happiness, not with obligations: we are attracted to truth and goodness and achieve
happiness through grace, virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. He considers it to be a historical devia-
tion that the seventeenth century moved toward viewing moral theology as the study of the command-
ments yet also marginalized reflection on the final end of man, grace, and virtues. He believes that a
duty-driven ethics or one founded on duties of obedience and obligation will inevitably give up the idea
of happiness. Instead, we need to subordinate the idea of duty to virtue and encourage a spiritual
dimension to morality so that it embraces life in the Spirit accompanied by the Spirit's gifts and focused
on prayer.
20. In his novel Human Traces, Sebastian Faulks (2006) offers a very interesting fictional account
of the dangers of holding to certain theories over medical treatment. One of his protagonists, Jacques
Rebiere, is so convinced that the illness of his patient is psychosomatic and can be cured by introspec-
tive therapy that he simply cannot see that her physical symptoms suggest a more conventional, and ulti-
mately life-saving, approach in her case.
REFERENCES
Aquinas, T. c.12651268. Summa Theologiae. London: Blackfriars Eyre and
Spottiswoode.
Augustine. c.388. On Free Choice and Free Will. Fathers of the Church St. Augustine,
Robert Russell (Trans.). Washington: Catholic University of America Press.
Augustine. c.426. On Grace and Free Will. Fathers of the Church St. Augustine, Robert
Russell. (Trans.). Washington: Catholic University of America Press.
Augustine. c.427. Retractions. Fathers of the Church St. Augustine, Robert Russell.
(Trans.). Washington: Catholic University of America Press.
Balthasar, H. U. v. (1968). Love Alone: the Way of Revelation. London: Sheed and
Ward.
Beck, M. Disease and Sin: The Connection Between Genetics and Spirituality,
Christian Bioethics, 13, 6587.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Cyril of Alexandria. (1885). Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. P. E. Pussey,
(Trans.). London: Walter Smith.
Dei verbum. (1965). Vatican Council II: The Concilliar and Post Concilliar Documents,
1992 (New Revised Edition), Ed. Austin Flannery. Leominster: Gracewing.
Faulks, Sebastian (2006). Human Traces. London: Vintage Books.
Gaudium et Spes. (1965). Vatican Council II: The Concilliar and post-Concilliar Docu-
ments, 1992 (New Revised Edition), Austin Flannery (Ed.). Leominster: Gracewing.
Hillman, J. 1999. The Force of Character and the Lasting Life. New York: Random
House.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4

104 Pia Matthews
Hooker, M. (1991). The Gospel According to Mark. London: A&C Black.
Ignatius of Loyola. (1547). Personal Writings. 1996, Joseph Munitiz and Philip
Endean, (Trans.). London: Penguin.
John Paul II. 1984. Reconciliatio et Paenitentia.
John Paul II. 1993. Veritatis Splendour.
Jones, D. (1999). The Encounter with Suffering in the Practice of Medicine in the
Light of Christian Revelation, in Luke Gormally, (Ed.), Issues for a Catholic bio-
ethic, pp. 159172. London: Linacre Centre.
Kearney, M. 1997. Mortally Wounded. New York: Touchstone.
Kubler-Ross, E. 2001. On Death and Dying. London: Routledge.
Lane, D. (1996). Keeping Hope Alive. New York: Paulist Press.
MacIntyre, A. (2002). Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the
Virtues. Illinois: Open Court.
Pastoral Care of the Sick. (1982). London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Pinckaers, Servais. (2001). The Sources of Christian Ethics. Mary Thomas Noble,
(Trans.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. (1980). The Gospel According to St. John, Vol 2. London:
Burns and Oates.
White, V. (1960). Soul and Psyche: An Enquiry into the Relationship of Psychiatry
and Religion. London: Collins and Harvill Press.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
9
4
.
1
7
7
.
4
6
.
2
5
0
]

a
t

0
9
:
3
3

2
9

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
4